Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Pointless good sheep

Fluf Fredriksson
Registered User
Join date: 8 Feb 2007
Posts: 248
09-24-2007 00:28
From: Dana Hickman
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.
Well I guess that's the base point then. LL don't actually give two hoots who logs on as long as it's good for traffic figures.

The legal defence against minors seeing restricted content is enabled without actually going the whole way and actually trying to prevent minors from logging on because that would hurt traffic figures.

Sighs ... another blow to any respect I had left for LL.
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
09-24-2007 01:54
From: Chip Midnight
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.
So they should impose a useless hoop for all their customers to jump through even when no one, not even LL, expects that their policy is actually going to change any activity at all?

I've seen you write on approaches libertarian; I think I share them. But when a firm makes a show of public policy that asks and then requires neighbors to narc on neighbors, they have put their PR in front of their interest for legitimate customers.

And only a dumb-show it is. I expect that you know that this changes the legal status of any and all possible activities not one iota. The whole purpose of this asinine policy is so that when the tabloid reporter calls up Robin about the latest midget jello-wrestling story, she can point to "policy" whereas previously she couldn't. Best of all. they can't possibly enforce their new policy in any practical way, so they likely won't even be doing that.

What a waste of time, thought, verbiage, and customer goodwill just so Robin can do some future hand waving to the press. Absurdity beyond the pale.
Sally Silvera
live music maniac
Join date: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2,325
09-24-2007 02:08
A big flaw in all of this IMHO is where people refer to the world's inhabitants as LL's customers. LL never refers to customers, only ever to residents. Just sayin' ;)
Could be handy if they were a bit more clear on the actual details of their new rules from time to time, but the reasoning behind it seems fairly obvious.

Oh and I can't vote because there is no pie :)
Cherry Czervik
Came To Her Senses
Join date: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 3,680
09-24-2007 02:10
Of course people will get banned with funds and assets in game if they won't verify when the requirement has been seen.

Should see how much someone screams when they have £1000 in their account which they can't access in their online casino account here. Doesn't matter how much they shout. Doesn't matter how 'fair' it is. Them's the regs we HAVE to follow.

Frankly, someone signed up and into the ToS to say they are over 18 SHOULD be enough. It isn't, but it SHOULD be.
Grendel Malaprop
Registered User
Join date: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 1
Reality Check
09-27-2007 11:44
Ok, let me get this straight...all this fuss and bother is about kids seeing cartoon avatars simulating sex? Have all the parents, lawyers and Lindens checked out the Real Life porn those kids can access online? Time for a collective headshake.

Talk about woolly thinking. (sorry, had to get a sheep reference in there) ;o)

Gren
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
09-28-2007 11:35
From: Jessica Elytis
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

Just as a complete aside - I've noticed during my entire time on SL remarks expressing anger that parents don't supervise their children and therefore we have to.

I really don't think parents deserve all this anger. The percentage of parents who are lazy and inept is quite low. The vast majority do not shunt the responsibility for raising their children onto society.

Yet, reading these forums over the past couple of years, one would think rotten parents is the reason for all the rules in the world regarding keeping kids out of things.

Most parents duly make efforts to protect their children from what they think they should not encounter. Should they encounter it anyhow, rare is the parent who will haul off and sue the provider of the offensive content.

I don't agree with the lengths to which LL is going to protect minors in SL. I also don't agree with the reason why they are doing it this way:

Which is so that anybody and everybody can access SL with no cost and no identity (beyond a verifiable screen name, which they only put in months after opening the gates, and only after I and others had persistently pointed out it was the least they could do).

They want this, and they see that they can make us take responsibility, rather than them. They even see this as desirable, because they like to view themselves as "the 3-D web," and as such, they think ALL responsibilities should be ours, just as we would have responsibility for our own web page.

That is why we have this mess now. It has nothing to do with "lazy and inept parents."

coco
_____________________
VALENTINE BOUTIQUE
at Coco's Cottages

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Rosieri/85/166/87
1 2