Upcoming Changes for Adult Content: Definitions

Hmmm... I have an avatar depicting a skinned red fox, goes around with the title "fur is murder". I have not used it in a while because I've had too many people tell me it was too disturbing for them.

Should this avatar be restricted to "Adult" regions?

No ... see previous comments concerning big girl panties.

There is a difference between disturbing and violent. I also find what you are doing "disturbing" but see no violence in it. No actual foxes were skinned making your avatar .... and, um ... it's an a.v.a.t.a.r ... it isn't real, nor is it even supposed to be real.

I like the comment someone made earlier about the cat and mice. Perhaps they should make that darn roadrunner relocate to Jizztown, because of repeated blowing up of the coyote.

The "PG" term stands for "Parental Guidance", a term that comes from a movie rating system in the United States. It is supposed to indicate that the movie is something which children might be allowed to view, but suggests that their parents ought to see or get information about the movie first, and discuss the material of the movie with their child.

There was also a "G" rating, which has disappeared almost completely, which meant "general" audience: children could attend without their parents needing to check it out in advance, and the kid would not come home and ask "Daddy, what is a prostitute?".

These ratings have rather weak meaning even in the USA now, and none at all outside the USA.

The description for what PG would mean in SL sounds a lot more like "G". Well so, call it General. Or something else, but not PG. "Parental Guidance" is pretty ridiculous in a world where everyone is presumed to be an adult. "General" at least makes some semantic sense -- the intention is that a broad range of visitors can go there with low risk of being offended.

But that too is unsatisfactory, since what you mean is that content is *not* the general range of behavior and material represented in virtual culture. Rather, you want to provide a protected area where the general range of content is *not* represented. Okay, so call it "Protected", or something else that is truthful and accurate.

Or just make up a completely new term so that you can define it any way you want and no one will be misguided by pre existing or conventional concepts of your labels.

Well, PG means Parental Guidance. By that definition, that we are allowed to give our RL children access to SL as long as they stay in the PG areas, correct?

In other words, come up with a better term or allow RL children, one or the other. It's a perfect time to fix a mistake in wording that should have been fixed years ago.

I agree with the individual who posted that PG refers to parental guidance and doesn't really define how LL intends the define PG. In a PG group on SL you can't swear, but in a PG movie you can. This only serves to cause confusion. I agree that it should be called something else such as general.

"PG" is not a useful or appropriate rating. "Parental Guidance" is not meaningful in this context, and leads to confusion in new users, as well as the media, general public.

I realize that coming up with phrasing things in ways that are meaningful, easy to understand, and translate well, is not an easy task. (And no, this is not sarcastic)


"PG" should be re-phrased as something that conveys "generally appropriate for a public town square". Think politeness, and general political correctness. A possible appropriate term might be "Mild".

I support "General" tag replacing "PG". PG is not a term that should be used in sl as it encourages people to think that people who need parental guidance (ie teens) can be in SL, And they cannot and shouldnt be.

Not in my place, they won't!! Assuming I still have a place once the new plan goes into effect, that is. LL might be ok with kid avatars in very-adult areas but I'm sure not!

edit: this is a complete 180 in LL policy, BTW. The previous rules very clearly said that people allowing kid avatars in adult situations risked an immediate ban.

Hmmm... I have an avatar depicting a skinned red fox, goes around with the title "fur is murder". I have not used it in a while because I've had too many people tell me it was too disturbing for them.

Should this avatar be restricted to "Adult" regions?

CONCLUSION

I very much like the principle of zoning. But before you pull it off, you need to establish objectivity of standards and reliability of reporting.

"Able to" and "Allowed to" are two dfferent things.

They still prohibit using a child avatar in a sexual situation, and you're not supposed to have the child avatar in proximity to obviously sexual paraphenalia. But a child avatar that just wants to look realistic, with no intent of sexual activity, and doing nothing overtly sexual, could still go to the Adult Continent to shop for a detailed skin suitable for their needs. They would just have to be VERY careful which shops they walked into, or would be better off staying on the sidewalk and camming in.

You, as a parcel owner, would still be able to say "My parcel is too racy for kid avatars to be around", and would be within your rights to eject a kid avatar.

Will a child avatar inside the adult area be considered acceptable if they are being played by age-verified adults?? Maybe this is splitting some hairs, but I think it's a huge issue to be considered when trying to address the definition.

How would you define extremely violent? The first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan is pretty graphic in my opinion, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's an amazing film. Films (and I use that word loosely in this context) like Saw and Hostel seem to be violent for violence sake. I am curious though how others view violence.

Will people in PG areas of the grid such as infohubs or sandboxes be protected from unsolicited exposure to adult items, representations, or images better than they are now?

There is a difference between disturbing and violent. I also find what you are doing "disturbing"

Seeing my main avvie is a red fox, I would find that extremely disturbing, and would ban you from wearing that avatar on my own land... I'd consider such avatars suitable only for use in a "blood and gore RP" sim, in an Adult Continent setting.

Then I think they need to continue speaking about this but need to be a lot more careful.

I read the post he was responding to as asking if a RL-verified-adult with a kid avatar would be acceptable in an adult area.

edit: this is what Blondin quoted his response to:

More dangerous? seriously? Second Life is dangerous? How?

This is the exact kind of paranoia that has gotten us into this mess.

Second life is a cartoon fake world. You are safe in your home when exploring it. You have to PROJECT danger into it...the danger is not real. I can be blown up..I can see pixel sex and nudity...I can have any amount of things done to me in SL, and yet I am still safe and cozy in my home in real life. This is the beautiful thing about SL.

Sure.. wouldn't necessarily want a young kid (say 3-10) seeing what is in SL...because it can be crude and hard to explain...but remember that it is still all fake. Kids that play video games, watch movies, listen to music, and surf the web these days between the ages of 11- 18 have seen it all I'm afraid as far as violence goes at least. Nudity too. Mature themes...all of it.

It is up to parents to keep their kids informed and "street smart" regarding entertainment and online activity....period. You cannot hope to effectively protect them from "mature content" with these kinds of policies.

Does that mean that there can be no dance clubs, stores, music venues, beaches or parks at PG sims anymore ?

Can any Linden answer that for me ?

I wouldn't use that avatar around people who strongly objected to it... but I gotta ask you: do you mean that protesting foxhunting and furriers is "blood and gore role play"?

It depends on the content but I wouldn't see a problem with those things on a PG sim. Dancing, music, shopping and the such can all be relatively PG activities. What do you think?

It depends on the content but I wouldn't see a problem with those things on a PG sim. Dancing, music, shopping and the such can all be relatively PG activities. What do you think?

The idea is to create a predictable experience in-world.

No, I mean that I would find that avatar as personally disturbing and offensive as someone of an ethnic or religious group might find it disturbing to see one of their own kind mutilated and tortured.

Dunno, what makes them "PG" vs "Mature" vs "Adult"?

That's one that we keep asking, but you keep avoiding answering.

Oh, I agree. It should be treated like I was handing out fliers with stuff like on them. But do you think places like the US Holocaust Museum should be restricted to Ursula?

They're not answering because we're supposed to be helping define it. They already said they were going to do this with our consultation and that's what this thread is for. We and LL come up with the answer together.

Instead of being belligerent a more productive approach will be to present what-if scenarios (without judgments if possible) and some workable suggestions.