No kids in the real SL, EVER!

My personal opinion, is that if we include any age range into the community this would be a big mistake but on the other hand i think that 15 would be an acceptable limmit. If someone signs up under 18, all the mature areas could be blocked . If Linden are to go through with this, they could be on the upper hand, and would have many more subscribers. At the end of the day it would be nice to see more people playing second life but i have a feeling that opening the gates to youth might destroy the feel of second life. The friendly atmosphere. Because we all know they can be a pain in the neck sometimes

Um - which government, and how? I know China regulates the internet traffic in and out of that country, but that's the only regulation I know of.

Being that adults are hard enough to handle (yes we've all dealt with the flagrant 'look at me I'm naked' assholes out there) kids would push this game directly into the 'unenjoyable' category for alot of people. And people dont pay for things they don't enjoy.

As well, a kid's only sim would help seperate them from us, but who's keeping us from them? Watch the con-artists crawl out of the wood work offering free porn, buildings, toys, you name it for that new kid's first $500 L. There aren't enough mentors in game to stop that from happening. At least, hopefully, the adults are wise enough to see thru that b.s.

DEFINATELY AGAINST THE IDEA!

I think that the people that made SL should make a game just like it just for kids. You can make it so they can't say some words and that they can't do some things! That would be great for my son cuz he always wants to play and he is 13. I let him every now and then but i watch him and what he does on the game.

You guys don't have to play with the kids. I meant that they should have their own game like the teen SL, or the SL for ages 12 and under. something like that so that we don't have to deal with kids.

I think it would be good to open SL up to kids over 13. That is IF they were restricted to PG sims, AND the PG sims were gathered together in some sort of continuity so you could go from one to the other, AND the kids were required to have a permanent icon over their heads that designated them as minors.

Then, if the Rules are enforced PROPERLY, people who show or say inappropriate things in the PG area get dealt with. Children who grief get dealt with.

There seems to be some assumption that opening up to children means opening up to childish behavior. Not so. Children over 13 can be expected to know what "polite behavior" is - whether they prefer it or not. They will shortly learn which persona will give them success here.

In order for that to happen, they need to learn the lesson in some way other than direct experience. So, some sort of resurrection of the SL Police Report would be good. If not, then word of mouth will work, I suppose. At any rate, SL will have to open up a bit more and actually tell people WHAT the crime was, if not WHO it was.

Frankly, I suspect the children will learn faster and better than the "adults" we already have who act like children. And policing children may actually be easier.

In the end, I suspect policing children here would only be different in terms of quantity. And we were going to have to deal with matters of scale eventually anyway, even if we just waited for the ever increasing numbers of “adult” griefers that will most certainly come.

Having children here will add an entire dimension to the economy in the PG areas. It will increase the social (and real estate) value in the Mature sims.

The problem of predators is a technical one. It’s just a matter of making it impractical for a predator to get what he wants here. I would be happy with the perpetual logging and storage of any and all speech around a minor. I think a giant glowing icon over the head of a minor’s avatar should be enough of a warning that you are not in a “protected” free speech zone. In Second Life, only the Mature areas – devoid of children – are “free speech enabled.”

I would even be ok with only allowing the children of SL members to come in. Or requiring that children all be supervised by their parents or guardians.

Here’s a question: Why can’t I bring my child into this world? Why can’t my 13 year-old and I take an adventure together?

When this first came up (no, I’m not flip flopping!) I was against the idea because there was no way to stop predators. I’ve never had any trouble with the idea of kids being expected to behave online. But I was worried about letting strangers near my kid – or any kid for that matter.

Now that I’ve thought about it, I’m a bit alarmed that so many of us have simply given up the idea that we can make a safe place for our kids. It’s harder, in the real world, than it was when I was young. Now there are practically NO places for kids to play outside the home. But – and here’s my point – WE CONTROL THIS WORLD. This place is completely the product of a millions of switches – all controlled by the Lindens and by us.

If there ever was one last place where we ought to be able to make a real neighborhood for our children, this is it.

I’ve already brought 2 children here. And my sister. I want to bring my youngest child in. I’m not real happy with the goings on over there in Final Fantasyland. True, I can see the screen from where my own computer sits, but I could keep a much closer eye here. It’s actually safer for my kid to be here than elsewhere.

Let’s have some courage. Let’s put some brain tissue to work and figure out a way to create safe neighborhoods here for our kids.

Please give the kids a separate game.
When the kids move in, I move out.

Hmmm. I have seen this argument about some adults being irresponsible that are already in game and that there are some minors who would be more mature than said adults several times now. This may indeed be true. The flaw I see in this reasoning is that we have adults who can't: drink alcohol responsibly, chain smoke cigarettes, drive cars like maniacs, have sex irresponsibly, etc. By virtue of those facts should we give children the right to drink, smoke, have sex or drive at an earlier age, because some would excercise sound judgement while participating in those activities?

That said, I will never be for this idea unless it is a 100% seperate grid with no interconnectivity. In another forum I have a guy blasting me claiming that if I leave something unattended I should be held legally responsible for the fact that I enabled the theif.
Wouldn't that same mentality carry over to people who allow their kids to participate in an online environment wherein adults have access to said children? Ironically enough, this guy is for kids in SL, and implies that people who worry about adults preying on kids in the advent of kids in SL are paranoid.

that sounds pretty reasonable under certain circumstances. this guy sounds brilliant. perhaps he wouldn't "blast you" if you didn't employ faulty arguements. for example:

i agree with ths guy. you should too. ultimately parents are responsible for the welfare of thier children. if a parent left thier child to play SL unattended for lengthy periods of time, they might be enabling predators and could be found negligent. parents like kathy who want to play SL with thier children under her supervision sound like responsible parents who would not be endangering her children. i think kathy's children will benefit greatly from the SL medium.

any perverted adult who preys on children in SL would also have to be a moron because LL has his/her name and address and credit information.

Oh I quite agree with the *moron* portion. But has that stopped teachers, relatives, clergy etc. from preying on kids? The very places we place an inordinate amount of trust in concerning the well being of our kids. We know their names. Does it stop them? Sorry, but there is no utopia, least of all in faceless SL. Let me reiterate what myself and several others have already stated: all it will take is ONE moron to bring SL down,. The first thing to go will be the VC suppliers. Then SL itself could be sued into non-existence. Just because Kathy would monitor her kids carefully certainly does not insure other parents will do the same. As we see and as you have pointed out yourself, there are already parents who let their kids in here, and probably most unsupervised. THOSE are the ones that worry me and THOSE are the ones who would likely be targeted by sickos.

Edited to add: The point I am making is right now the age limit leaves a legal out if one of the kids that isn't supposed to be here gets in. It places the responsibilty on the parent who handed the kid the CC number. Lower the age limit and *poof* there goes that shield. You like to point out that we need to protect ourselves and that we bear some culpability if we enable them. In my mind, LL would be *leaving the car doors unlocked* by lowering the age limit.

I think we all know the US government by now has the rights to monitor what your activity is on the internet, after all you're generally using US based equipment and services (for those living in the U.S). ISPs monitor your bandwith and regulate its useage. I think thats a common thing to acknowledge. Especially they monitor spam and at least TRY to filter it out, even though most of the time it isn't successful. However, the US government, due to the Patriot Act, can now monitor anything and everything it deems worthy of being monitored.

In case you haven't been aware of this.

I knew someone would bring that up....insane speeds though

No, they don't have the "right". They have the ability. There's a huge difference there. Not to mention that even though the internet is an American creation, the US govt does not and can not monitor/regulate it. There is no govt spam regulation. There is zero regulation. Unless there happens to evolve an international agreement about the internet, it is, by it's nature, IMPOSSIBLE to monitor/regulate.

And even then, there will be datahavens/hackers. The nature of the medium damn near requires it.

And btw, an ISP monitoring and regulating your bandwidth is pretty much exactly like a cell phone company limiting your minutes. It has nothing to do with govt regulation, it a monetary thing.

************
BACK ON TOPIC
************

The thing that folks tend to by missing out on here is that when SL goes international, what becomes the legal definition of "kid"? Differing countries have differing laws regarding this. Ok, right now the SL servers are in the US. That pretty much assumes that the age of "kids" is <18... If they moved the WHOLE darn cluster to a country where the age of majority was 15, things would be VERY different legally.

But what happens when LL decentralizes the grid? You have some parts in the US, some in Belgium, some in Ugopotamia and some in Elbonia... What becomes of the "kid" definition then?

Phoenix,

<<The thing that folks tend to by missing out on here is that when SL goes international, what becomes the legal definition of "kid"? Differing countries have differing laws regarding this. Ok, right now the SL servers are in the US. That pretty much assumes that the age of "kids" is <18... If they moved the WHOLE darn cluster to a country where the age of majority was 15, things would be VERY different legally>>

From an earlier posting of mine to this thread:-

<<One legal complication that hasn't been mentioned up until now is the issue of the age of consent, which varies in different countries. I have seen an American woman who had cybersex with a seventeen year old called a 'pedophile', and yet in the UK that would be perfectly legal. Our age of consent is sixteen, except I believe for gay males, when it is eighteen. There is a movement currently to get that reduced.

I know that we are supposed to be working under American law, but I feel it would be very difficult and costly to get a successful prosecution for something that was not illegal in the place the 'perpetrator' lived.>>

Ive already said what I needed to say in the first 4 pages, some good stuff posted since....

Im still against it....

just keeping an eye on the thread now, happy debating.

-Fer

Why not just ignore them?
Some of them must be serious in SL...... have patient....
Breath in Breath out......
Heh sry bad English

We've seen that when teens (13-17) have a chance to be in Second Life in a teaching situation, they are completely enthralled and tremendously creative. They have tools to do things and to experiment in ways they can't generally. We'd love to find a way to let kids have this type of access on an on-going basis.

However, we have no immediate plans to let teens join Second Life as part of the mainstream community. Yes, we could restrict them to PG sims. That functionality is already in place. We've also thought about ways to give them a special hotline for help if they find themselves in an uncomfortable situation.

For now, though, we'll continue to restrict kids to educational settings, apart from the mainland community, until we can be sure everything is in place to deal with the types of problems you all have been discussing.

while ll is a private company, the product is personal to the consumer base, and both company and consumers talk about creating a functioning world. therefore please tell us what "everything in place" means when you do it, and allow sl people to have real input into the decision making. thanks!

Very good to know what LL is thinking on this and that the views of the community are being respected. I just hope that what you describe, Robin, doesn't signify the beginning of a slippery slope or camel's nose under the tent (or whatever bad metaphor will work here) that gets us to exactly what a lot of the community emphatically doesn't want - minors ANYWHERE in the main SL grid. There are about 15 pages here of excellent reasons why that would be an unpleasant scenario.

From: Andrew Linden

This isn't really an official response from Linden Lab. As I often say in my defense about matters that are not my primary expertise or responsibility: "I'm just a developer." However, I'm chiming in here because I think I can provide some insight to the thinking that goes on here at Linden Lab.

And I'm sure we all appreciate this. I'm chiming in because I'm a customer, and I also have more than a few years of experience working in the online gaming industry and interactive 3D environments.

Please accept my criticisms for what they are: They are given out of love and admiration and an honest belief that while this might be a good concept, there is inevitably going to be poor execution.




I had a boss like this. A dreamer who believed fervently that everyone could dream like him. Our company was eventually absorbed and broken down in a hostile Microsoft takeover.

Philip seems like a really cool guy, and is probably truly exciting to work for, but this way of thinking is flawed. If it's market share he's looking for, he must realize that the actual number of kids like him is going to be low. Certainly not enough to justify a sizeable enough market share to risk jeopardizing your existing base...




Did someone who is paying your bills say it was?




The technology model of SL is certainly capable of being applied to this venue, but this is not to say that SL itself, the game should be expanded to emcompass this application.

If Philip and your investors are interested in pursuing these applications, Linden is going to have to make a serious choice here.

1. You can sell the SL technology to an education developer and let them build their own educational world to their needs, perhaps providing contracted support services. I speak from experience when I say that it would be a mistake to assume that because you are good at designing the environment, that you'd know the first thing about applying it workably toward children's education.

2. You can attempt to keep the technology in-house and hire education specialists to help you develop the application, which you can then lease out to schools or individual students (these are two completely separate paradigms of application, btw).

In either case, you'll have to develop an entire department just for this prong of ambition, which is justifiable to an investor only if you can demonstrate that there is enough money in education services. Otherwise, you'll have to depend upon grant funding, which you may or may not realize, is a whole other kettle of fish.

or,

3. You can attempt to amalgamate SL with this project and overwhelm your staff, alienate your current market niche and muddle your focus.




The Internet is fun, but like any open-ended resource wherein the content is developed by the users, the end result is going to be a mixed bag of hedonism, absurdity and brilliance. If you are going to incorporate children into the SL environment, you have to realize that the non-negotiable, completely necessary restrictions you will have to put on content will severely dampen the creativity of the existing market, thereby undermining a great deal of what makes SL so much "fun" to begin with.




I think you overestimate this. Yes, kids are interested, but few have the patience to really learn programming, 3D design, texturing and animation, much less economics and the various social mores that keep SL a functioning community. Seriously. They want to PLAY, not necessarily contribute to a community. How are you going to control this without subjecting your adult market to the same restrictions?




Yes, well, then be careful that you don't discard your bill-payers in lieu of a market that has repeatedly demonsrated its ability to be fickle, abusive of online systems, poor at social interactions and, not to mention, rife with liability.





You have to ask yourselves if you're taking care of the market you have, before you start tackling other high-maintenance markets. If you're hungry for money, then look at better marketing to your niche. If you really want to develop this technology for other applications, you will need our investment in order ot float you unless you plan on just blowing off your SL user developers and being dependent upon venture capital. So whatever you do, don't lose sight of the fact that your customers are very happy right now... why mess with the formula and wind up diluting your profits by too much brand expansion?

Look at what happened to Ultima Online. I knew those guys way Back in The Day when they first started. It was the coolest thing I'd ever seen. For the first few weeks, it was way fun. Then the Borg--er, adolescents came who, though not contributing more money per account than adults, managed to collapse the economy, grief paying adult customers into quitting (it was called the Exodus), repeatedly abuse the game mechanics and ultimately force UO to develop two separate ruleset worlds for each server, along with a Byzantine system of rules just to keep the little bastards from tearing the game down.

Was it fun for those of us who started the game? Who beta tested it? Who bought all the original land and houses and stimulated the economy? Did we enjoy spending the majority of our time as ghosts with some snot-nosed preteen tank-mage standing over our dead corpse shouting, "ah!hAHAha! 1 0w3N u! F@g!"

No. That was Not Fun. And so a whole lot of us left and UO is nothing like it had the potential to be.

Take it from all the parents here. Kids do not build societies, particularly western-culture kids. Kids are a BURDEN. That's why they have PARENTS, because they require care and supervision or they act like the narcissistic sociopaths they are by nature.

Kids will not push the potential of SL. Thinking that, however good your intentions and however juicy mom and dad's credit card looks... well, that's the first step toward making SL LESS open to innovation.

Yours,

Mephistophelina

From: Andrew Linden

This isn't really an official response from Linden Lab. As I often say in my defense about matters that are not my primary expertise or responsibility: "I'm just a developer." However, I'm chiming in here because I think I can provide some insight to the thinking that goes on here at Linden Lab.

And I'm sure we all appreciate this. I'm chiming in because I'm a customer, and I also have more than a few years of experience working in the online gaming industry and interactive 3D environments.

Please accept my criticisms for what they are: They are given out of love and admiration and an honest belief that while this might be a good concept, there is inevitably going to be poor execution.




I had a boss like this. A dreamer who believed fervently that everyone could dream like him. Our company was eventually absorbed and broken down in a hostile Microsoft takeover.

Philip seems like a really cool guy, and is probably truly exciting to work for, but this way of thinking is flawed. If it's market share he's looking for, he must realize that the actual number of kids like him is going to be low. Certainly not enough to justify a sizeable enough market share to risk jeopardizing your existing base...




Did someone who is paying your bills say it was?




The technology model of SL is certainly capable of being applied to this venue, but this is not to say that SL itself, the game should be expanded to emcompass this application.

If Philip and your investors are interested in pursuing these applications, Linden is going to have to make a serious choice here.

1. You can sell the SL technology to an education developer and let them build their own educational world to their needs, perhaps providing contracted support services. I speak from experience when I say that it would be a mistake to assume that because you are good at designing the environment, that you'd know the first thing about applying it workably toward children's education.

2. You can attempt to keep the technology in-house and hire education specialists to help you develop the application, which you can then lease out to schools or individual students (these are two completely separate paradigms of application, btw).

In either case, you'll have to develop an entire department just for this prong of ambition, which is justifiable to an investor only if you can demonstrate that there is enough money in education services. Otherwise, you'll have to depend upon grant funding, which you may or may not realize, is a whole other kettle of fish.

or,

3. You can attempt to amalgamate SL with this project and overwhelm your staff, alienate your current market niche and muddle your focus.




The Internet is fun, but like any open-ended resource wherein the content is developed by the users, the end result is going to be a mixed bag of hedonism, absurdity and brilliance. If you are going to incorporate children into the SL environment, you have to realize that the non-negotiable, completely necessary restrictions you will have to put on content will severely dampen the creativity of the existing market, thereby undermining a great deal of what makes SL so much "fun" to begin with.




I think you overestimate this. Yes, kids are interested, but few have the patience to really learn programming, 3D design, texturing and animation, much less economics and the various social mores that keep SL a functioning community. Seriously. They want to PLAY, not necessarily contribute to a community. How are you going to control this without subjecting your adult market to the same restrictions?




Yes, well, then be careful that you don't discard your bill-payers in lieu of a market that has repeatedly demonsrated its ability to be fickle, abusive of online systems, poor at social interactions and, not to mention, rife with liability.





You have to ask yourselves if you're taking care of the market you have, before you start tackling other high-maintenance markets. If you're hungry for money, then look at better marketing to your niche. If you really want to develop this technology for other applications, you will need our investment in order ot float you unless you plan on just blowing off your SL user developers and being dependent upon venture capital. So whatever you do, don't lose sight of the fact that your customers are very happy right now... why mess with the formula and wind up diluting your profits by too much brand expansion?

Look at what happened to Ultima Online. I knew those guys way Back in The Day when they first started. It was the coolest thing I'd ever seen. For the first few weeks, it was way fun. Then the Borg--er, adolescents came who, though not contributing more money per account than adults, managed to collapse the economy, grief paying adult customers into quitting (it was called the Exodus), repeatedly abuse the game mechanics and ultimately force UO to develop two separate ruleset worlds for each server, along with a Byzantine system of rules just to keep the little bastards from tearing the game down.

Was it fun for those of us who started the game? Who beta tested it? Who bought all the original land and houses and stimulated the economy? Did we enjoy spending the majority of our time as ghosts with some snot-nosed preteen tank-mage standing over our dead corpse shouting, "ah!hAHAha! 1 0w3N u! F@g!"

No. That was Not Fun. And so a whole lot of us left and UO is nothing like it had the potential to be.

Take it from all the parents here. Kids do not build societies, particularly western-culture kids. Kids are a BURDEN. That's why they have PARENTS, because they require care and supervision or they act like the narcissistic sociopaths they are by nature.

Kids will not push the potential of SL. Thinking that, however good your intentions and however juicy mom and dad's credit card looks... well, that's the first step toward making SL LESS open to innovation.

Yours,

Mephistophelina

Does anyone else find it hilarious that it was one of our youngest residents who started the thread about not wanting "kids" in SL?

I have to agree with what people say regarding minors and respecyt at the very least. Even though adults can be way more immature than some kids.. Myself as an example adults also tend to be way more respectfull. This isnt out of lack of wanting to be a good part of the community, but is more of a thing that has to be learned over the years.

Even though my nieces are some of the sweetest girls in the world and mean well and very concious of being good girls, can be some of the most disrespectfull little brats when it comes to certain situations. They will whine for things, talk over something important on TV, argue "knowingly" about things they have no clue about, ask annoying questions without the slightest understanding that what they are doing might be bothering the crap out of an adult.

Basically it boils down to the fact, that they arent adults and dont have a clue about how they act can bother an adult, because they have never been adults experiencing the same situations. They just cant know, because they have never been there.

One of my favorite things about this community is that you have less idealism, complaints, whines (though I did here a bit of whining yesterday) and imposition than pretty much any community I've seen so far. (Maybe It's just me being a naive newbie)

I truely believe the less real world knowledge in a community, the more unrealistic views gripeing and complaints about piddly things. I seem to run into less condecending attitudes about my "immaturity" than in communities where there are "mature" kids present.. Trust me, I have plenty of frikin maturity in my life in regards to my job and my home and various other bills, that when I want to cut up and be stupid, I dont need some little brat telling me to act mature.

I also dont like having to worry wether or not I am asking a 13 year old girl if she wants an anal probing.

>>>>Blink<<<< ANAL PROBING....falls into flashback state remembering the alien ship abductions in SL