RC Questions

Well, since owning mature land isn't necessarily about "selling or advertising pornography" (at least not according to LL- Only the most extreme, remember? crunchy decapitations and the like?) but about the ability to do what one likes on one's land without content restrictions, I'd say that putting it like that sort of minimizes the issues at stake here.

At the worst, it would *just as bad* as forcing people to move because they *want* the option of selling and advertising something that might offend "PG" sensibilities or a corporate client.

Personally, I wouldn't like to see *anyone* have to move, and if some are forced to, then LL ought to offer the option to anyone who *wants* to- whether it is "PG" or "adult" doing the moving.

^V^

It would be a better plan because it inconveniences everyone *equally* rather than singling out a specific segment of the population to bear the brunt for everyone.

It would be a better plan because the people *asking* for this *aren't* the ones who will have to move, except in a very few cases.

It wouldn't be a perfect plan or even a *good* plan. just a better one than is being implemented by LL.

^V^

Absolutely! I can agree with this 100%. and since the onus for enforcement of the rules isn't on the residents, but upon LL, then by definition, we don't need this plan at all.

But saying that anyone but the porn needing to move is "illogical" indicates that you seem to think that Residents on Mature land, operating within the definition of "mature" when they purchased it, are somehow *more* to blame that the people who object to them using *their* land in the manner in which they intended to use it, within the rules that they purchased it under.

I submit that it is the *objectors*, and those who aren't following the rules (by *not* checking the "mature" box in their land description) who should bear the brunt. not the folks who are obeying the current rules.

Your comment indicates either that you feel differently, or that you wish to appear as such for the sake of stirring up the conversation.

^V^

The people who are asking for the new policy.

That's my point. Try really hard not to get sidetracked on the minutae of my post. My point is, there is no evidence there is a significant number of SL users, or even potential users who are asking for the changes LL is implimenting.

Heh, and make life *really* interesting on a grid that crashes chronically with 80,000 online at a time

^V^

This whole thing is idiotic. LL you seem to want to fail.

Why not do this...

Make a G rated grid... A whole grid! Not a sim or two but a whole new grid. Much like the beta grid. Now, advertise that as the cleanest SL around. Put in a filter so nobody can have an object with the word "tit", "nipple", "boobie", "breast", "etc" in thier inventory. *chuckles* Now...

No one can have a baby bottle "nipple", no one can have a "tit" or a "tit mouse", no one can have a double"breast"ed suit, no one can have a blue footed "boobie".

Does anyone understand? These word filters are stupid. People usually don't use search all that much. I did in the very beginning, but after that... All the places I've ever found were from word of mouth. And anyone coming in to SL that's underage is going to walk up to people in the tutorial area asking for sex. (Yes, it happens. I have an alt and when I made her she was asked for sex about 20 times by different people and she was ruth as hell.)

Why wouldn't a completely new grid be good? Because it would have to be maintained, right? So, why are new sims good? And why is this ghetto still a good idea? And why keep closing threads and cutting off discussions.

Lindens only seem to listen or read a handful of people's forum posts. Usually not enough or they just scan through them. The really hard questions go unanswered or are answered like they're a sphinx.

LL's start listening to the people who pay your salaries. Not the people who might in the future!

I'm a business owner... Not just in SL, but in the real world. I own about 5 businesses what I own is not really a factor here. But the customers pay for my business. If they didn't then I'd have to operate at a loss. I've done that before and it isn't good.

Customer purchases pay for employee wages, building costs, bills, rent, etc. If I didn't have customers the business would die and I would have to let people go. Everyone can see that this business plan wasn't well thought out. Forcing established merchants to move, buy land from land barons, or be "free swapped" to a maybe not as good location is unacceptable. If I had a business in a building and the owner of said building said, "Hey, I'm going to move this building downtown behind a dumpster." I wouldn't move my business with it. I'd look for a new building.

Already many adult merchants are looking for other alternatives to SL. This means a huge part of LL's profits would be leaving with merchants who decide to leave. Sim owners who rent to adult merchants and may rent residential land elsewhere on their sim aren't going to want to flag the whole thing adult to appease a few merchants or so. So, in doing this big switch sim owners are going to lose money from rent and how long will it be before they close down the sim and LL's loses thier 200+ a month tier from losing a sim owner?

If one of my businesses stops paying for itself I look over the business model and modify it to suit or just shut it down. If a business doesn't pay for itself it's not worth having. Because you want to operate on a profit... Not a loss. Philip Linden (or whoever owns SL) doesn't pay everyone out of pocket. They depend on SL making enough money to pay wages, pay bills, and also make a profit. Profits look good to stock holders and the board of directors.

If LL's goes through with this shoddy (at best) word filtering system, and moving all adult content somewhere else... Then merchants will move away from SL, stop being premium members, and leave. Now, a lot of you say, fine... They would leave. Stop whining.

Here's where you fit in to this. Because a majority or even a minority group of individuals leave SL or close shop and still stay. This cuts in to the SL economy. People aren't going to make as much money so they aren't going to want to pay high prices. So, if you make anything and sell it for more then 100 people probably won't want to pay those costs, because they can't recoup their investment. So, something that sold for 100 L$ will probably have to drop to 50 or less. And the market for PG stuff will probably see a hit, because more people won't want to move so they'll start making "clean" stuff. Flooded markets mean more competition. (Think Walmart Vs Small business.)

Now, then there's the people saying this still doesn't affect me. I'm just here to chat with people and have fun. Clean fun. Okay, and that's great that you can do that. But where will you have that fun? Not many great mainland fun places out there in PG land. And the PG sim owners? They may flag their land as adult in order to get some land rentals from adult merchants or adult members who want to have a place they won't be glared at. So, suddenly this PG sim you used to play at with an amusement park has become a sex den. *laughs* Maybe that's a bit extreme, but if the PG sim owner can't make money one way they're going to try to make money another way. Why? Because they pay for the sim so having it pay for itself with maybe a little profit makes sense.

These changes affect everyone. From the person who doesn't think this is a big deal to those who know that this is going to have a detrimental impact on their SL experience. You may not think it's good, or you may think it is... But no matter what YOU are going to be affected by all of these things.

IF .... IF ... If you assume adult content people have to move bacause PG people don't like what they sell, then it is hypocritical.

Do you have anything ... a n y t h i n g ... at all, that indicates that is the case? The only two people I know that indicate they asked for some sort of plan, are both adult content vendors.

This is my last post here. I tried to offer an alternative point of view in good faith, and was met with people that basically make stuff up out of thin air, and then use it to attack.

Move on to your next patsy, and good luck with your move.

Given that Linden Labs has also said they did this because people asked for a "more predictable experience", and the people who asked for that were not asking for anything like this, does it seem reasonable to assume they asked for anything like the plan that LL actually came up with?

They should setup a PG continent though and no time like the present, even if they don't move any existing PG sims, the current situation where PG sims border mature sims is problematic so by setting up a PG continent LL actually enhance choice.

I've had PG land next to a mature sim, it is not a good situation and I can assure you that LL have talked of making a PG continent long before these current proposals as they themselves know it's a problem.

Now is the time to create one, get all the upheaval out of the way in one go.

While it is possible that LL is just doing all this randomly on a whim, but if so, logic seems unlikely to disuade them...

My counter point was that lack of a JIRA does not mean there is not a strong lobby out there. Just because there is no currently existing legislation that would require this does not mean there aren't lobbies in RL trying to get legislation in place that would.

If I was with LL, I would have parsed the search data to see what kind of services people are advertising at a bare minimum. Unless there is some privacy law prohibiting it, I would also gather metrics on where people shop and correlate the two. Note that due to the magic of data management, that can be done without the end user being able to tie data to any specific business or individual, thus preserving privacy.

From that there would be a better picture from which to draw conclusions. There are likely some arbitrary estimates tossed in, of course, like how many NPIOF's will either verify or register payment information, but if sales of goods and PG services really do significantly outweigh those of adult services, then adjusting the world in ways considered more 'friendly' to the majority may be considered worth the risk.

Of course it is not a given that is the case, nor that the ratio of sales is either.... and the assumptions on how many will verify or register payment information may be completely out to lunch... but they would likely have more info to go on that we have.

And as for releasing any such information, already people maniplute traffic numbers as best they can. Releasing more information risks people figuring out new ways to manipulate the results.

It is those desirous of a strictly "PG" experience who are pushing for this change, be they the corporate world, offended current or potential residents, or members of the LL staff. If they are the ones who want the changes, surely it isn't unreasonable to ask that they bear some of the inconvenience?



I think that you misunderstand the plan as presented to us.

-Service providers will not need to move unless they advertise.

-Those who supply the adult activities with products that facilitate such activities will not need to move unless they advertise or insist on using explicit content on their parcels, or offer explicit free samples or "test drives".

-Those who wish to upset "PG" sensibilities and remove the predictability of the "PG" experience will not need to move either. they will be able to create as many anonymous alts as they like, and grief to their heart's content. the changes do not affect them in the slightest.

-Only those who are *already* diligent about following the rules, and want their fellow residents to have a predictable "PG" experience if they want one, will have to move, or Give up advertising their businesses in order to stay where they are.



What bots? What alts? SL has *millions* of users! LL tells us that all the time! do you doubt them?
And the JIRA is for asking for *changes* to the current software or policies, whether they are broken or not. the voting is a way to show LL how to prioritize those changes.

I wonder how many votes there were for "I want a predictably all "PG" experience"?



Evidently, quite a bit. Of course, that's entirely understandable. You are *meant* to miss things about this policy until it's too late to do anything about it. It has been designed that way.

^V^

For "millions" of new users, I wouldn't waste a second of time worrying about "2-4%" of the current grid. I'd convert the entire grid to PG, build twenty more just like it, and tell anyone who complained to go straight to hell while I rolled around on a pile of money like Scrooge McDuck.

Which is, of course, the point. For some people having more control of their SL experience *means* having more control over the experience of others. Same thing in RL. which is why you have such a thing as "blue laws" in some places, like not selling alcohol on Sunday. Or sodomy laws that regulate private behavior in private homes.

I'm surprise that they should care about SL, but then I shouldn't be. That sort of person cares about *everywhere*. And frankly, they are seldom satisfied with "the most extreme" as Jack Linden has been putting it. They aren't even satisfied with complete victory. history tells us that when they have succeeded, they have to create new offenses, new opposition, even where it doesn't exist.

Because sympathy and self-justification depend on a sense of victimization on their part. They cannot operate unless they are able to convince themselves and the people around them that they are under siege from the forces of evil. They define themselves as the "victims of indecency" and demand that "someone *do* something about this!"

If you tell them to teleport home, turn off the television, change the channel, look away, or any of the other myriad ways available to control one's personal input...

They'll simply say "I shouldn't *have* to".

Which translates to "The world should be ordered to *my* likes and dislikes". or "I shouldn't have to so much as make the effort to turn my head, my wrist or a page, to move so much as my little finger, in order to avoid dealing with things I don't like."

Which is why, for now, I would rather make a lot of noise than quietly comply, leave SL, tier down, or talk about something else.

I don't put up with this crap in RL. SL is no different. I'll work with and compromise all day long. I'll bend over backward to try to avoid offense in word or deed. but if someone isn't willing to bend a little in return, to be reasonable, then there's no point in being nice about it any more.

You can only spend so much time telling someone that their fly is unzipped and they are about the step on their own "linden". After a while, you have to let pain be the teacher that it is meant to be. Which is what will happen to LL after this. Unless the SL population is a lot more spineless than I give them credit for.

Heh, let the flaming commence, I suppose.

^V^

One of the reasons why this ought to be a "login screen poll" rather than an "Under the rug blog post" poll.

You can't find this stuff out by whispering. Another objection I have to the whole process.

^V^

If they do not advertize, to what extent are they in the business of providing service?



Hence my saying 'goods or non-adult service providers' instead of non-adult goods and services providers.'



Where in the LL plan does it say anything about reduced griefing? "a more predictale experience" does not equate to "a completely annoyance free experience." LL may be foolish in a lot of ways, but have not been stupid enough to pretend this change will solve all problems.



As well as those who are unwilling or unable to verify. It is possible that there is only one lobby in play, but if this was just about NIMBYism, there would be no need for verification to be part of it.



It is not that I doubt them but that I trust that at least some of those who feel strongly enough about any given matter will be willing to use sleazy tricks to push their agendas, no matter how legitimate those agendas might be. Are you able to verify there were really 3000+ people voting? If so, how? Keep in mind that I did say it could be perfectly legit, one person, one vote and no alts at all. The problem is that there is no way to tell, and that gives LL a very convenient out.



Are you saying that LL should never change anything in SL on their own without a JIRA asking for the change? If there are millions of players, how many are required to elicit a response?

And are you further proposing that all sizable JIRA's should be obeyed? What if someone starts a JIRA saying that LL should pay every player $100US. I bet it would be popular... if it got 3000+ votes, should LL act on it?

If you have a business in SL and a bunch of your customers came to you with the same request.. you pay them $100US each... should you act on it?

The customer is *not* always right, even when a large number of customers agree. A JIRA in and of itself is not evidence that the policy is bad, despite the number voting in favour.



Are you sure you are looking at this objectively rather than projecting how you see this affecting you on all of SL? It may be a valid projection, but that is not a given.

As an addendum to my previous post, I wanted to say that the ONLY role LL should play in ANY of this is to provide proper and accurate identification mechanisms for the residents to use, and to enforce their use.

That means, if you are advertising adult content, you properly FLAG it as such, and if you host adult content, you provide a minimal buffer (like keeping it behind walls, out of draw range, or otherwise let people know BEFORE they experience it out in the open) towards the "casual public".

For example, if you want a nude beach, just put up a basic "privacy screen" around the borders of your property with a sign identifying it and what kind of content is beyond the screen. Can even be transparent from the inside so you don't have to see it.

Well, that *is* what LL is telling us after all. hasn't a desire on the part of "residents" for a "more predictable" SL where they don't "casually encounter" adult content given as the *main* reason for all of this? isn't the fact that some adult content vendors have asked for a better way to know that they aren't dealing with children a secondary consideration?

The plan is awful. Objectively so, and for many reasons. *one* of which is that they are telling a bunch of people, who are perfectly happy where they are, that they have to move.

If it is just dandy to make *one* group move, then it is just dandy to make a *different* group move to achieve the same effect.


Your grousing that we are "making stuff up out of thin air" when we take LL at their word that some people want a reliably PG experience is illogical.

LL said it first. we took them at their word, and we want to know how many people have said something, and if they are *fewer in number* that the group they are asking to have moved (while at the same time saying that nobody should *have* to move- it should happen because LL makes a move more attractive than their current circumstances).

Whoever is the smaller group should be the ones to move. To say that somehow the onus is on "porn" to do the moving, even if it's a group ten times larger than the group that never wants to see it, is an illogical statement.

Or, to go all Mr Spock on it. "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."

If adult content is indeed "the few", then fine. we;ll have to suck it up and roll with the changes.

But if the "Predictably PG" people are "the few", then *they* should have to do the same thing. Right's right, and Fair's Fair.

^V^

I do agree that LL should have a much better FAQ up, should be a lot more active discussing this, and moderate the thread to keep the discussion on topic.

They also should be providing a *lot* more support for those moving, and that 'keeping things hush hush', to paraphrase Blondin, should not be presented as a solution for those staying on mature land.

I think there should be an initial move of those who are required to move, a waiting time to let things settle down and let people see how this works in practice, then a free move for those who wish to move voluntarily after the cool down period.

Most of those who think they would prefer to move likely will not need to... the cool down period would let them have a chance to figure that out, and let the G team have time to figure out what and how to enforce post Ursula too.

This is a major change, and although I can understand LL wanting to get it over with quick, major changes should never be rushed.

Too true.



We all have to act within the confines of the information we have. Our opinions are guided by the facts on the ground, if we are logical, tightly-wrapped intellects.

With the information currently available, it is not likely that there is much of a lobby for this, regardless of how loud they are.

If LL had numbers they would have used them. To shut us up. To justify their decision. to advertise what a wonderful company they were. "See? we *are* responsive to the needs of our customers, and not just a mindless entity that turns cash into server space!"

Tell, me that they *wouldn't* do that.

Now it's all well and good to say "If I were LL, I'd have a very good reason for doing this" but people do dumb stuff all the time, and if you look at LL's track record, they have been coasting on a brilliant idea for some time. SL is a *great* concept, and its applications keep growing with the technology.

But LL has done a *lot* of dumb stuff, and their track record predicts more to come, not less.

If you keep the metrics secret, and just say "trust me, they're there" they are *useless*. you can trust *without* metrics. If you claim the existence of data, you have to *show* the data. This isn't *poker* for heaven's sake! this is *business* and *customer relations*!

Saying "They *could* have the numbers" is like saying "They *could* be aliens from the planet Zepton" The only difference between the two statements is their relative likelihood of being true. Until they are demonstrated as being factual, basing an argument upon either is folly.

Just my two cents

^V^

2 Month report card for LL Adult Content Initiative

** The Reasons:

*Unknown* SL HAS BEEN (past tense) an open place where Residents can explore a wide variety of creative pursuits

*Unknown* (LL) must ensure that ALL RESIDENTS can enjoy the virtual world

*To Be Determined* some Residents are interested in pursuing certain “Adult” activities in SL that others would rather not CASUALLY encounter

*Had Control Already* give all Residents MORE CONTROL over their Second Life experiences

** The system:
*To Be Determined* 1) it will provide a way to geographically separate Adult content and activities
*To Be Determined* 2) it will filter search results
*To Be Determined* 3) it will require that those who access or see “Adult” content (whether on land or in search) have had their accounts verified

** The guiding principles:

*Failed* a) We will create CLEAR and consistent definitions of what constitutes adult content, in line with our Community Standards

*Failed* b) We will enable easy, reliable, and CONSISTENT ways to be able to access content by type - the goal being to ensure that Residents can choose what they want to see, purchase and experience.

*Failed* c) We will implement effective Resident services and DIALOG to ensure that those who provide Adult goods or services can continue their activities without long-term disruption or loss of business.

*Failed* d) We will implement account verification systems that provide an additional level of assurance for providers of Adult content that only adults are able to access their content. Such a system might be tied, for instance, to a verified payment method like a credit card, a validation by our age verification provider, or another CREDIBLE method of validation.

Overall grade is a "F", with major Incomplete's and Unknown's

Agree or Disagree?

Absolutely! Which is why I doubt LL's numbers, goals, and expertise. They simply aren't behaving in a way that makes sense, either from a solid business point of view, or from a "Groovy man! Like, the world is virtual!" point of view.

^V^

I'm watching G4 tv right now. Wired for Sex is on.
The episode is "21st Century Fetishes".
The segment on virtual worlds is about to air.

Edit: Yep. Second Life figured as the flagship for fetishes in virtual worlds.

I can think of a few reasons for not releasing the numbers. One might be that the numbers consist of the number of content related AR's and they do not want to admit how messed things are up now.

The other would be that they did (sort of) release numbers (2-4% affected), but then respondants wanted details, which may have required releasing more information than they wanted to release for other reasons, like the details of what is on the reports they get. Knowing the structure of a report is very useful to anyone wanting to maniplutate the results.

In a sense it is poker. If you show your hand, you are showing it not only to those who legimately want to see it as part of a discussion, but you are also showing it to everyone else.. to the competition, to residents who are looking for ways to manipulate outcomes to their advantage.. to everyone.

It is relatively rare in business for a company to show their numbers. Even publicly trading companies, which are subject to audit at the whim of shareholders, are not normally required to give those shareholders internal details from the audit... only copies of audited statements showing no more than what they are required to by GAAP and the SEC. They are not required to show marketing reports, internal memos, etc.... and that is to owners let alone customers. Customers are only entited to what is publicly reported to the SEC.

If you are producing a product in SL and decide it is not selling as well as you would like it to, and decide to pull or change the product and a customer complains to you about the change, do you show him reports to prove yourself right simply because he asks to see them? Now you may decide to keep offering that product just for that customer or because of that customer, but I really doubt you rush off to provide them proof of the reasons for your changing your product line.

To the extent that they are *allowed* to advertise their product- or do you contend that Sex workers aren't in an actual business? You think of it as a *hobby* perhaps?



Do you for a second imagine that the "casual encounters" with adult material that LL wishes to curb are instances of a botched teleport or two? or is it more likely that they are the results of a non-checked "mature content" box on the parcel description, or griefers in welcome areas with Penis bombs and suchlike (especially since Cyn Linden mentioned such things specifically in the press conference)?

The people who are killing the "PG" experience that some residents evidently want *aren't* the people who are standing still on their parcel and obeying the search rules. they *aren't* the business owners with payment info on file and tier bills to pay.

They are the anonymous freebie accounts- disposable, untraceable, and easy to get.

*Any* plan to reduce exposure of the unwilling to adult content *must* take that aspect into account, otherwise it is a bunch of "sound and fury, signifying nothing"



I think that the non-NIMBY aspect is coming from a minority of actual residents, and from perceived pressure from groups and interests outside Second Life. anticipation of government regulation probably has its part, as does pressure from parent's groups, sin sniffers, and businesses (who have probably used adult content as a handy excuse when the SL sales rep calls.)



And I have faith that the actual JIRA numbers are at *least* as accurate as LL's estimate of how much or how little the adult content changes would affect their tier paying customers.

In fact, I have *more* faith in the JIRA numbers.

You ask for a standard of proof that you are unwilling to apply to *all* parties of the argument. If you assume that LL has been diligent in collecting their numbers, then you must also assume that the JIRA numbers are correct. There is even *more* evidence of the JIRA's accuracy- The LL numbers are still on *their* say-so. Actually they've never presented *any* numbers past the laughable 2%-4%.

Why do they get the benefit of your doubt? and do you think that if this were a bot-based operation, that the numbers would be as relatively *small* as they are?

Out of 60,000 people are signed on at this moment, slightly over 3000 have voted on the JIRA in a week's time. If they were using bots to inflate the numbers, it would be a *lot* higher.




I never said anything of the kind. what I *am* saying is that the JIRA is an electronic "suggestion box", and the voting is a way of determining how many people are interested in seeing a given idea implemented.

No business has to put up a suggestion box and all are free to ignore it if they do. but in the absense of numbers from LL, it isn't unreasonable to want to compare JIRA numbers for "clean it up" versus "Enough with the cleaning up, already!"

You are engaging in an "Ad Absurdum" (I think it's called) argument. Taking a point and extrapolating it to the point where it would be absurd.
That doesn't invalidate the point itself, merely the absurd application. If LL, a service-oriented business, wants to *stay* in business, it must to some degree be responsive to the preferences of its customers. They use the JIRA and other tools to take the pulse of their customers, so they can respond more effectively.

They use the JIRA for those reasons, and *I'm* curious how the numbers for and against would stack up in that forum. that's all I'm saying. it would help determine which group was smaller and therefore easier to move. the rest is your projection, and not any argument of mine.



I'm doing my best to be objective, though of course, I'm sure that I'm doing an imperfect job of it, like anyone else. I don't doubt that there are many people who will be affected by these changes only at second or third hand. but mark my words, *every* SL resident will be affected by these changes. LL has the opportunity to make them as effective and painless as possible, and they have evidently chosen to be as *ineffective* and *painful* as possible.

It's not just me, Alex. I have no doubt whatsoever that *everyone* in SL, whether they like these changes or not, will feel the sting of them, and be the worse off for them.

LL Needs to re-think their plan. They *won't* re-think their plan. They are driving off a cliff by reason of the fact that they're 3/4 of the way to it and it's too late to stop now.

That's my *objective* opinion

^V^