Naming "Names" and Community Involvement

I posted yesterday about my new discovery of this issue a lot of you were already aware of. "Age Play" is something I was totally unaware of until I saw a child avatar in an adult themed dance club, gyrating sexually along with everyone else.

It was a public dance club. The owner running the club takes part in age play in SL and has his public profile stating this, listing the clubs and then describing what they are all about.

When I named names, I didn't think I was doing anything other than drawing the community's attention to something that frankly scared me. I would have done the same thing had I come across a club where the owner was promoting fantasy African American lynching.

I posted before I read all the guidelines but frankly after reading the guidelines now, I still don't understand why one can't point out a public place and a public figure on SL in the forums. I didn't name any real names, how could I?

I may be wrong or right about the dangers of age play within the realm of SL but surely I should be able to draw attention to specific examples of something I come across that frightens me.

The reason I would bring it to the forum is because I know that the company running the site probably can't do anything about it because it isn't technically breaking the law. But just like if we shared a neighborhood and a known sexual predator moved in next door, wouldn't most people want to get together as a community/neighborhood to discuss ways we can deal with it? I'm not suggesting we become a lynch mob, but certainly a discussion about specific public clubs and personas should not be eliminated from the discussion.

If I come across a kill Americans terrorist club or a white supremast club that has avatars of black people with nooses hanging from their necks dancing on the dance floor, am I really required to come in and simply discuss the generalities of whether or not this is a good thing?

"8-year-old boy dancing on the floor of a gay dance club without his shirt on. His profile says he's for hire. Discuss amongst yourselves."

Are we all so lost in the possibilities of a free society that we are now willing to discuss the word tolerance in relation to images of children being used as sexual objects?

I'm sorry if I broke the rules in posting someone's avatar's name. But if that avatar's name is something that needs protecting because there is some kind of sense that it is "real" on some level, maybe we as a community shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what that avatar looks like and behaves like.

This game experience and the lifelike quality of the world and avatars mean that these child shaped avatars will very soon look and act even more like real children. Think about what that means within the SL community and what it says about people who are willing to look the other way.

While I think the equivocating you're doing is rubbish, I do see your point about naming names.

In fact....

Read this...

/120/38/24567/2.html#post233985

So much for consistency.

How do we know, bella, that you are telling the truth?

We don't, of course, which is why we have established legal systems (in this case, Help -> Report Abuse) rather than trial by public forums.

I don't really like the "age-play" thing myself, especially in public places. What fantasies people have in their own private worlds is really up to them.

However your post seems contradictory to me.

You argue that you should be able to "name names" because avatars have "no reality to them," yet if there is no reality involved then how can there be a problem with age-play?

Either it's all just a silly game, or the avatars are representations of real people that have certain rights. You can't have it both ways.

The law seems to say that an avatar is a pseudonymous representation or representative of a RL person.

Wow... thank you for drawing attention to that.

I'm fine with you challenging my opinion. I could be very wrong for all I know... this is an issue I am sensitive about so I could just be over-reacting.

But I don't think I am. I think that in 5 years, SL avatars will be so realistic and lifelike, that seeing one as an 8-year-old having sex with adults will be something that will spawn a whole new generation of predators.

In looking at the date of that post, I'm willing to wager that the TOS and rules for the Forums have evolved and changed over the past year and a half. I believe the rule is a good one in that it prevents slanderous/libelous language and keeps a lid on vigilante behavior.

I think that a fantasy is a private issue but bringing it into the realm of a public place and engaging other people makes it no longer private. If that fantasy includes something most adults would consider harmful or reprehensible, then it is their duty/responsibility to bring it up with other adults.

Your suggestion that I or we as a community can't have it both ways is frankly shallow. We can have the fact that avatars are not real names yet at the same time we can acknowledge that the actions and behaviors of an avatar within the space of the game can affect others.

Your argument suggests that it is black or white and there are no shades of gray. In SL, the entire game is based on the fact that shades of gray are all we have. But within that, we also need to be able to use our heads to see when someone is using the tools to a problematic end. When that happens, naming an avatar by its fictional name isn't the same thing as naming the human behind the avatar.

Similarly, stopping a behavior in SL is not akin to putting a real person in jail. No, creating an avatar as a small child and then having that small child engage in sex with an adult avatar is not illegal technically. But are we all expected to be so politically correct that we can't just say what most normal people would think that means in the realm of real life?

The forum rule about not posting names exists to keep these boards from turning into a giant flame war of personal attacks. This same rule exists in the official forums of just about every online RPG out there. If you don't agree with that rule, you need to take it up with the Lindens. If you see something in-game that you feel needs to be addressed, file an AR or call a Linden. Bringing specific disputes to forums like this will solve nothing.

How many threads on this topic are we going to see today, anyway?

38

Optimist.

My SL identity is linked directly to my RL identity. Not just by virtue of sharing a part of my RL name, but through various websites that have used my SL name and my RL name together. The assumption that an SL name is unlinked to a real person is a mistake. There are plenty of people in SL whose RL identities are known (e.g. most know who Zero Grace is IRL). If someone were to level a false accusation against me (e.g. suggesting that in SL I engage in fantasy pedophilia) it would most definitely reflect on my RL identity.

Hence the logic of not using any names.

If that is true, and I'm sure it is, than I bet you manage your online image carefully and if someone accused you of something you didn't do, you'd be able to defend yourself.

I bet you don't dance in gay clubs as an 8-year-old child with no shirt on.

We don't consider people who play violent videogames to be murderers, or to be acting out what they wish they could do in real life. When it comes to videogame violence most people understand that the majority of participants can separate fantasy from reality. Why should we look at ageplay in SL differently?

We humans are odd about these kinds of things. There are certain issues that become politically charged and tend to be blown out of proportion and looked at irrationally compared to other very similar things. Another example would be alchohol versus drugs. We naturally assume that the majority of people who use alchohol do so responsibly, but when it comes to illegal drugs most people do just the opposite. They assume that the majority of people who use them do so irresponsibly. It's irrational and purely the product of certain things always being sensationalized.

Personally I have no interest in ageplay in SL, but just because someone engages in it I don't think it's fair (or rational) to make any assumptions about what kind of person they really are or their reasons for doing so.

Wow Nolan, thanks for that link I now will quote the pertinent part of that comment in my forum sig!

Eboni summed it up correctly in another thread when she observed that the two threads commenting on pedophilia in SL may have been closed because of the subject matter of the thread. Would it be better to discuss the presence of pedophilia in SL on other "outside" web sites open to the public? Would it be better to say that LL shut down discourse of the problem rather than allow open discussion about it?

Bella is absolutely right. Hiding our heads in the sand and bootstrapping the main issue of concern onto petty distortions of the TOS/CS only covers up the problem, and that effectuates the bad conduct.

I would suspect the motives of any person here who objects to raising the concern about the presence of pedophilia in SL. If the subject is too distasteful for some members to face, or for LL to acknowledge as a part of SL, then don't read the threads about it.

LL has a history of looking the other way when confronted with real hatred and despicable conduct in SL. One member who was reported for having a hateful anti Jewish monument at one time in Blue was not sanctioned and in fact went on to be a featured feted member on the SL website and the now defunct Linden picks list.

If the members did not bring abhorrent conduct to light it would be swept under the rug.

Would I be answering to a descendent of Torquemada?

/108/9e/96084/4.html#post956291

sigh

You keep quoting this "gay club," what difference does it make that it's a gay club (or is this a clue as to where you are coming from?).

I also find it a bit odd that on another post you said you were not aware that people played kid characters in a non-sexual way, and when corrected you said that it was "weird" anyway?

I think it's pretty obvious who has sex on the brain here and who it is that cannot conceive of children in a non-sexualised way.

I also think having snakes as pets, playing shooter-type video games, dressing as a clown, listening to polka music, voting republican and eating shellfish is "weird." Most people in society when finding out that adults are pretending to be children will find this more than slightly strange.

I mention "gay club" because by designating something a "gay club" the idea is that it is centered around the homosexual identity, therefore designating it as a club that is about sex of one kind or another. I know, I have frequented them to find adult members of my same sex for sexual relationships! Go ahead and attempt to brand me as a bisexual gay basher, that one makes a whole lot of sense.

Go ahead and reach as far as you can to turn this into "the poster is a gay basher who has child sex on the brain" in your attempt to discredit my concerns. It simply shows most intelligent people where you stand on the issue and that you simply want everyone to keep believing the emperor is wearing clothes for your own selfish reasons.

grats you just alienated the entire 80-90's MTV generation

Im shure motley crue, id software, flavor flav and weird AL will be comming down on you soon

ok so weird AL isnt a good example, he admits polka music is weird too

Avatars are artificial; the people behind them are not.

All SL users can be presumed to be adults, save on the Teen Grid. Whatever an adult wishes to do, provided that there is full knowledge of the action, full consent, and nobody (other than the parties involved) is getting hurt, it is none of your damned business. You can disapprove, most crimes worth caring about are covered by one of the three flags, but you have absolutely no right to pass judgement.

(For what it's worth, I find sexual ageplay fairly boggling - hell, I find sex in SL fairly boggling - but I do have a child version of my main human avatar, just for grins.)

EDIT: Also, I'd like to specify material harm, otherwise people would be guilty of a moral infraction for breaking up with someone, or buying them socks Yet Again for christmas. Flesh wounds, property damage, and severe psychological trauma, here.