Closed Beta age policy

Many, many heartfelt thanks to Linden for listening to the concerns we had regarding minors on mature sims and around adult activities.

Not only did you listen, but you responded. And you responded very quickly, and effectively at that.

My mind, heart, and conscience are much more at ease, and know that many other residents will feel the same when they read the new announcement.

Thank you again -
Kerstin

I couldn't say my feeling any better than she did.

I will say.....THANK YOU LINDEN'S



-TK

I'm equally thankful to the speed response from the Lindens, although I think it's quite unfortunate that we had to lose Jack Miller over this.
But please note, I garuntee there are still minors in SL, statistically there have to be. My friends and I have said we were 18 online since we were 14. The terms of service put the respoinsibility on us, the users, to ensure that minors are not exposed to mature content, and thet explicitly state that Linden does not garuntee that there are not minors in the game.

Not that this matters, in my opinion, since the chances of legal action against anybody in SL is slim to none, unless there are problems with obscenety, such as child porn. And as far as peoples "morals," I think we should all relax, I was under 18 not to long ago, and I didn't undergo any magical transformation when I "came of age." You aren't doing minors any favors by trying to stop them from accessing stuff they want to access. And I think Jack has clearly shown, to me anyway, that people under 18 can have more maturity that some people over 18.

-Pat Murphy

[/B]

I have to agree with you on this !

I appreciate having a clear and public policy in place about mature sims, but more than that I appreciate having a developer team that is so responsive to the community.

It's great to see the features we request show up in the game, and to have our community concerns addressed in policies.

So yes thank you Lindens for all your hard work!

I just want to say I agree with Pat, you put it very well.

Really from what I see regardless of what they just announced it's not going to stop anyone from entering this game when they are underage. I guess it'll make you all feel better that what you do in-game shouldn't be affecting "minors" because Linden does not approve of it, but the truth is it's still going to go on. (I know many cases myself currently that I won't name for obvious reasons) I'm just above 18 myself and if I found this game a year or even 3 years ago i wouldn't have even given a second thought about lying about my age. Even when registering at websites which did not have a strict age limit, I would still lie just in case.

[/B]

Hate to be a lone voice here, but I have to disagree (no offense to Jack whom I like).

Jack did *not* act in a mature fashion. Why? because he lied about his age to begin with.

Let me repeat that.. He "Lied".

It was for a selfish and self-motivated reason. That reason being he wanted to be on this game. How in the world is that mature?

Yes I lied about my age when I was younger. And you know what - I was an immature lil snot.

That he came forward with his age is all well and good. But that in no way makes up for or wipes clean the slate of his past falsehood.

Opening up others to the possibility of prosecution is a bad thing, not a mature thing. Now as fact would have it, because he lied, no one - Lindens down to lil o' you and I - can be held accountable. But that doesn't make it all right, or make it better.

When the game is opened to minors again (with protections in place), I will welcome Jack and all the others back with open arms and happiness. He is very missed.

But his actions dont make him mature. Yes people can be mature at younger ages. He just isnt an example of one.

First of all, note, I agree with the Linden's decision to finally ban Jack, I just think the events and circumstances that led up to that decision were unfortunate.

-------------

In response to Jaxiam:

The one immature thing Jack did, to my knowledge, was to admit his age, to the Lindens, and the community. Let me explain.

Minors are discriminated against (albeit by law). Adults selfishly take the easy way out by simply picking an arbitrary age and treating anybody over that age like an adult, and anybody under that age as a child. Maturity is not a function of age. The Minors in SL have made a conscious effort to lie in order to access SL. I don't know what the law says, but in my mind that conscious effort indicates they know perfectly well what they are getting into, and thereby they are taking the responsibility (*Like I've said before the applicable laws don't really matter). The immature action Jack took was to advertise the fact that he was under age. Once the person admits that they are underage, we feel, once again, responsible for what that individual sees. Jack’s subsequent efforts to get back in-world created a lot of turmoil in the community. I however bare no ill will towards Jack for causing that turmoil, because it was inevitable and necessary.

As I said before I used to lie about my age, as you did Jaxiam, and I feel I had every right to. I believe the law is wrong, and I am willing to fight it. Everybody told me that as soon as I turned 18 I’d stop caring, well I’m 20 and I still care, and I plan to continue standing up for minors. As you said, the consequence of my actions could wrongly fall on the party who I gained access to material from, but believe me, I’d be in the court testifying on their behalf. You may not think that makes any difference, but I think it does. My actions may have been conceived with my own interests in mind, but they were carried out with consideration for fellow minors, and my personal philosophies.

* So why doesn't the law matter?
For the time being at least, the major laws governing non-Obscene, "adult" material on the internet, COPA and CDA, have been struck down or stopped.
Prior, mostly state, laws that prevent minors from buying your run of the mill porno mag, are enforced nominally, if at all, online. After all, who does the state of Maryland prosecute when a minor in MD access content on a server in CA that was posted by somebody in NY? And lets not even mention international complications.
So for the moment, nobody needs to worry about prosecution for this kind of stuff.

----

One final note:

It has been said that this entire argument is unproductive because we shouldn't want to corrupt SL with the kind of content that leads to a “Sodam and Gamora Life style” (Rivn Epoch, Thread) Well, I think there are very few of us who want to make SL a place that is exclusively for the kind of adult content that I assume Rivn is referring to. But I think the general consensus is that SL is supposed to be for everybody. And I know we don’t have true freedom of expression, since Linden is god, but I think most of us want to have expression be as free as possible.

Actually, you -can- be sued. There are laws against exposing a minor to mature content in most states, and it's not as unlikely as you may think. The state won't press charges most likely. But if a minor's parents were truly upset by it, they could. (I've helped run a MUD where we had quite a few problems with this, including lawsuits. I was lucky enough just to be a coding grunt.)

I'll miss Jack, but there's a reason I built my house in a mature outland's zone. I don't want to end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit because some parents don't moniter what their children do online.

Once there are age controls on the game, I really hope Jack comes back. As it is, I'd rather not have his company than have a lawsuit over doing something perverted when a known minor walks around the Mature zone.

Actually there is good merit for setting Adult/non-adult age standards.

It's said it discriminates against the minors. Hmm maybe, but it also protects them.

Age standards dont just apply towards gambling/drinking/smoking/sexual material/and voting. Age standards also apply towards such things as Employment/credit/and prosecution to name a few.

They are all geared towards letting a child (young adult) gain the information and tools *before* they are held totally responsible for the decisions that they make.

Take employment as a perfect example. My grandmother worked 50 hours a week, for almost nothing from the time she was 9. Why? because the family needed the income and there were *no* laws governing the employment of minors back then. She admitted to me that it took her *years and years* as an adult just to make up the education that she missed out on. It was available - but it was also determined that her work was more important than any education.

So part of the age standards is saying that young adults cannot have jobs that would interfere with their education till the age of 18 (state to state it varies from limited hours to limited times the minor can work). Is this a good thing? of course it is. Granted in this day and age of the necessity of college, opening it up at 18 isnt as wonderful as it was - but when the laws were put in place most people didnt go to college. That was the oppourtunity of the better of minority vs the general populace. So it worked.

As for credit. It gives the young adult a chance to make mistakes while still under the umbrella of their parents. Yes the parents might suffer - but it's *their* responsibility to monitor and help to instill the right habits in their children. I have had many friends turn 18 and gain gold cards, car loans (and one at 19) a loan for a new house. Why? because their parents helped them learn what they needed to, helped set them up so that the started earning the ratings they would need. Now most parents dont do this , mine didnt, but the option is there. Protection and advancement - all while still young enough that if it goes wrong a minor wont suffer for years to come.

Same with prosecution. It takes a heavy crime for a child to be tried as an adult. That goes back to the older thinking of letting young adults "sow their wild oats". We know that they will want to explore, will get into trouble. The idea was not to put them in the same jepordy as an adult, for something that they might have not thought all the way through. Yes - the same could be said of adults in the same situation, but it all ties back into the "protect and give the young adult a chance to learn the tools they need" concept. Now the prosecution issue has come under alot of fire in the past couple of decades, it's not perfect, and is getting hammered. But it's intentions were well ment.

If you just take those 3 concepts as good things - then you can see how it can foster a idea set. The idea set being that young adults are to be sheltered to learn. It is natural that the same mind/idea set would be applied to other areas. Namely drinking/sex/gambling/smoking/etc..

Why? Simple. This country has fought (through religions and moral ideals) to limit access to gambling and sexual activities since the 1800's. Civilized people just "dont" do those things. It's not seemly. As for driniking - hell, we outlawed that less that 100 years ago!! It was repealed, yes. But the damage was done.

All of those actions have had negative associations. We, as a society (not individuals), want to see them checked, controlled, or in some cases outlawed. But it's hard to put those checks in - because there is always just enough outcry to stop it. Not enough to keep it from happening. So what do we do? we say "well if you are gonna be doing these things, By Goodness, Y'all better be mature enough to handle the consequences".

And so minors are restricted from doing so. Because if they need protection in other adult areas, then they are not "ready" to accept these "sinful vices". And why 18? simple - because that was the age that has been set for a long long time dealing with inheirtance of family estates. If that's when a child can claim lands and properities, then that is a good age to set for the rest. Why 21 for others? because gambling and drinking are (in this country) seen as more dangerous than sex and smoking and lol a host of other things. So the thought goes- give the "new" adults a couple of years to accept the rest before this is dumped on them.

All in all I agree with the intentions if not always with the results. There are minors who are very very mature - but in all things, they are more the minority then the majority. Some of that is because we are raised not to be as responsible (as my grandmother was quite a bit more responsible than either my mother or myself). But other parts of that is based just on that age. With so many changes going on in the young adults mind and body, give them awhile to adjust to that before they are forced to adjust to more.

And that's the key. Minors *want* more - but realize that if there were no limits, they would be *getting* alot more than they want.


*note that all the views listed and not necessairly the views of the management - thank you*

Jaxaim has some very good points there.


As you get older(agh, I can't believe I'm typing this) the minor thing makes a lot more sense. It seems unfair and stupid when you're younger but as you get older(OMG I'm typing it again) You gain a better understanding of why it is the way it is.


I really hated hearing this speach when I was a kid.

lol me too Max, me too.

Well, now we've heard both sides of the argument, the laws both "Protect" and "Discriminate" against minors. It's a balance between good and harm, I think the laws as they are now do more harm, and should be changed, but I appreciate and understand your side.

I guess the fact that I started working at 15, spent 3 years being taxed without the right to vote, and now that I'm 20, I could be drafted (as if we're going to have a draft ), but I can't drink, has predisposed me to disagree with the law. I guess I moved faster that some children, but that's my point, not everybody is ready for the same rights and responsibilities at the same age.

A side note; And this applies to more than just laws "protecting" minors, in education, and social interaction as well: I believe that people tend to rise to the level of expectations, so by expecting very little of children, we stiffle their growth.

-------

Lastly, to reiterate the purpose of my original post: There are still minors in SL, so if you have concerns about what material you provide to minors, don't let the Linden's reply, or Jack's removal, trick you into forgetting your concerns.

-Pat Murphy

I am well aware of this. The controversy never was solely about Jack. I have dealt with other underage players in the past, and that I expect I will in the future. My preference is to quietly ask them not to come to the club. A request I conveyed to Jack, and he chose to ignore.

The policy made public by the Lindens does not wave a magic wand and instantly eliminate minors from SL. I was never requesting total solutions or 100% certainty. But it makes it clear what is expected. Where the line is. And who is on the wrong side of it. It supports my attempts to restrict access to adult audiences, rather than undermine it.

Going forward, I will assume players are 18 until I see such behaviors that lead me to believe they are not. At which point I will ask them to leave and not return to my club.

BTW, this is a difficult conversation to have with anyone. My assumption going in is that the player will deny it, whine about it and attempt in every way to convince me I'm crazy. I don't wanna be the heavy, the cops, or the narc, but if I feel uncomfortable around someone, then I'm not having any fun. So when I have a conversation like this, it will go a lot easier if there is a policy to refer to, and every reason to believe that the Lindens are enforcing the policy. If players see exceptions to rules and un-enforced policies, then the reasonably can expect exceptions made for them as well.

I have only wished for reasonable controls from the start. There are always going to be people among any population that will break the rules. All we can do is be aware and take appropriate actions.

I wasn't going to say anything about this because I'm not totally sure about the dates, but I firmly believe it has a bearing.

A few years ago, the wise people of the United States agreed with you Pat, "well golly gee, if our children can fight and die for their country at 18, why do we make them wait until they are 21 to drink and vote?" So our leaders changed the voting age and drinking age to 18.

Why can't an 18 year old still drink? Because these same wise people, who voted for the lowered drinking age, started seeing more below 21 drunk driving arrests and more and more young people being scraped off the pavement because they were not mature enough to handle the "right to drink".

Granted, people in their 50's and 60's are drinking and driving. However, the percentage of persons under 21 was a LOT higher than the percentage of all people over 21. To me this says the under 21 individual doesn't have the life experiences required to be allowed to do certain things. This scenario only relates to drinking, but it can apply to many other things as well, be it smoking, mature subject matter, whatever.

Did I like the laws BEFORE I was 21? NO. But I do know, the very first time I did drink, I'm glad I wasn't driving.

Drink age aside, I still have a problem with the restrictions on people under 18, even though I'm over 18.

And as far as your points on the drinking age go, it all comes back to the misconception that there is a specific age where people become able to handle a responsibility. Currently our system relies on history, and statistics to decide who drinks and who doesn't. I think there is a better way to do things. It would take me a book and a lot of discussion to describe a working system, so I won't attempt to here.

-Pat Murphy

Pat, you forget that minors are protected by the law, but have no rights under it. That is a sucky fact, but a fact nonetheless. The only reason I think things are this way is because the spirit of the law expects us not to abuse this fact.
I don't discriminate against minors or any of that, but I do discriminate against people who are jerks. I think we are all like that, right?

Someone probably already said this but here's what I think on the matter...

I know at least 3 people in-game who I'm pretty damn sure are not 18 or older. I believe these are the people who should be kept from playing the game, as they are (most likely) minors. I can admit I act like a kid every once in a while (what can I say, I still feel like I'm 14!) but after a while of talking to someone you can pretty much sense their maturity.

Saying that Jack was too immature for us just because he lied about his age... I dunno, that seems like too easy of an excuse to use...

whatever...

The lie isn't the only reason. It is the simplest reason. If people were to point out his other behaviors, it might seem like an anti-Jack crusade, which isn't what it should be. I agree with you Dave, there are some other minors here. I don't worry about the maturity level of a person, I am more concerned about whether or not the person is a jerk. Besides, while I can be tried as an adult, I don't always act like one. (Yeah, I know that I am a jerk, but love me for who I am, OK?)

Dave I wasnt trying to say that Jack's lying was reason to exlude him.

All I was saying was that his lying about his age was not a mature thing to do - and that his actions *were not* representative of how minors can be just as mature (if not moreso) then some adults.

Now - the fact is, lol many adults are very immature - we all know this. But to say that a minor is as mature as an unmature adult (ie one who lies and opens the community to harm) doesnt make that minor mature - it just means the adult is acting poorly.

You silly. You're not a jerk and we wuvs u just the way u r

Kerstin