Pointless good sheep

Baa.
Am playing good sheep in today's post.
Good sheep doesn't question the right or wrong of ID verification.
Good sheep just registers.
Baa!
Just after a nice shearing and a quick dip.. I do my ID verify.
I skip happily to my mainland pad and set the ID only flag.
My sheep porn can stay on the walls, the green wellies and pose balls are proudly displayed.
Happy Baa!
Mrs Sheep comes round and we sheepishly get it on.
Baa Woot!

Sadly underage non verified Black Lamb is in the sim next door.
Black Lamb has seen Torley's guide and is checking out ID only areas with a roving camera. (As underage Black Sheep will do).
Oh noes!
Black Lamb sees me and Mrs Sheep at it!
Black Lamb is scarred for life!
Black Lamb squeals and tells Mum!
Mum tells newspaper!
Baaa oops!
Mr & Mrs Sheep are in big sheep dip now!

The moral of this story is... Good sheep being good sheep protects no-one.
ID verification is pointless unless Mr and Mrs Sheep and Black Lamb all had to verify before they could even log on.

It's all about LL trying to avoid getting fleeced - and trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

They should get a lambbaaaaasting!

I'm gonna tell my daaaaaady on you!!!

~Jessy










P.S. I agree. LL can smokescreen the press all they like, but this system is worthless once you look down at the brass tacks of how it works (or doesn't as the case may be).

The shear effrontery of them. Spinning yarns like ewe wouldn't believe.
They really get on my goat.

Mr. and Mrs. Sheep are smart and have raised the fences around their corral. Mr. Sheep has learned it's called "reasonable expectation of privacy"... something the linden herdsman has told him. Underage non verified Black Lamb is in the wrong flock. He has strayed far from the safety of the teen flock, as that is his true place. The evil TOS butcher has seen this "disclosure and harrassment" of Mr. and Mrs. Sheep, and wants to make mutton out of underage non verified Black Lamb for not hoofing it back to his own flock. The smart linden herdsman tells the newspaper that the 18th corral DID indeed have gates, and that they were closed. Underage non verified Black Lamb must have bypassed the fence in an unjust manner to wrongfully mingle with the older white sheep. The Black Lamb displayed the ID ear tag of a different older sheep to get in, and thus will be sheared and sent to the TOS butcher. The newspaper hears of this illegal gate crossing soon after and tells Mum "baaaaaaad black lamb rearing, now off you go for your public shearing".

Moral: A wool covered ass is still a covered ass, even if it has fleas.

Mr and Mrs Sheep should have a reasonable expectation that all the other sheep were 18+ to begin with.
Mummies, daddies, newspapers and lawyers who don't accept that baaaaaaad lamb rearing is to blame won't accept that the new ear-tags are any more a defence than was the sign-up question. It's trivially easy for a lamb to get a sheep ear-tag.

If the ass was not covered by one thin layer of wool, will it really be covered by another equally thin layer?

Oh look! There's an ostrich in the sheep pen!
Oh no, can't see it maybe. It can't see me.
Well if you do see it, then AR it. It's got its head up its ass, and that broadly offensive.

Well that's a baaaad argument ewe've come up with!
If Black Lamb could log on without verifying age in the first place then the woolly little fella didn't actually find any barrier to seeing Mr & Mrs Sheep Shaggin' Black Lamb was after all standing in an unrestricted PG area when the carnal act of pixel sheep lovin' was witnessed.
Let me ram home that the newspaper won't give a ____ about some good sheep registering. They'll still find poor little Black Lamb wandered in to a sheep porn zone.
If on the other hand you really DO have to be over 18 to login. And that's where Black Lamb cheated. Then why do we need ID?

Moral: Sheepishly introducing half a solution doesn't pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

Linden : "We've had a report that you have some sexually themed items on your land.
Sheep : "Yep"
Linden : "We're going to have to ask you to remove them."
Sheep : "But why? I'm over 18. That kind of stuff has been in SL for ages."
Linden : "You haven't verified your ID so we can't tell if you are 18."
Sheep : "Of course I'm 18, you have to be to register and ID verification is voluntary."
Linden : "Well we are going to set your land to ID verified only until the items are removed."
Sheep : "But then I can't access my land!"
Linden : "Sorry you'll just have to verify."
Sheep : "Are you saying I'm not over 18?"
Linden : "I wouldn't know."
Sheep : "Then shouldn't you ban me from SL?"
Linden : "No. ID verification is voluntary."
Sheep : "So you do believe I'm over 18?"
Linden : "I wouldn't know."
Sheep : "So I can choose not to verify but not have access to my own land?"
Linden : "Yes."
Sheep : "Hmmm. What if I verify then don't flag my land so my friends can come round?"
Linden : "You'll have to flag the land if you have sexual material on it. Someone else might see it or use it."
Sheep : "Why? I'm over 18 and everyone has to be over 18 to register. And verification is voluntary!"
Linden : "Look just verify will you."
Sheep : "But my friends haven't and they don't want to either! They won't be able to come round any more!"
Linden : "Sorry I'm just flagging your parcel as ID only now."
Sheep : "Hmmm. Ok. I can still use about land to unflag it though right?"
Linden : "You shouldn't do that if it has sexual material on it."
Sheep : "But ID verification is voluntary! Right?"
Linden : "Ok I'm moving on to another case now."
Sheep : "Ok, thanks for helping!"
Sheep waits a bit then unflags the land.

A week later ...

Linden : "I've had a report you still have sexual material on unflagged land. If you don't sort it out, we're going to have to ban you from SL."
Sheep : "Ooops, sorry I thought everyone had to be 18 to register for SL."
Linden : "Yes they do."
Sheep : "Well can I ask if the person reporting me is over 18?"
Linden : "Just checking..."
Linden : "Yes they have ID verification"
Sheep : "So why are they reporting my pose balls?"
Linden : "I wouldn't know."
Sheep : "Seems rather childish to me. Maybe they cheated on the ID verification."
Linden : "Can you please remove the items if you won't verify or flag your land."
Sheep : "Which items?"
Linden : "Refer to the blog post http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/09/18/identity-verification-and-flagging-parcels-for-restricted-content/"
Sheep : "I already did. I don't think my pose balls count as explicit sex or excessive violence."
Linden : "Hold on..."
Linden : "The specific complaint is about an object at <X,Y,Z>"
Sheep : "Looking ..."
Sheep : "Oh! I didn't know my bed could do that!"
Linden : "Well just remove it and we're done here. Thanks."
Sheep : "Hang on.. I'm not convinced this pose is explicit enough. Can we get the ESRB to come over and check?"
Linden : "Would you mind your mum viewing it?"
Sheep : "I think she'd crack up laughing."
Linden : "Well do you think children under 18 should see it?"
Sheep : "But SL is an over 18 only environment. And honestly, I think they see worse before 9pm on TV shows."
Linden : "Ok I'll go check the list of acceptable items. What's the specific pose called?"
Sheep : "Erm ... Pleasure Him"
Linden : "Ok I'll go check ..."
Sheep : "What about the other 65 poses?"
...
x 10,000 bad sheep .... Yeah .. this is going to work

Word to the wise: never "play" a sheep while Schwanson still haunts these forums

Oh that was a sheep shot!

*dies from bad pun overdose*

Maybe some people just weight the pros and cons and come to a different conclusion than you. Personally, since I know all my personal information is already available for sale by every information broker on the planet, I'm not losing any sleep over age verification in SL. I really don't even care about the kind of content that needs to be restricted in SL. It's not my cuppa. But I would like to see SL remain a place where free expression is allowed. If LL feels they need to do this to limit their liability while still allowing people to get their SL freak on, I'm willing to support it.

/me Shrugs.
I'm not that bothered either except for the fact it adds yet another tweak to the software and databases. We all know how gloriously stable SL is even on a month when all they try and do is bug fix. (That did happen once right?).

And like I said if they made ID verification a requirement for logging on then I could understand it. Hell I'd probably even support it!

I'll happily poke LL with pointy sticks though when they seem determined to impose another set of software and database changes to implement something as badly thought out as this.

Then factor in the amount of time they will have to deal with people reporting on their neighbours for having a potentially sexy piece of furniture. From other reports there doesn't seem to be enough support staff to deal with griefers already. Now we have them trying to police a fundamentally pointless ID and parcel restriction system as well!

Next notch up the money this has cost. I'm fairly sure Aristotle don't do this for free. So that's cash diverted from paying bug fixers / support staff / upgrading hardware.

And last thing... From your post it seems you're not going to do ID verification because all that adult stuff isn't why you're there? (I could be wrong).

/me offers to give Alyx mouth to mouth resucitation

Haha, Sling!

You guys are hilarious!

coco

I am not a sheep.

But I am bad sometimes.

But if, hypothetically, I was a sheep, I'd certainly stay away from farmer Brown.

And, btw... There was no pie on that poll.

I don't think it's badly thought out. I think you're just looking at it the wrong way. From LL's standpoint it doesn't matter a bit if it's actually effective at preventing minors from seeing things they shouldn't. All that matters is that they're able to shift the liability from that away from them and onto us. If law enforcement or government bodies want to come down on someone because a minor saw something that breaks the law then LL can point out that it's your responsibility to use the tools available to you to prevent it. Further, if the system is deemed useless at preventing minors from seeing something that breaks the law, LL can point at Aristotle and say that they're the ones who are responsible for how well the system works. I think it's extremely well thought out. It's about avoiding legal liability. Nothing more.

Sorry to chop your post, Chip, but I wanted to point this part out.

Shouldn't the people law enforcement and goverment bodies be going after be the PARENTS of the minors? After all, PARENTS are supposed to supervise their children and the PARENTS are the ones supplying the PC through which the children are accessing SL afterall.

I detest how inept and lazy parents shunt off the responibility for raising their kids on the rest of society. It's pathetic actually.

Yeah, I know, LL doing this to save their butts in court. I agree with that. I'm just saying that it's the court's, and society's, fault that LL has to do such idiotic things in the first place.

~Jessy

"It's about avoiding legal liability. Nothing more."
Absolutely, or more precisely, it's about reducing legal liability. It's just business.
LL have reintroduced gambling into SL. This time around, it's Integrity that are doing the gambling rather than residents. Integrity are gambling that any legal costs will be exceeded by revenue.


IDV is going to happen.
I'll verify, but only when not being verified becomes a real pain, and SL remains the only game in town.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's the hypocrisy and the muppetry that I object to.

It's not certain that the LL version of the Integrity data collection screen will contain mandatory fields for anything sensitive that Integrity don't already have. I do think that much of the concern about Data Privacy in this is mostly hysteria - again caused by LL's usual behaviour in communicating really badly.


I feel dirtied by this.
The thing is presented as being about protecting minors. It actually does the opposite. By putting up a show that the matter is 'resolved', it unrealistically reduces proper concern.
By sheepishly verifying, people will be unwittingly reinforcing the lie.
On the other hand, nobody will notice those who leave SL rather than verify. Leaving is an empty gesture.

I'll probably end up verifying, but I'll never pass on an opportunity to ridicule the IDV thing and the muppets who made it.
IDV as it stands needs to be destroyed as a plausible legal defence.



SL is extremely immersive. In the potent area of sexuality, it's a very dangerous place for immature impressionable minds.
3D interaction with the avatars of other real people, in a world where everyone is stunning and the wildest activities imaginable are possible deserves more protection than the usual Net 'porn'.
I'd be more than happy to go the extra mile, to go to great lengths, to put some genuine barriers between minors and 'sex without mature love'.
This *should* be the responsibility of parents/guardians. If a child is damaged by exposure to Net content, the parents/guardians should be the first and main port of call in any blame game.

However, the blame game is irrelevant if a child has genuinely been damaged. It's too late. The damage has been done. No amount of money will fix it.

We all know that big business commonly involves lies and low integrity.
This verification lie is particularly revolting though.
I really love SL, and this lie has made it dirty.

Heh nice post Sling!
I share many of it's sentiments. But my thinking is. If ID can help prevent minors getting on to SL then make it mandatory to log on.

No parcel problems. No database changes that effect the grid. No new viewer required. Minors protected. Everyone happy. Well most people.

It's the half ass approach that gets my thumbs down. It shifts the risk to us who verify but doesn't remove the risk of minors logging in.

Truth is, nothing will stop a minor that truly wants to get to SL. If my kids really wanted to know, they could find out my SSN, my drivers license number, my passport number, and a variety of other things (the info is in my house after all). But, by requiring the verification, SL can argue that they did all they could to prevent it. Like most CYA stuff, it is the rest of us that must suffer thru their idiot ideas.

Well, true, but I think given a choice between having to deal with IDV or having LL outright ban a lot of things, I'd choose the former. I don't see it in quite the same sinister light that others seem to. I see it as LL picking the lesser of two evils in an effort to allow us as much freedom as possible while at the same time protecting their long term interests.

And I absolutely agree with those who've said that protecting minors should be the responsiblity of parents. I don't have kids and don't plan on ever having them, so I greatly resent being deputized against my will and tasked with protecting the offspring of others. But a lone set of bad parents is much harder for a politician to turn into an evil "them" and score cheap points by making a show of going after the evil "them." We live in a scapegoat world and I don't blame LL for not wanting to be the scapegoat for things their customers get up to.

I can't vote. As you see under my forum picture. I am not an Electronic Ruminant.
Electronic Ruminant = Electric Sheep.
ELC, Electric Sheep Company. Shepherds of Electric Sheep.
Repeat after me. "I am not an Electronic Ruminant."
I follow no other.

However, I have to follow the rules of SL Law...

What happens when little lamb puts on a wooly jumper and suduces a ram?
From what i can see the ram would be served up with mint sauce.

Now if sl had 100% age verification and little lamb had used mummy ewe's ear tag, would the ram still be turned into chops?



anyway it was prob a lamb who built and scripted the "Ramrod 2000 turbo."

This is what i was getting at. Also LL has stated it breaks rules to cam into someones elses business when the privacy is reasonably expected. If little Johnny hadn't broken the TOS by camming into private/restricted/mature areas, he wouldn't have seen any humpy rumpy. Doesn't matter if the tools are available to do it, LL can hide behind the "he broke the rules" first excuse. It really IS only about LL diverting liability as to protect themselves.