RC Questions

Hey, Lord Sullivan, can you turn on image uploads so we can do that?

You are mistaking my actual objections to this plan for a knee-jerk reaction.

Let me try to make myself perfectly clear.

My knee-jerk reaction is "Don't change *anything*, period!" I reflexively resent the idea of being told what to do, and to have my activities limited in any way, by *anyone*.

I also realize that this is unreasonable. I am one resident amongst many, and my voice should only count as much as anyone else's.

So, I do not argue my knee-jerk reaction. I *think* about LL's stated goals, and the plan they have presented, and I not only don't like it for a number of reasons, but I also don't think that it will work. There is a cost/benefit analysis that needs to be done here, and when I compare the upheaval the plan causes to the band-aid that it puts over the issue of the under-aged getting access to adult material, I find it to be a weak plan that causes more harm than it prevents.

That is *not* a reflex. it is not a case of "I wanna see titties, and LL wants to take them away!". It is a considered, methodical look at what LL *says* it wants to to compared to what they are actually *doing*.

I'm using my brain here, not just my emotions. What I see from you is that you are allowing your emotional desire to protect children to override your analysis of the situation. Your overall argument in these threads has been, when you boil it down, "Something is better than nothing".

I don't think that something is *always* better then nothing. sometimes it is the same as nothing, and sometimes it is *worse* than nothing. This plan of LL's is one of those cases.





IMHO, your support of LL's plan is the same as saying that children should be here. LL wants to be *ready* to deal with children by partitioning *some* content out of their reach. This assumes that there will be children. At the same time, LL's plan doesn't do nearly *enough* to partition said content. indeed, it leaves such content in place for all children to see if they wish.
Supporting it is frankly saying that Children should be fine seeing and participating in virtual sex as long as they haven't paid for the privilege, or been able to find it in the phone book. I don't happen to agree with that. I think that children should be *better* protected than that. I don't think that they should be here at all, and if they are found, they should be banned, along with that whole IP address, payment info, whatever.

Anything else is unacceptable to me.



Again, I don't think that the plan as stated, which you support, does what they want it to do.
You may think that it is basically sound, but I do not. I think that in many ways it does less to fix things than simply leaving thing the same would do. it makes things *worse* for those who want a more predictable experience. and it only hides *commercial* (i.e. easily regulated, findable and ban-able) "adult content" from *anyone*, and leaves all the free stuff completely in place for anyone, including children to see.

I think that it sweeps a lot of stuff under the rug by saying "see? we did something!" when in fact, all it does is set up a glorified adult shopping mall and make everything harder to find on the grounds that it is making the sl experience "more predictable" and "child safe", when it fact, it will be *less* predictable and no more child safe that it was before.

The keyword filter and Blondin Linden encourage the use of metaphor and circumlocution to be able to advertise adult materials while remaining on mature land. someone looking for a PG or mature at most item can still teleport into a den of iniquity(indeed, it will happen more often now that the search filter is forcing merchants to uses non-adult terms to describe their adult goods). An escort can still ply their trade on mature land, and indeed wind up with a child for a client. All without setting foot off Mature or PG land.

The appallingly bad verification system really has little to do with my argument. It is the fact that it is applied at the *wrong stage of the game*. It is like letting the kids into the strip club, and only checking ID at the bar. it should be checked *at the door*.



It has noting to do with the MPAA. it is an arbitrary definition created by LL If we were going by the MPAA, then PG sims would be able to have glimpses of upper frontal and full rear nudity.
It is called "brief nudity" and a PG movie can have it.

There are currently two designations. "PG" where there are content restrictions besides those in the TOS, and "mature" when there are *no* content restrictions other than the TOS.

It has nothing to do with movies, computer games, or anything else. the *market* has driven SL to become a virtual world that is only 1/4 content restricted. 3/4 of the people buying land in any capacity have opted for land with no content restrictions. Whether they intend to fully utilize that freedom is irrelevant.
They have *chosen* to have no additional content restrictions.
The fact that they are 3/4 of the landowners makes them the majority in this argument.
They are the *majority*, and they are being massively inconvenienced to the point of no longer owning what they purchased- land with no content restrictions.

I call that *wrong*. Not only is it wrong, but it doesn't even have the benefit of reducing the exposure of minors to adult content. LL is keeping the freebie unverified account, and allowing adult material on mature land.

What part of that is so hard to understand? They are leaving to porn lying around for the kids to find! Why aren't they requiring verification on sign-up ? Why aren't they restricting adult material to adult parcels?

Well, because it would cost them money, that's why. and it would be a pain in their butt to police. But then why should anyone support all these half-measures that either don't help or make things worse?




I have posted it repeatedly- in fact if you go back, you'll see that I've mentioned it about every fifth message. to the point where I stopped because I was afraid of boring everyone!

My "better plan" is to stop allowing new unverified accounts. Get an *actual* ID verification service, or require payment info on sign-up, and sent an e-mail or postal letter to the owner of the information used. That way, if Timmy or Susie are using mom's credit card, mom gets notified, and Timmy and Susie get a whuppin'!

My plan has other aspects dealing with creating a "clean room" area for business and those who want an all PG experience. It also cleans out the asset server by putting a 90-day shelf life on all avatars- If you go 90 days without logging in, you get purged form the system.

You see what I mean by "responding to what you *want* us to have said"? Keep the kids out, boot them when you catch them, use an automatic mailing program for e-mail confirmation and postal notification.

I call that a better plan than "let everyone in, and only allow kids to play with the *free* porn".

^V^

Actually, I'm saying that not only is this particular verification scheme useless for the goals that LL states, but also that they are applying it *too late* in the process to prevent children from accessing adult content.

It is a poor tool, being used in the *wrong way*. A lose-lose in other words.

^V^

Flame! Flame! Flame!

^V^

p.s. not really, I've just never flamed anyone before and I had to try it

My personal objection would be that LL changes the rules whenever it likes, to *its* advantage and no one else's.

ANyone who signs a contract with a company they *know* to be that unstable and mercenary is making a poor choice. that there is no other reasonable choice available puts the whip in LL's hand, especially if one has invested time and money into a business here.

The fact that they are giving us "replacement land" isn't the issue. the issue is that they could just as easily completely banned adult content and opened the door to children.

And they probably *will* eventually.

So, my objection is that LL is bound by *nothing* to abide by the contracts it makes. to their mind, it is *their* world. when in fact, they own the hardware and the software tools that the rest of us used to *build* SL. LL used to recognize that, and they have evidently stopped recognizing it.

They get to choose whether or not my business will survive. That isn't fair, nor is it a good business plan for LL.


^V^

One can be sentimental about things that are not real. they can still be important whether or not they are covered by law.

You can get a divorce even if your spouse doesn't want one. The law says one thing, and their sentiments say another. happens all the time.

The law does not equate cartoon sex and violence with filmed sex and violence, and doesn't equate *either* with *real* sex and violence.

You can recognize that and still have an emotional reaction to them of your own. (and sometimes, the emotional reaction is valid, and should be considered- which is why I think people who want a reliably "PG" experience ought to be able to have one if they like, and there should be a place on the grid where that is available).

^V^

But.. but.. I was replying, if you recall, to your observation thatI would have thought that a child who was prepared to go to the trouble of discovering Elvis' details and entering them for Aristotle's approval would probably not be that bothered about using the identity of a family member.

Why the one is an "obvious hole" in the verification procedure and the other one isn't is beyond me.

No plan is perfect. This is a virtual world, though.. even landmarks are ephemeral and could be recreated.



Actually it was me taking a cheap shot at some of the comments aimed at me. It was not intended to be taken seriously.

First, not all would go through that trouble. Second, if such 'key data' is relatively available and easily found in search, then it would still be considered less risky to any kid realizing that than borrowing a parent's driver's license or credit card in many cases. A kid may not even think of both.. some kids may think of one but not the other. Fixing one hole does not mean there aren't other holes, and the inablitity to fix a different hole does not mean none should be fixed.

The law does by way of the film board, which does indeed classify some animated works as NC-17, i.e. adult.

The whole risk children face in adult situations is psychological, based on the understanding that they are not yet mature enough to be able to make adult decisions or handle the ramifications. The abilty to provide consent requires the maturity to understand the decision, and emotional costs.

Animated scenes are quite capable of engendering emotion. I they were not, animation would not be entertaining.

Deltango,

Now that you have reposted your plan, I can comment on it.

First of all, while it is true that there will never be a perfect definition of the separation between adult and mature, the film industry seems to have managed fine with their definitions.

Neither adult nor mature films have ceased to be as a result.

A voluntary system would mean even more variation than the film industry's definitions since each person would be moving (or not) based on their own defintions, resulting in even less clarity.

Land that came up for sale would still be scattered, and would still result in zoning mismatches.

I would say, what we write here is real. It doesn't matter on which material we write. Paper, or a carbon-surface of a HD. Both can be seen and stored for thousands of years.

The content of a Picasso painting is not real, but the result of his work is real. The canvas, the colors, the whole material, plus the efforts, money for material and the time and skills of the creator.

With which material we work, is not important. The results are important. The results are logical real, the material for which we pay is real and all what we've put in to create it is real. Our time, money and creativity is very real... - this is all physically/emotionally/intellectual real.

So, same conclusion as ever: nothing real happens in SL, like nothing real happens on a painting or on the stage of a theatre, - there is just the result of our art*work* moving around, but these results of our work with the SL-tools are real, otherwise we wouldn't see them - but because we see them, they are, as results of our work, real. Like a painters work. Nothing would be to see there without our efforts.

This is why LL should not touch it. It is our work and we pay for the material on which we do our work.

LL starts to hide, to censor and to overpaint our work with their new own imagination of a world.

This will kill the conditions we had before, because before it was our imagination and LL will kill that without any refund.

This is the problem.

End of June we see a complete new SL, new conditions, a new TOS. As a first step...

I wonder how that will look and feel, after this massive attack on peoples creativity and freedom to be creative. I expect, it will be very boring.

It will be Wal-Mart 2.0, thrilling like a nursing home or a classroom...

Not because "sex" is then hidden. "Sex" is not my theme. But all freedom to be creative in whatever direction is then gone. SL is then crippleware.

Cultware becomes crippleware.

Like the JIRA 2727 says: LL's plan is a showstopper.

But as one poster said before: it is all said. We should inform LL about the fact that all is said here. They should read that now finally serious if they have eyes and brains, then thinking serious about aaaaall we *all* said in thousands of posts and IMs and notecards and whatever medias and we expect a serious final answer.

I am tired of all that blabla at the office hours and by Blondin.

The real bosses should speak a final word. Or the CEO.

Because they asked us what we think and we told them what we think.

From any point of view.

We gave them aaaaall possible aspects from A to Z.

A complete manual. We missed nothing.

They/or Mark Kingdon should tell us now:

a) "yes, we do it and we ignore all what you all said"

or

b) "no, we do it not"

or

c) "we do it, but we do it better than we planned it before and we will embedding the suggestions and critics and aspects of our beloved and smart customers, because they are reasonable and we learned much while reading them"

...

They are bound by contracts to the same degee anyone else is, by civil law. No more, no less.

Based on the fact that I do feel a couple of the issues (support for moves, advertising issues, and definitions, and to a lesser degree flaws in Aristotle) need to be rectified before this should go forward, I have voted in favour of JIRA 2727.

4144

cool number

welcome to the club

You want to know something alexander...u need to go out tomorrow night ..have a few drinks and get LAID or something...I know without a doubt you are an alt and i've kept my mouth shut until now...get a life...i'm sick of hearing your bullshit.....you have no clue about second life if this is your first avie...you HAVE MADE OVER 400 POSTS AND U ARE WASTING OUR TIME....LEAVE PLEASE
p.s. these aren't the REAL WORDS I WANTED TO SAY

Sorry people I couldnt help myself
A troll is a troll
I have to add more...his join date is Feb 09..he probably doesn't own any land...he has never built anything he is proud of ...and doesn't have many friends yet...so how the hell can he relate?
He needs to experience sl as most of us have before he speaks...MHO

I have made a pdf of the complete JIRA MISC-2727 all 141 pages of it as of todays date and made it public access and will link to it from the wiki as well.

Here is the Download link for the pdf:

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=1207673&da=y

I want to apologize to all who have more will power who can keep their composure as Lord Sullivan does.....I am a simple American who is stuck here with the idiots running SL

And yet you demand perfect plans from everyone else.
I am unconvinced. You continually post in favor of some loosely defined version of Linden's plan that's not going to be implemented, that you know isn't going to be implemented, and at the same time you claim nobody's come up with an alternative to Linden's plan and when they do you nitpick them in ways you refuse to accept for your own not-a-plan.

Or is this whole discussion just an opportunity for cheap shots for you?

I just shout at the monitor

LOL...thanks i needed that
Time for some coffee to wash the Captain Morgan down....hahaha

1. NC-17 is not "adult"- "X" is adult. NC-17 means nobody under 17 even with a parent or guardian. X means no one under 18 Period. R- means nobody under 18 *without* a parent or guardian.

So, NC-17 is not a useful content rating for SL, because it allows admittance to a n age category that SL does not.

Stick to "pg" and "mature"- those are the ones SL uses, and they use the SL definitions for them.

SL is, by definition- *only* for those over the age of 18, whether or not they have a parent's permission, guidance, or presence. Thus SL is rated "x" as far as the MPAA is concerned. There is the possibility of explicit sex and violence. the rating is justified. That SL is not *all* explicit sex and violence, all the time is not an issue.
Neither is the most graphic porn movie. there are some parts which would be acceptable at the family dinner table and some which aren't. Just like Second Life.

2. Children should not be here- Simply by being in-world they risk those psychological scars. Better to keep them out entirely. trying to make SL "safe" for them is a losing proposition that is doomed to failure short of making *all* residents conform to a child-safe content rating.

3. Animated sex and violence like "south park" is rated less strictly that if it were live action. Movie screen sex and violence is usually rated less strictly than *real* sex and violence.

It is a matter of degree. treating them all the same is unrealistic in the extreme.

4. If kids *do* get in, and access the content undiscovered, it is not SL's fault. it is the *parent's fault* for not supervising their children properly. In a community of adults, for adults, the ability to give consent is a given- because all are presumably over the age of 18.

5. Thus, keeping children *out* should be the highest priority in making SL "child safe". If children aren't *here* then they will be safe. In fact, since SL has no reliable way to tell if they *are* here once they have created an unverified freebie account, putting the verification *before* admittance is the only way that will even *reduce* the number of under-18's appreciably. Arguing for other methods, such as content segregation and in-world, *optional* account verification is the same as turning a blind eye towards the problem. It simply isn't a serious solution.

^V^

Not if the offered a free swap to those PG parcels which want to move, and then, as the PG sims emptied, change their rating to "mature".


^V^

Absolutely- although some consumer protection laws are also criminal laws, and to the degree that LL breaks them, they could be prosecuted.

^V^