Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Answers to Questions

I've always wondered about that one. Strictly speaking it's quite easy to do it at point of sale, all you need to do is ask for ID if there's doubt. It's like selling cigarettes and booze.

I've always suspected that it's because most R rated movies are just violent rather than sexual and for some reason it's ok to hurt each other but not ok to have a little consensual fun.

might be fun.. although I suspect he's a more of a fetishist type than a true masochist.. look how he's kept away from us after someone growled at him over the wine..

I doubt CP but CBT? *grins*

Thanks for such a clear explanation David (and also Sindy and Ceera).

I cry every time during that play within a play within a play of "R&G are Dead". The musicbox soundtrack on top of it takes your breath away. Crushingly beautiful. Suffocating. Sublime.

Then I reach for a real Kleenex and smile at my real BF who rolls his real eyes and shakes his real head at my silliness. Neither of us then go out into the street to whack people on the head with wooden swords.

Reaches through your computer screen, feels around, almost knocks over your wineglass, runs her thumb along the edge of your cellphone, feels you snatch it away - damn, Blackberry too - places a Lindt truffle wrapped in silver tinfoil on your monitor stand, taps her fingernail cheerfully beside it then retreats.

Actually they are age restricted at point of sale here, at least on the books... on that I don't think I have ever seen anyone asked for ID when buying a DVD, outside of an adult toys store at least.

You're such an unbounded optimist...

NOT_MY_PROBLEM



Any reference to that law is an attempt to defer litigation related to people thinking that the ACTORS are minors, and thus, reporting them to the authorities. It has NOTHING TO DO with the VIEWERS potentially being minors.

The front door page that says "you must be 18 to enter this website because it contains adult-only material; by entering this site, you acknowledge that you will be exposed to adult-only content, and accept all responsibility for accessing said content as an adult." is about the viewers.

Blondin already responded that my private residence will be considered an "adult build" and thus would be subject to forced relocation under these changes.

So no I am not even "allowed" to use my private gardens for my personal activities.

Still believe these changes are "fair" or "reasonable"?

Morganna

Hell ya! You spend 16 hrs a day for a year to level a warrior up to the point where they're the perfect killing machine/agro magnet/meat sheild and then watch Sony nerf the whole damn class so that some tweaked poncey cleric or caster with a pet can replace you on raids and dungeon parties.

I spent months LFG in EQ on a toon I sweated blood to make and loved for 2 yrs and kept paying for because I couldn't just let her die because Sony decided melee classes were disposable...

I had a choice between startting over in WoW or trying SL. I clearly made the WRONG choice.

Morganna

But Blondin has also said that Strip clubs *do* qualify- *are* adult.

This gives you a fairly clear guideline on where at least *one* of the lines will be. A group I belong to has *planned* on opening a strip club/escort service. We've had some bad luck with landlords in private sims, then had even more bad luck renting an OS sim from a landlord and having to give it up when the price went up.

We're on mainland now, trying to find a decent site for another effort, and then *this* happens.

So, we're not taking chances. We *want* to open that kind of business, and we've had one before. the fact that we aren't *currently* filling the place doesn't matter. we *plan* to. So, if the bus is leaving, we're gonna be on it, and not wait for the next one.



Which is why I want to get in on the ground floor if they are shipping us all to coventry. my group has plans that will only work in "pornotopia" if this goes through, and after as many moved and disruptions to our plans as we've had, I don't want to be in the situation you're describing.

If they are going to *make* me move when I'm not violating the TOS, then they can damn well do it for free, is what I mean to say.

-V-

Presumably, this also has huge implications for people renting or owning in PG regions. In spite of the Community Standards, it's been commonly understood that a sex bed, for example, discreetly placed in a PG home, is OK. I could point to at least two PG mainland rental estates where I know that a sex bed and the odd poseball is the norm in pretty much every home.

The new viewer may ask what level of access someone wants, but it isn't going to detect this sort of thing on a case by case basis, so it begs the question yet again of how on earth LL intend to enforce their own policies. (Yeah well, the cynic in me thinks, so what's new? )

I guess that contributes to my thinking that perhaps JP really did mean that LL plan to have that extra layer of a super-PG category - they'll have a helluva job cleaning up existing PG, unless they make that the new Mature.

It's also meant to apply to altered images of actual people. not an alt of brad pitt in SL, which is *completely* computer generated, but say, a doctored photo of brad pitt that purports to show him engaging in beastiality or pedophilia, for example.
Or those ubiquitous faked "Nude celebrity" photos where they photoshop dick cheny's head onto a porn actor's body in a still from a movie.

And animated child porn. (which is already against the LL TOS, and should get AR'ed everytime it is witnessed).

None of which, of course, has a thing to do with children getting into SL

-V-

Except for the part where people need their businesses to pay tier fees, this would be a workable idea.

However, the *I* am adult content group has been handing out free megaprims of the letter "A", for people to set at altitude above their land, to let LL see in the map, how many people they are talking about.

A sea of "A's" would be as dramatic as a sea of yellow, wouldn't it?

-V-

What you consider your problem is up to you, however, like it or not, things we do not consider our problem occassionally become our problem or are made our problem, even though that is not always fair. This may not be such a situation. I may be wrong. However merely protesting that you feel it is unfair does not make you right.



I didn't say it had anything to do with the VIEWERS being minors. It has to do with the ACTORS REALLY being minors, not merely that they might be.. and that age verification is in the act, not merely an attempt to avoid being reported as in possible violation of the act on a guess.

Per the Wiki (I am too tired at the momment to look up the actual act):



Those are the requirements the producers must apply regarding PARTICIPANTS and WHY.



That is ALSO in the act, and is the requirement the provider must put in place with respect to viewers... which is precisely what I said a few posts ago.

Look, there is room to argue whether it applies to animations and whether it should, but if you are going to actually try to argue the requirements under the act, please at least read the act, or at least a decent write up of it.

Not according to Blondin's reply to my questions. My private home with BDSM equipement in the gardens will be classed as an "adult build".

Morganna

Said this before and will say it again, I believe the implementation is being handled very badly. I believe there are strong reasons for something to be done, but that is not an excuse for LL to do this badly, and they may be violating 'fair use' in how they implement, even if they do not do so in why they implement.

And who is required to move or that anyone is required to move at all is just one of many things they are handling badly. Insufficient time to move, poor to neglibile communications, negligible support with respect to moves, the list goes on.

Despite our differing views I suspect it's because we're both Canadians that we accept that some "freedoms" have to be limited so that the society as a whole can function and grow. I may not LIKE the changes, I at least accepted them when it seemed LLabs was targetting extreme content such as dolcett. Where I became opposed was when they stepped into the murky, impossible waters that cover the huge range of of "normal" human sexuality and what happens between consenting adults.

Whatever the prudes may choose to think...BDSM, bisexuality, homosexuality, fetishism and roleplay have been and are still within the "norms" for pretty much all societies, past and present. As a cultural anthropologist I could quote endless ethnographic studies and cases but really who cares? Deal is done and SL is going to join Palacechat, Roomancer, Active Worlds, There, SimsOnline and the rest of the "virtual worlds" that have come and gone.

In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out for me.

(Martin Niemoller)

Morganna

Define "Alt Abuse" please. With greater precision that you have defined "Adult Content" so far, if you don't mind.
HAving hickety zillion alts to use as camping bots, or so that you have lots of souls in the "Bloodskeeters" game is arguable alt abuse. Serially creating alts when you get banned for griefing would arguably be alt abuse.
What about creating 10 different alts for 10 different RP sims? A store owner creating a bunch of "model bot" alts to show off their products?
and PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE let us tie our alts to a central account and PIOF/age verify *that*! I'd much rather that LL or Aristotle had *one* instance of my personal info on file rather than a *dozen*, tied to *three separate credit cards*.





In other words, we're on our own as far as placement of our lands will be concerned. You also mentioned that we might be asked for three preferences and hopefully get one of them. Does this mean that we will be able to check out the lay of the land well in advance of the "move by" date so that we can make an *informed* choice, or will these preferences be something along the lines of "Put me next to protected water" or "Put me in an urban/undeveloped section"?



So this means that even if we're given a clean bill of health from one Gteam member, our neighbor can AR us again the next week, and a Different Gteam member can come out and give us a different ruling on the exact same content?
All, base upon a subjective view of what "adult" means? Way to give us a stable platform for business, there LL.




OKay, say I *plan* to open an adult business. I have purchased land before hearing about the impending forced migration, and then I *hear* about this plan of LL's (would have been nice to know *before* I bought land that won't suit my needs! Thanks for the in-world announcement, LL!). NOw I have to find land in ursula, but it isn't for sale yet. I have my "Adult content" business plan, and it's definitely gonna violate your definition (when you have one), and it's *before* the "move by" date. I have land, but have been postponing actually opening the business until I have a more definite idea of what will set off the alarms.
Under those circumstances, will I qualify for the free swap? Is *intent* to provide adult content, and notifying LL about that *before* the "move by" date enough? Or Am I hosed, stuck with land that isn't worth anywhere near what I paid for it, face with buying *new* land which will be priced at extortion rates? (Remember land speculation isn't against the TOS, you said.).


-V-

You're telling US?? The people who've been through the ups and downs of the past two years, and more?

I'm sorry, I understand that you may genuinely have formed that opinion, but unless you ARE an alt and really have much more experience of SL than your brief incarnation would suggest, spelling it out like that just comes across as patronising.

No, it most certainly is *not* difficult to imagine that the hoops we have to jump through to protect your hypothetical parent-deprived impressionable children who will go blind if they see cartoon nudity, your mentally deficient adults who copy everything they see on TV or the computer and can't tell the difference, and the folks whose sensibilities are so tender that they are mortally wounded every time they see cartoon skin or see a typed curse word...

It isn't difficult to question whether all those hoops will make playing SL more trouble than it is worth to the thousands of people who spend real, live cash on the in-world products and services of the folks in forums like this one.

And it obviously isn't difficult to tell someone who has broken no rules, done nothing wrong, and simply wants to be left alone to do their thing in a manner that isn't hurting anyone that "so sorry that we're putting all the blame and responsibility for unsupervised children on *you*, but you aren't the one violating TOS, state and federal laws, or bitching about it, so *you'll* have to go."

Surely you can see my point here

-V-

I have one placed over my home in Netherfield and I wish more people would do it just as a "silent protest" as it seems to have INCREASED traffic into my poor sad de-sexed home o.0!

I'll be happy to send anyone who IMs the mega prime card and the Survival kit

Morganna

I understand the quote. It is an important one and it does apply. And I agree that the brush Blondin is using is too broad. Either age restrict the whole thing, or use society's rules, which means reasonable precautions are usually enough. That would include private residences which are not advertized as being sex related being ok, just as we have a right to privacy in our RL homes and the fact that RL telescopes may let someone view into our homes from an unexpected angle, they are considered the violators, not us.

Blondin's response to the contradictions between his viewpoints and Jack's was bafflegab, and without any explaination as to what was settled, he seems to have come back with even more draconian definitions.

Not saying this would work, but have the rest of you considered a coherent suggestion as to what should be considered adult content? There was an attempt to quantify specific situations earlier in the thread (non-starter, specific situations are too specific, and this was evident by the growing length of the list. There have been numerous suggestions that have sounded a lot like entrapment (nude beaches being ok, then everyone saying their adult whatever would be on a beach, completely ignoring the fact that nude beaches tend to have codes of conduct and tend to be non sexual, i.e. nudity only not public sex nor exibitionism other as a side effect (people being naked vs people showing off nakedness).

I mean, there are RL bondage clubs, strip joints, brothels, etc, and somehow they manage to exist without being overly disruptive. They do take steps to ensure minors do not participate, and performers do not generally perform in the street (although madi gras and some gay pride parades come close ). In other words, society already has mostly figured out how definitions can fit in with RL. Why it it so hard to come up with a coherent answer here?

It's so tragic that most people don't recognize all this fuss is based on a false premise that is permeated by the myths in this supposedly civilized society.

Have anyone actually taken a hard look at the premise whether these arguments on protecting the so-called innocent are based on scientific factual reality or their perceived imaginary assumptions?

If there is someone to be protected, then the assumption is:
* that there is a victim that needs to be protected (but who and where is the actual physical victim that is demonstrable by real facts that some consented fake sex or consented game battle caused real victims?)
* that there is harm involved (but what is the physical or mental harm that is demonstrable by real facts that fake sex or fake battle caused physical or mental harm?)
* that people do not have the intelligence to identify the difference between imaginary and real world (but where is the demonstrable evidence that showed people are so deranged to act out their SL fantasy in the real world?)

Based on these arguments that were debated here, these people are arguing about the assumption that imaginary and fantasy are so real to them that THINKING about some FAKE PIXELS on the computer screen is SO REAL that it will damage their MENTAL reasoning ability, and cause real harm to their psyche that these people will become so DERANGED to act out their fantasy as their WORST FEAR.

Maybe the last assumption may have some truth in it (even though it is yet to be proven that these people who made their arguments are so deranged to the point of acting out their hypothetical fear).

Even Jesus said that thinking about lust is not a sin or a crime, nor is it immoral to think about it. Even Jesus knows the difference between thinking about sex and actually performing sex!

It's so sad to see how repressed these folks are, unable to comprehend such simple concept that is permeated by the dogma and brainwashing of the society that LUST is a crime which creates victim and causes real harm to the innocents that requires protection by the law and protection by LL to put a blinder over their eyes or else they will become insane and act out what they see which will eventually cause real harm.

If so, humans would be regressed into either brainless or deranged headless animals.

And most of us understand that. My overall point is that LL's plan *as it stands* opens them up to even *more* liablitiy than before, and *still* doesn't accomplish what they *say* they want to do.

An *actually PG* (IE. brutally enforced standards, a script that nukes excite/sensations parts on scan- no nude skins for sale, mandatory underwear for all- we're talking *HARSHLY* PG) and *PG ONLY* area that is the entry portal to the wider grid, and doesn't let anyone out until they have payment info/age verification is the *only* thing that makes sense.

What LL wants to do now is simply a nightmare of red tape and customer ass-ache, which doesn't make *anyone* any safe. not children, not LL, *nobody*.

I actually don't mind that ID thing. but it won't protect LL. The tougher they make it, the more liable they'll be when it fails. and the failures will have higher profile, and be more damaging to the company's bottom line.

If LL wants to be Indemnified, make a disney-fied place for the easily offended to live, put a "I certify under penalty of perjury that I am over 18" checkbox on the account creation page, and re-direct everyone with NPIOF to a special log-in screen so they have to check the box.

*then* you have CYA without looking like you have something to worry about other than customer service. LL simply says "All of our residents are over the age of 18. they all have to certify to that under penalty of perjury".

Then if some outraged part-time parent threatens to sue, prosecute the little shit for perjury and report the parents to protective services for neglect.

I mean, take the offensive guys! If LL is gonna abandon the Tao, and go over to the corporate dark side, why be coy?

-V-

All LLabs needed to do was ask it's own membership for how to apply RL "limits" on content and I'm sure they'd have had a much more fair plan.

My RL munch has a very harmonious and profitable arrangement with the restuarant where we've met evey 3rd Monday for the past 3 years. Our website clearly states that 19+ to meet the LCBO drinking laws and the common standards of behavior for a public venue...no fetish gear, no open displays of whips etc. They love us and they knew from day 1 what the Durham Munch was about and the type of ppl who would be attending. I am very open about my lifestyle and I wanted the venue to feel completely comfortable about us with no myths or misconceptions.

The fet party I DM'd in Toronto had very clear rules and every single person who attended had to sign a disclaimer at the door about the rules, Neither the owner of the hall or the cops ever had a problem with us and that event was very sucessful and LEGAL for almost 5 yrs. Sadly the current trend in the BDSM community is towards private parties and as I won't attend parties in homes of ppl I do not know...I don't play in public anymore.

These changes as they are currently proposed impact far more than just the BDSM community. My two closest RL friends are both practicing pagans and I have to wonder has LLabs consider the much broader implications for the SL pagan covens or groups which practice skyclad ceremonies and sex magik in sacred groves? What about the resurgent Goddess cults or historical builds which have the precept of "sacred prostitution"? Buddist temples which expose Tantric teachings and methods?

Beyond the whole issue of discriminating against lifestyles...they may be actually violating religious freedoms...

Morganna