RC Questions

Prolly Shaw said it as well, but the closest published source for this is Oscar Wilde, apparently: http://www1c.btwebworld.com/quote-unquote/p0000149.htm

Right, I forgot about this "gay". Banned from search.

Oh, yes, very important. "Phone Sex". I want LL to disable voice forever RIGHT NOW. The obvious opportunity to have disgusting explicit "Phone Sex" via the viewer (EVEN ON PG SIMS) cannot be tolerated any longer. Therefore "Second Life" MUST be banned from search as well, in case voice will remain.

- My business in SL is PG-13 at its worst and is in no way "Adult" content (assuming "adult" content here is pornographic or sexual in nature), however I feel like I have to put my two cents in. I'm concerned what the definition of "adult content" will be. If it's... Sexual in nature? Pornographic? an Escort Service? Strip Club? or even Swear Words?

- Depending on what the definition becomes for "adult content", this can certainly affect more than just segregating adult content to specific adult parcels.... It sounds like it could potentially affect how everyone in SL does business. The key words you can use for search will be affected, an SL magazine will have to think twice before they allow their paying customers for ad space to show men or women in lingerie or in sensual poses for fear of crossing an "adult" line... What about our profiles? If swear words are considered "adult content", will those have to be censored too?

- I have my business in a sky box and my private residence is on ground level on the same parcel that is security protected. What if I have a (ohmygosh) sex bed on the parcel?... so does that mean that the content/items that are my land - even though they're no where near the public areas - dictate that my entire region should be an adult region instead of mature?

- How is this going to be classified? PG, Mature (i.e. PG-13) & Adult?

- Will people also have to be age verified to visit a "mature" classed sim? If so, a LOT of people can not or will not age verify which means I'd have to either censor myself and remove anything PG-13 that I've created to change to a strictly PG sim or lose a lot of potential business... and my business give's LL business as I own my private region...

- Depending on how extreme the separation of adult content becomes.... I don't know if I feel that this is making things better or easier for the residents that wish to stay away from "adult" content. Correct me if I'm wrong but to get anywhere in SL, don't you have to do some kind of search to begin with? It sounds to me like a censorship is now being implemented so the teen grid and main grid can be merged into one and the issue of policing minor's that shouldn't be on the main grid is eliminated. Only time will tell I guess...

- I could probably write a lot more but that's probably the gist of my concerns. It might be a lot more simple than what I'm blowing it up to be, but after getting lost in forums for hours I've just been left with more questions rather than answers.


**** UPDATE ****
I think my issue has been there's so much information in too many different places... Thanks to everyone who has referred me to some new sites to read and follow. From what I've read it doesn't look like these changes will affect my business or tenants businesses. However, I feel bad for all of the people and businesses that it will directly affect...

Everything LL considers being "offending" to their new main target groups, which are the corporatons and the educational sector. Which implies they consider the corporation employees and students NOT being adult. An amusing thought.

Lacie, to get up to speed on this, take a look at Couldbe Yue's excellent run-down on the changes at http://satiateddesires.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/second-life-adult-content-changes-how-theyll-affect-you-update-1/ and also at the materials in the http://www.slapt.me/wiki/index.php/Main_Page.

But, really, I think questions are best directed to the Lindens concerned.. Blondin, Jack and Cyn. People have been telling them for ages that there are going to be a lot of folks who haven't been following this in the forums wanting explanations and clarification, and, in any case, it's their interpretation of the rules, not anyone's here, that matters.

To my mind, you, your customers and tenants on your island might be very well advised to start sending them IMs and notecards, and turning up their office hours, politely asking for clarification, before the real rush starts in a few weeks' time.

Since they are encouraging people to put up ban lines on the mainland they may as well sell off the land used for the roads .... they will be even more useless than they are now.

How long does search take to refresh, does anyone know? I've just had to take the words "Gor" and "Gorean" out of my parcel descritpion as it doesn't show in search on the new viewer unless you tick adult.

24 - 48hrs usually but you probably should have waited until Monday when they load the new list before you made changes.

The problem is that I don't think that anyone is talking about having to accept *everything* anyone else might present. What they are talking about is the ability of *adults* to decide what they will choose to participate in, and the fact that adults who decide *not* to participate have a whole host of ways to avoid doing so.

They can *teleport* for god's sake! they can switch off the computer, they can walk in another direction, if they don't feel like teleporting. Hell, if they like they can decide to argue with the parcel owner about the appropriateness of his content, and file an abuse report if they feel that it is too far over the line.

The point is that if a parcel owner desires to put a dog and pony show on his land, and advertises it, and puts it in the land description, and checks the box to mark his parcel as "mature" so it won't show up in PG search, then what is the problem?
The land owner has satisfied every requirement, and is obeying the rules. Why should there be *no* onus upon the viewer to *avoid* his parcel? Why must the landowner use only the content of which the viewer approves? and what about all the other* potential viewers?
Keep it simple. grownups know how to navigate SL in a rudimentary way after a few minutes at the controls. *some* of the responsibility for keeping their poor warpable minds free of the ravages of illicit material should be on *them*, shouldn't it?

And by the way, you're making your "all or nothing" argument again. no one is saying "nothing" what is being said is "nothing *new* is needed to deal with these issues"



Again, this does not mean what you seem to think it means. By saying "scrap the plan entirely!" what is being said is that "the plan is unacceptable. LL should come up with a *new* plan, or turn us loose to design one for them". At worst, they are saying "the safeguards already in place are enough.

This is *not* an advocacy for *doing nothing*. it is an advocacy for doing something other than what LL, or yourself for that matter, would suggest doing.

That isn't the same thing, and treating as such belittles a logical and well reasoned argument.



As are we all. But then you quibble over worst case scenarios, and assign advocacy of them to your debating opponents. Then you compare a world where an anonymous resident can fly, teleport, and take an entire building and move it three meters to the left with the real face-to-face world of zoning, permanent buildings, and limited ability to get away from something cluttering up your neighborhood.
You give an example of showing ID at a RL bar, when it only has the barest resemblance to the equivalent SL situation in which nobody can see the user behind the avatar, and the booze and strippers are pixels on a computer.
Don't mistake me, I have no issues with a *working* age verification system. but lacking a biometric device on each home computer, there is *no* solution out there that is both free and better then aristotle, and Aristotle is no better than an affirmation that one is of legal age. it is quite literally a couple dozen keystrokes more work, and that is all.

It may *mitigate* the use of SL by those underage, but at that age,it wouldn't have stopped me for more than a minute, even *without* a parent's credit card.
If you have a better idea, by all means toss it out for discussion, But the degree to which Aristotle is "better than nothing" is so vanishing small (and inaccurate, as there are several steps *already* in place to control access to SL and also it's content) that it is merely a drop in the bucket.




There are several factors which lead me to believe that this course of action will be *heavily* damaging to Second LIfe and Linden Research Inc.

-Any attempt past "reasonable precautions" (I.e. opt-in methods) to identify minors and keep them from Entering SL *removes* the "safe harbor" provision in which SL can say:

"We're only the server- the resident have to state that they are over 18, and that they have read and understand the terms of service and the community standards. After that, we have no control over the content that some people will make or seek out, and we have an abuse mechanism in place to deal with those who slip through the cracks".

And duck a lawsuit because little Tommy saw a titty and it warped his fragile little mind.

-The *methods* that LL are using to implement this plan, are practically *engineered* to drive away the creative businesses that have made SL what it is. SL will suffer from this loss, and be a less attractive place because of it.

-The methods that LL are using to implement this plan will have a large effect on the the desirability of opening, or maintaining a business in Second Life. With economic and regulatory conditions being as unstable and "seat of the pants" as they seem to be, I'd rather try my hand at trying to horn in on the Russian oil business, or open a McDonald's in North Korea.

It would involve less instability than a business in SL- even a "PG" one.

-The Methods that LL are using to implement this plan may expose LL to civil liability for fraud and restraint of trade, and several other things that I imagine a clever lawyer could come up with, the very least being "breach of contract" by changing the very nature of the land that LL sold their customers. LL coffers aren't bottomless. Eventually, enough will pile up to do the company serious damage.

-The methods the LL are using to implement this plan have the possibility of cratering the price of "mature" land, and possibly even PG land. In fact, about the only increase that comes from this plan will be the value of parcels in private sims flagged "adult", and upon Ursula itself, where the "company store" model of real estate sales will soon commence, as it always does when one party *must* have a commodity, and that commodity is subject to hoarding and price manipulation.

-The sex trade in SL will be forced, by sheer economics, to operate in the "mature" zone because that is where their largest customer base will be. Escorst will move to an "outcall" business model, (if they haven't already) and bring their services to the customer, just like in real life when they shut down brothels- the ladies of the evening don't *retire* or just take up knitting! they adapt to the new circumstances and use phone services to make appointments for house calls, or they operate in public, soliciting business, ready to hoof it if the cops show up.
What makes you think it will be *any* different in SL?

-Last, but not least, This particular plan *WILL NOT WORK*, because it leaves in place two things which practically *guarantee* an "unpredictable experience" content-wise.
The anonymous, unverified freebie account, and the mixture and close proximity of "PG" regions alongside "mature" regions when practically *any* of the activity that gets a business sent to Ursula can remain as long as it isn't advertised or the keywords used to describe it aren't in the parcel description.
This guarantees that resident who want an all "PG" experience will be even *more* likely to stumble and camera look at things which will shock and annoy them (because their very presence will be hidden from these residents until it is too late and the damage is done), but it will guarantee that all those *unverified* accounts, which won't even require the laughable Aristotle hurdle to cross, will have complete and total access to all the virtual poon they could possibly want, as long as it takes place in private residences.

So, LL's plan is to essentially shield the most extreme content from griefers and tourists, while at the same time, funneling the sex trade into the only areas where it is *absurdly* easy to gain access, rather than merely "easy".

Now, considering the couple thousand minors likely to be stopped by Aristotle as the "mitigation" included in the LL plan, let us look at a cost benefit analysis and see whether those few thousand minors, who will simply go on looking for their adult content elsewhere, are worth all the trouble they've caused us for attempting to keep their little black hearts pure.

Personally, I don't think that they are. the LL plan saves *far too few* to be worth the trouble it will cause.



And what are the odds of that, working within the current framework? Not too good are they?

And just because you *agree* with the *goals* of parts of the plan, it doesn't follow that the plan itself is wise or desireable.





It is implicit in your argument that those who wish to scrap the plan are advocating doing *nothing*. In fact, they are arguing that enforcing the current rules is sufficient. Therefore, your argument, on it's face says that you think that *something* different is better than what we have *now*, otherwise, you would *agree* that what we have now is good enough.

Ergo "anything new must be better than what we have now, and will at least *mitigate* the situation"




Ad Absurdum argument is simply this. I say "A checkbox at the opening page of the site is enough to protect hardcore *porn*. It ought to be enough for a *game*."

You respond: "So I suppose that you would allow *anyone* into a porn theater, as long as they said they were 18? Even if you could see they were a child?

Do you see? you take a point your opponent is trying to make, and you illustrate its most extreme application in an attempt to avoid dealing with the argument head-on, and giving a reason why the application I *actually* proposed won't work.

It has nothing to do with making an "absurd argument" on your own behalf, it is taking a point your opponent makes to such absurd lengths that even your opponent cannot agree with it, and weakening his case in the minds of those you are trying to convince.


I will quote on from the very post I responded to



Note the absolute language, trying to draw your opponent into arguing that *nothing* should be done to mitigate and comparing the "unreasonableness" of their position to that of "doing everything" to stop underage access. NOthing was said about either of these things. you opponent was arguing "nothing new", not "nothing". you put those words in their mouth and then tried to spank them for it.





Note your argument that for SL to be an adult world, Children must *never* enter even by accident or extraordinary circumstances. Children cannot even be *chased out* once we catch them. once a *single* child enters SL it ceases to be an "adult world".

here's one that you used for comedic effect, but it's still a good example- the absurdity is what makes it funny.



It that enough for you? do you see what I'm getting at? that's just from this thread- I could go back to the previous one if you like. You left a great number of deeply rhetorical Ad Absurdum Arguments in that archive as well.

I had to split this post in two for it to fit- Next we cover your request for evidence that it *won't* work.

^V^

http://www.massively.com/2007/12/23/aristotles-age-verification-not-good-enough-for-ll/
http://www.massively.com/2007/12/08/age-verification-a-matter-of-informed-choice/

http://www.metaversejournal.com/2009/04/28/content-ratings-age-verification-and-secret-words/

http://www.heartland.org/publications/infotech%20telecom/article/22072/North_Carolina_Considers_New_Law_Requiring_Age_Verification_on_MySpace.html





http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10048583-46.html



http://www.massively.com/2007/12/11/age-verification-restriction-on-parcels-what-does-it-actually/


Here's the text of a conference about using age verification on social networking sites
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.8ageverificationtranscript.pdf

two important quotes:





here's another study:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/ISTTF_Final_Report-APPENDIX_F_TF_Comments.pdf

Let's just skip to the conclusions, shall we?

Sentinel said:



Symantec said:




Verizon said :



And here's Integrity (aristotle) in their own statement to the panel



I'd say that's enough for now- If you'd like more, just ask.

Now.


Do you have any evidence of *your* position? That the small mitigation effect would be worth the upheaval? that it would protect Second Life more than it would disrupt it? Or would simply carrying on complying with the law and banning underage residents as they show themselves, be a more practical course, given *all* the factors?

Now, the opinions of some internet giants are in, including the guys who are *doing* the age verification. I'd say that sort of stacks things in the "not worth the pain and agony" column, eh?

As for evidence of loss- look at the last cock-up by linden labs. the Openspace debacle.

The grid shrunk by 20% after that, and that was just a *price hike on low budget sims*.
Now they are getting ready to tell the entire population of SL that:

A- Mature land isn't "mature" anymore
B- the Vast majority of residents will not be able to access anything deemed "adult content" unless they give up their anonymity and verify.
C- the definitions of what "adult" means will not be stable or made available to the population.
D-Only those who pass some mystical "test" after submitting their support ticket will get to trade their current land for adult land, and the rest are simply hosed.
E- later, Adult businesses will be forced to locate themselves on Ursula regardless of how high the land prices are.
F- No two lindens have the same answer to any given question about the vitals of this plan
G- They've screwed around with the viewer again and turned it into a crippleware lag-fest again, unless you get verified and give up personal info


Y'know, alex, I'm thinking that LL *might* be able to get off with only being tarred and feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, This is going to be *ever* so much worse. Last time it was a limited crowd. this time, it's *everyone*.

^V^

Not to mention, Churchill flashed Eleanor Roosevelt. And pretty much all of his own household staff. The bounder!

^V^

Valerius, I really think you need to go inworld and find someone to bite.. You're letting him get to you. A bit of R&R will do you the world of good.

and no, I'm not going to offer my neck.. but I'm sure there's a sweet young thing somewhere out there who will gladly oblige

Well, dang! I finally get your attention and it backfires!

Seriousy, he asked for proof, I went out and got it. including statements from nearly every AVS including aristotle, in the business as of last december say that it *won't work*- I mean, come on! from the horse's very own mouth as it were.

Ah, well, I was up way past dawn, and got a little foggy-headed and the OCD kicked in.

Hey blondin! just so it's not a wasted effort, show those AG panels on age verification for social networking sites to the lawyerly types named "linden" okay? especially the one from the aristotle people- the full text URL's are there for all of them, and there's more where that came from. just google "Age verification" and "Ineffective"

^V^

you've always had my attention, even when you were cowering under the table with Tcko.

Isn't the advertisement itself considered half the problem? Or else, why are people complaining that their goods might not show up in appropriate searches?

Also, yes you can teleport out, but if someone sets up that 'dog and pony show' next to you, you are still stuck with living next to a dog and pony show. Avoiding, or at least mitigating such issues is what RL zoning is used for. The principles are the same in SL.... giving people some idea what they can reasonably expect as neighbors.



Because the viewer might have been there first, as the owner and/or tenant of the site next to where the person sets up shop.



Again, automating some of the enforcement is a cost saving measure, and by reducing enforcement costs, you also make enforcement easier to maintain. The existing measures are not working.. why? Because they are less cost effective. It is easy for customers to insist a business incur higher costs, the customers do not have to pay those costs up front and will not connect any increase in fees charged by the business with their demands. They will expect the business to simply operate at a lower profit margin.



Semantics, especially since the most commonly proposed counter-solution is 'move everyone else', irrespective of what the numbers *really* are, what the relative costs are, or anything else.



And yet there is a real concern about buildings not being that easy to move. If that concern was not there, would there be as much opposition?

Also, virtual settings have a huge advantage over real settings when setting up zoning. In RL, you have to compromise due to there being limited land. In SL, the land itself can be restructured when need be. You can simply create a new continent for any given zoning. That makes it a lot more practical than in RL.



I was using that as an example of where age restrictions are used in RL. Like most analogies, it is not perfect, but that does not mean it has no bearing.



Note that there is an alternative legislators (or LL) have to using flawed age verification.. outright banning. I have also agreed that LL should be pressuring Aristotle to clean up its act. If there are lists of dead people posted for public use in getting around the verification, that list is also available to Aristotle and they should be filtering that list out of their database. If they do not, there is the potential of a major breach of contract suit against them, as they would be failing to hold up their end of the contract... and not just the contract with LL, but contracts with anyone else who uses them. The alternative is that the contracts with Aristotle are improperly worded, in which case LL's lawyers need to look at them and renegotiate (as do everyone else's).

Yes I am critical of those aspects of the plan too.



Without those third party lists, would it still have been so easy? Not to mention not everyone would think to look for those lists, and that the only thing preventing the use of those lists from being identity theft is a minor technicality in the wording that I am not sure would stand up in court. It is certainly common sense that you are meant to use *your* id (that would likely be enough of a test for a civil trial, maybe not criminal though).



Again, get Aristotle to clean up their act. There are pretty simple measures they could use to counter the identity theft issues, and the cost to them would likely be neglibile. The cost to them of not cleaning up their act would depend on the wording of their contracts.



Has that safe harbour rule been tested in the case of SL? They are more than just the server, they also provide the means to create, and already have ratings rulings in effect (regardless of the extent to which they are not enforced, they are at least partially enforced, and as I understand it when they are it is more often too agressively than otherwise).



I maintain that is not a function of the plan itself, but rather their lack of support and clear communications on implementation. Also keep in mind that I agree that businesses will need means to advertize in a practical manner.



I don't see that as being the case. That kind of thing already exists in many aspects of RL policing, but the RL business world has not fallen apart.



Mirroring RL censorship laws is not in and of itself restraint of trade. For restraint of trade to be considered to exist, it has to be 'unreasonable' restraint of trade. Some of the things that exist in SL now, many in RL would simply consider unreasonable period (and I am talking the extreme subjects such as rape RP, Dolcett, etc). Again, push that kind of thing too much publicly, and even if the trials win, those pursuing them will likely lose.

There are potential issues with breach of contract, but even there, the issue is 'fair use.' Some restrictions are legitimate. Moreover, this is one of the reasons I feel LL should be doing a LOT more to accomodate moves. Simply telling people 'oh, you will have to move in a very short period of time and we will give you some nice help files' does not cut it. They do seem to be showing signs of doing more, but more may not be enough. They need to be really careful there.



There will be short term variations, that is a given. The effect on the long term is much harder to predict.



In SL it *will* be legal, and with no risk of STD's. Just because the majority will be in mature zones does not mean they will not be verified. In RL, not wanting to live beside a brothel does not equate to never wanting to visit one.



The majority in RL are 'anonymous.' If the police hear a complaint about vandalism or other RL griefing in progress, the vandals will likely be gone by the time they can get a squad car there. That does not invalidate the existance of police.

Similarly, the police cannot prevent every noise complaint, but by keeping clubs out of residential areas by way of zoning, there are fewer noise complaints to deal with.

Again, zoning has merits, and both those examples relate well to SL.



Pardon, but you are arguing that by reducing the quantity, you increase the odds of coming across these things? Pardon? And you are going to tell me that people are going to come onto SL, then stake out random houses just in case someone does something naughty in them? Does that really sound like a productive way to find adult entertainment to you?



Pardon, where *anywhere* has LL said anything about this being about shielding people from griefers *or* tourists? Straw man, sir, nothing more than a straw man.



You are forgetting something... those other sites are small enough that they can relocate easily if threatened. SL cannot relocate so easily as they. Also many of those sites already voluntarily use forms of adult verification.

And whether you feel those or any other kids are worth effort to protect or not is academic. It is not you that you have to convince. There is an arguement that we surived as a society with a lot less legislation, including less civil rights not only for women, children, minorities, but for anyone. That does not mean it was a better world.

The very consumer legislation and contract law that you feel LL may be violating are similar rights. Which rights are the important ones... just the ones that protect you from harm?

There is obviously a limit to what is reasonable in legislating rights, but if you are going to arbitrarily declare any given group 'not worth protecting', especially writing them off as already having 'little black hearts', don't expect to win over anyone who does not already agree with you.



I feel that you have set up a straw man in your head by choosing a definition of the goals that is easy for you to dismiss. I think you really believe what you are saying, though.

It is possible that I am doing the same, but at least my interpretation is consistant with the changes they are making.



You are repeating yourself. I responded to this earlier in this post.



Its funny how this is a game when it makes for an easy defense agaisnt these changes, even though many consider it as not a game, and something more, and that many who form relationships in SL are not merely RPing them. And yes that will still happen, but when you add in BDSM or other complications, it takes a higher level of maturity to deal with the situations. Not all adults handle that well, let alone kids, even if a 'game.'



But in both cases the patron is dealing with virtual sex. My response was to ask why one requires verification and the other only requires a positive response with nothing backing it up. How is my comparing the two ad absurdium? In fact, in SL, the patron can participate in the virtual sex. Their avatar can have role in the film. That constitutes a greater level of involvement, not lesser. In SL, that role can include D/s aspects, which constitutes a *much* greater level of involvement. Whether the minor is playing the dominant role or the submissive, it is not always easy to cope with well, nor to keep the lines clean between real emotions and RP.. for either side.



Instead of 'can clearly see it is a child', substitute in, 'it is unclear if it is a child or adult.' It is possible that I put in 'can clearly see it is a child,' but I am willing to bet that is something you added or assumed. And if you think it is always clear whether someone in front of you is a minor or not, I take it you do not live in an area with a high asian population, or for that matter that you pay no attention to conroversies over the ages of olympic gymnasts.



With due respect, I presented my reasoning why I feel that the current 'are you 18?' question constitutes 'nothing,' and as such do not agree that I was putting words in their mouth. If you want to respond to my arguement that the status quo constituted 'nothing' then please do so.



Just because you do not like a comparason does not mean it is a bad comparason, and you seem to be willing to go to extra lengths to assume the absurd. I get the impression you are honest in doing so, though, that you really believe what you are saying.

Don't remind me! Not my best moment

^V^

So the part where Integrity, Sentinel, semantec, and verizon said that it couldn't be done with any reliability; that depending upon it would be worse than not using it because it engenders a false sense of security, none of that made any impression?

These are AVS *providers* talking to a panel convened by a state attorney general, This *testimony*. from *december*.

I just thought that hearing it from the source might make a point.

^V^

Alternatively, "like most analogies, it is not necessarily absurd, but that does not mean it bears close examination."

OIW, he's just told you why he does not think it at all apposite -- because "it only has the barest resemblance to the equivalent SL situation in which nobody can see the user behind the avatar, and the booze and strippers are pixels on a computer." Rather than telling us about the nature of analogies in general, why not explain why you think this particular one is useful?

It risked engendering a false sense of security because people were advocating relying on it as 'the' answer rather than as part of an answer. In other words, noone should be depending on this as if nothing else need be done, or that parents could somehow rest on their laurels simply because such provisions were in place.

I read those articles and responded to them in one of the earlier threads, by the way, and remarked that it was a good sign that legislators might be brought to understand the limitations, which means they might look in other directions. That does not reduce the usefulness of this as a good faith measure though.

I agree that analogies do need to be able to stand up to examination, but that is why I later used an analogy of a theatre showing X-rated movies instead of a strip club.

I still do not think that a strip club (where you are not allowed to touch the dancers) is not that different from SL, but I do understand the objection.

In the case of an X rated movie, though, the degree of contact is likely to be greater in SL than in RL (again, participation in virtual sex rather than merely watching images).

Also, the BDSM and D/s examples hold up well, since the issues are ones of power and control rather than actual sex, and not all adults can handle involvement in such situations let alone minors doing so.

In other words, he chose an earlier example of mine, which I admitted was flawed and abandoned in favour of better analogies.

Wait until the change for adult content and much more starts officially with all possible bad side effects, Valerius. You will have much company from some thousands of people, including me, cowering under the table too, as soon LL starts the ultimative Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to knock out any free and creative activity from A to Z on the grid.

It will be crowded under the table..., because nearly everyone will be affected by LL's move.

QFFT! Agreed ONE HUNDRED EFFING PERCENT!

I also think you are being conservative in your estimations of damage, too. This thing has the potential to destroy SL as a service and LL as a company.

I watched some Pinky and The Brain today, and could've sworn in one ep Brain kept going on about "the jaw of an ass".

Just something that stuck in my mind, considering ass is on the devils words list...