RC Questions

Valerius,

With due respect, I don't think you are even trying to understand what I have been saying. I don't think that is personal. *Anything* said in favour of this plan seems reacted to in that way.

I have never said that children should be in SL. The proverbial children to protect are those not in SL yet, as well as those that likely *are* here but are currently undetected.

I have likewise never said that the plan should be considered all LL should do. The existing measures should still be used. The theory behind zoning and screening is that it might weed out unintentional incidents, making the existing labour intensive measures more effective at dealing with the intentional ones.

I have never said that the current plan is not flawed. It has some serious flaws that need to be addressed (advertizing (i.e. search), support for moves, getting Aristotle to improve their filtering (or finding another verifier with better filtering). I do see those reasons to delay implementation, but am more optimistic that the can be overcome, thus I feel that the plan itself is still sound.

It is true that 3/4 of the grid is mature, however mature in terms of a rating generally refers to the motion picture rating system, the same system that defines a PG rating. Under that system, mature and adult are separate and distinct. It is not a given that the 3/4 of the grid that is mature thinks of their activities as adult, not a given that they would be rated adult under the defintion in said rating system, nor that the majority holding mature land desire to them to fit that definition in word or fact.

You call this a 'Wile E. Coyote' plan. What is your proverbial better plan? I don't care how many times you think you have stated one. What is your 'better plan' for keeping kids out of SL?

either killing everyone under the age of 18 or chopping their hands off. I'm cool with either.

Apart from that there is no way to be 100% sure and the measures currently used by all adult websites - from gambling to porn, do absolutely nothing to stop them accessing the content - only parental supervision can do that. So these sites have just implemented a flawed (and in SL potentially risky to their customers) mechanism so that something can be seen to be done.

Why I don't like the verification requirements is pretty simple - it impacts on those who are honest without actually solving the problem one whit.

Did you know that just over 100 years ago kids had less rights than animals? Not only has that changed but we've also become so risk adverse as a culture that we are complicit with nannying people to "protect" them from having to deal with things that take them out of their comfort zone.

As for the content separation, this is just a heavy handed acknowledgement that people are flawed. There are some people who will live by cultural laws or rules and others that will push it. Whether that be the "master" dragging his slave through a pg area or the dude who parachutes into land he knows nothing about then complains about what he sees (remember him from the last thread?). So in response to this apparent majority of people who can't behave we have the draconian implementation of separation. Well, the mechanism will be - despite the woolliness of the policy.

I could mutter something now about the lack of sophistication of the socially isolated and the lack of parenting skills of the majority. I'm hoping I can skip that missive as I think we all agree on that at least.

This could have finally been triggered by the XSL fiasco (even Torley publicly put his hand up and said the new login stuff was rubbish - I'm sure he'll be next for the high jump for such a poor demonstration of corporate loyalty). I notice that Colossus has a new boss now and I'm assuming that LL have finally realised they can't keep treating us like shit forever

Linden Lab has two goals re keeping kids out of SL:

1) Functional: minimizing their ability to access the site
2) Legal: minimizing exposure to legal liability should they access the site

There is no 'perfect' solution to these problems. The solution requires intelligence, insight, wisdom and experience at the executive and managerial levels. While not perfect, the current proposal of requiring Credit Card, PayPal or Aristotle in order to access mature/adult areas/content (and if you had spent time in SL, you would know that mature=adult in SL) is not misguided. The complication is that at least 75% of SL is mature/adult in practice and 100% in theory. Ergo, the problem is about gatekeeping, not about what happens once you pass the gate. Linden Lab should concentrate on gatekeeping.

BUT Linden Lab is concentrating on what happens once you get through the gate. Compared to the difficulties of gatekeeping, the problem of partitioning, monitoring, regulating and enforcing a complex and arbitrary set of rules is not only a hundred times more difficult, but it runs counter, in theory and practice, to the very nature of Second Life.

The problem which neither you nor LL seem to accept is that every legitimate player in SL is aged 18+, is a mature person, and spends some of their time in mature rated activity, some of their time in PG rated activity and some of their time in adult rated activity. The proportions of time that different people devote to different ratings of activity will vary from one person to another. What's wrong with zoning is that is either it assumes each individual is 100 percent of their time playing in one type of rating or it implies that every player will have to own land in three different places on the grid.

Hans

Actually, the Communications Manager used to be Katt Linden, who was well hated around these parts. She left in January, and I think they have had trouble finding someone willing to deal with the ravening wolves (us).

Pardon, but what in this plan prevents someone from visiting other zones? Assuming they are verified, of course? These are not to be separate grids.. just separate zoning.

Excellent point!!!!

Are you sure that you are not biased by the aspects of SL that you personally participate in? Do you really believe that the majority in SL really do desire to have land next to a brothel or other adult club?



Umm.... isn't verification part of this plan?

And keep in mind that I have no objection to verifying everyone in SL...

Of course there are no perfect solutions. Where ANYWHERE have I tried to say this was anything more than a compromise?

Nothing prevents me from visiting other zones, sure. That doesn't make me feel any better about it. I will still need two homes, one in mature mainland and one on Ursula. Do you seriously think i am going to choose between mature rated and adult rated activity and then say "ok my home will be in this rating and when i do the other rating i will do it by visiting other places". No, if i continue playing this game i will have to have two homes with an efficient and secure teleport system, simple as that.

Hans

Question about search. When searching for shoes or hair, am I going to have to guess whether the person decided to advertise in PG, Mature, or Adult? How can I see all shoe vendors in SL in the same search list in order of popularity?

On the one hand, Deltango is insisting I consider LL's plan a perfect solution, and that screening is the only solution, and meanwhile others (not just you, the majority in fact) insist that because screening is weak, that it is useless.

If Aristotle can be successfully pressured into cleaning up their screening to eliminate the most obvious holes (elvis, for example), then screening becomes significantly more useful.

If Aristotle is unwilling to do so, then LL should not be the only ones abandoning them.

It is a falacy, though, to say that all dishonest people are equally dishonest or that they are equally adept. Not everyone is going to think to look for lists of identities that would get them past screening. Even with the 'elvis option' in place, it is therefore not going to be 100% ineffective.

As for zoning, it may be 'heavy handed' to you, but every municipality in the world uses zoning. Yes there will be a disruption, and yes LL should provide a LOT of support to those who need to move (in fact I think that the plan should be delayed until they are willing and/or able to provide the neccessary levels of support), but once done it should be done, and thereafter, related moves rare.

Based on a forum poll I ran, 67% do think of their activities as adult:

/327/fb/319553/1.html

As far as better plan:

(1) Second Life's website and login page does very little to inform parents it is an adult site. Now that they explicitly support adult activities (via Adult rated land, and search settings), they should change that:

* Include a warning in the registration process that there is adult material in SL

* Include a warning on login, with an option for parental controls (either internal to the SL software, or a referral to third party software).

No, it would not be perfect, I think everyone admits that there is no perfect way to keep kids out of SL. But it would be *better* than what we have now, and imposes no burden on existing users.

(2) Allow *anyone* affected by the region ratings changes a free move to a preferred region, or a refund on their land. It's not just commercial places that deserve to move.

People who want to be free from abuse reports vs their activities, or that extra bit of barrier that verification provides against kids should have that opportunity. If you are left behind on the mature mainland, you have *no* protection.

Activating all three checkboxes in search (PG, Mature, and Adult) will return all results

Exactly! I don't particularly wish to live next door to a brothel HOWEVER, if i've bought an animation bed or other piece of equipment from a store that has been required to move off mature land to adult land then i am sure going to feel uncomfortable about taking it to a home on mature rated mainland under the new ratings scheme. Simple logic says to me that if the store is not appropriate for mature mainland then nor are their products. Consequence: use of their products must be zoned to the same places that the stores are zoned to. Even if this isn't in the plan as we have been told it, it is such an obvious consequence i see no point in operating according to any other principle.

On the second point, i will probably be flamed for saying this by some in the blog, but i suspect the majority here will go with this: yes let's keep children out of this game for real and have a verification procedure that works. Another annoying feature of the present proposals is their cynical disregard for robust security. I wouldn't object having to pay 10 dollars to my bank and sign a piece of paper in front of a person who can see for real i am over 18 if that is what it would take. I just want freedom to play this game as an adult, with other adults.

Hans

Thanks for clarifying. Since this entire policy is about choices, I'm choosing not to limit my choices.

I do not run an 'adult' business. I do not have 'adult' content on display on my land. My profile is as clean as a whistle. In fact, my public life in SL is 99% PG. My private life is hidden.

In nearly three years in the land business, I have rarely had problems with 'brothels' or 'clubs'. My neighbor runs the SportsFucker Club - not my cup of tea, but he's a normal guy who likes to party with his friends. (This is a virtual world, remember.)

Some of the most interesting people I have met in SL are hard-core BDSM RL-SL types. I personally don't blend SL with RL. I recently met a guy whose avi is the nastiest 'Joker' I have yet seen. He's a nice guy who has contributed much to SL. The people who have given me the most grief in SL were well-dressed women running conventional businesses. Our friction was based on female-female rivalry, not style. So, don't judge a book by its cover.

My objection to LL's policy is based on high-level strategy and execution. I have produced half a dozen articles outlining my position. Am I biased toward the 'adult industry'? No. Am I biased toward social freedom and individual responsibility? Yes.

With due respect, that poll does not apply to what they do with their own parcels (if any). Under the current plan, the vast majority of those 67% would still be able to go to adult sims and do adult things. They would still be able to do adult things with friends and/or lovers privately on their mature sims.

Also the poll is only of those on the boards here, not of all those in SL. There is likely a higher % of merchants on the boards, since businesses mean higher stakes and more need to pay attention to the community.



I agree with your point (1).

As for your second point, I think the intent on the zoning though is to make mature land mature per the same rating system that defines PG. Once done, it would mean that any new buyer would have a clear definition of 'mature', one consistant with other entertainment media and thus more 'expected.'

One of the major problems seems to be that the Lindens in charge of that seem to be having trouble comprehending the fact that mature does not equal PG or lower.

That, by the way, is another thing that LL has to deal with *before* implementation.

Yes, not much consolation for me that new buyers will know the rules. Trouble with this is that you begin to lose confidence: will the rules change again in six month's time. I thought i had a clear definition of mature when i bought my plots of land: turns out i was completely wrong.

Hans

I do NOT consider LL's plan a perfect solution. I consider an improved form of screening to be the solution LL should be concentrating on in the hope that it can be achieved with minimum disruption. Perhaps there are newer, different or alternative screening methods - let's find out! Whatever the outcome of improved screening, it is unlikely to be perfect, but it has the potential to be the least worst method of keeping minors off the grid without disrupting the existing society and economy.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know why I bought Mature Land to begin with. Does anyone honestly believe that the majority of Mature Mainland holders bought Mature Land for another reason other than not wanting to be restricted with how they used their land? I'd be curious to see the percentage of current Mature Mainland that is perfectly fine with loosing some of the freedoms they now enjoy.

Given that you are in favour of screening the entire grid rather than just the adult portions, how do you see this as limiting social freedom or individual responsibility?

The content will still exist, and will still be accessable to anyone screened (which would be anyone still on the grid given your preference).

I do agree that everyone should have the option to move, albiet maybe with a cooling off period so they can see if they prefer the new zoning before having to make a decision.

I also think that option should probably be grandfathered, albiet with caveats that there would be no guarantee that available land in Ursula would be compatable with the original land other than in size, and that there may not be support provided to those who choose to move, say, a couple years from now.

As I have said, moving costs should be mitigated. Costs of lost options should be mitigated. Options should be preserved to the greatest degree practical.

Given that, I see freedom being preserved, and people being able to make more informed decisions where to buy and what to set up where.

I said you were saying *I* thought that LL's plan was a perfect solution. I did not say that you thought that.

And again, I do not consider it perfect either. There is no perfect solution.

Screening is simply a form of gatekeeping to discourage minors from accessing the main grid. Once past the gate, one has all the freedom permitted under the TOS (rules of the game - a game owned by Linden Lab). I am suggesting that Linden Lab would benefit as a company by granting as much freedom and individual responsibility as possible - AND that the most effective method of doing this is to articulate clearly a set of private property rights that minimizes the 'Tragedy of the Commons' (inefficiencies that arise over conflicting claims on commonly-owned resources). After that, it is incumbent upon all residents in SL to behave like adults and quit bitching about their neighbor's ugly castle or the length of her skirt.

This is the part that I was responding to directly:

Originally Posted by Alexander Harbrough
It is not a given that the 3/4 of the grid that is mature thinks of their activities as adult,

I quoted you a survey, which while not perfect, is more data than mere arm waving. If you have better data, post it.

--------------------------------
Alex says:
As for your second point, I think the intent on the zoning though is to make mature land mature per the same rating system that defines PG. Once done, it would mean that any new buyer would have a clear definition of 'mature', one consistant with other entertainment media and thus more 'expected.'

To which I reply:
Actually, no, in meeting with the Linden staff, they have noted the confusion between the movie ratings and SL uses of the terms. They solicited better terms to use:

"In phase two, we will probably change what we call PG and M to something that's more descriptive. We're happy to take any suggestions that you have. AO is pretty obvious, but M and PG, what we mean by it are unique to Second Life. And so we want to come up with new phrases to describe. So that will be part of phase two and that, believe it or not, involves a technical change that's not as easy as it might be." (Martly Linden, corporate counsel, Brown Bag Meeting on Definitions 11May09 )