Have you been to the Blog lately?

Actually it will make a difference. It will make a difference perhaps in Germans not being categorically blocked from SL (possibly other countries as well). Which in and of itself is a huge potential financial loss to LL. Not to mention last I heard LLs personal favorite land baron poster child lived in Germany. Not to mention the many big corporations and Universities that are in SL now.

When push comes to shove LL is a business and thier bottom line is what its all about. I just wish if they were going to force verification on all of us they had found a better way to do it.

To be fair to the Lindens and their blog post - they have to be careful what they say AND they are still waiting for any information from the German Authorities.

If newsreports ever carry the weight of law - civilization is doomed.

Were the 54 year old and 27 year old breaking the "Linden Notecard" policy? and resulting Robin conversation?

Becuase the entire Ageplay ban is based on those two things. There never was an offical policy beyond that.

Robin suggested that behind closed doors on access restricted private land , as long as it was discrete - ageplayers could still do what they do.

Also - the ban ban ban camp - how would you propose to actually enforce a ban on what people do on access restricted private land, behind closed doors, discretely?

If they were not breaking policy - were they simply banned becuase of bad press? Or were the ones banned becuase of the Child Pornography allegations?

The way the Blog is written they were banned just for the Ageplay.

It was after they were banned the reporter claimed the part about the actual (non virtual) Child Pornography and has not provided either proof - nor have the Authorities responded to LL.

---------------------------
It does seem the latest Blog Post might be changing the Notecard/Robin Convo policy



But in typical Linden Fashion their statement never is complete enough to cover all angles of a subject they are talking about.

-What minors? is the question I get from that quoted statement. Does that mean a change in policy do they mean "Virtual minors" becuase of the context of the previous Blog post text.

Or do they mean legal minors - who shoudlnt be here anyway?

If they meant to include under aged avatars they should of said "lewd acts involving minors or underaged avatars"

I took that as meaning the depiction of real life child porn in SL. I could very well be wrong, this statement is very unclear.

I find it difficult to understand why so many people are reiterating this. The blog mentioned age verification in the last two paragraphs of a long blog post, and specifically stated that age verification would be used to ensure that only adults were on the grid, never even hinting that age verification would have stopped the actual topic of the post.



.

In the context of the Blod Post it could be either -

And considering the Ban they mentioned it definitely could mean Both Virtual and real.

I just wish they would say what they mean more.

I pointed it out in another thread; if both were German, then they could have just been banned because they were using SL to commit a crime in their country of residence. It's at least odd that they disclose age, but not nationality.

I took that to mean ageplay roleplay in any shape or form honestly, because in the end appearance is only one aspect of it. Two adult avies *typing* out a sexual ageplay fantasy are still depicting a sex act that involves a minor, be it a fictional and non-existing one. Focusing only on appearance or on pose balls seems a bit silly to me, what is said or typed has the same impact.

hmm - but by their own admission they had yet to hear from the German Authorities.

I really have no idea of how a company in country A should legally act once it's aware that residents of country B are using its services to commit an illegal act which is alledgedly legal in its own country.

My own guess would be that the company would stop the crime and turn the evidence over to country B, if only because not doing so might hurt its business prospects in country B.

I just know as much as you . It just seemed like one case where everyone would agree that banning was appropriate.

Whether ageplay is legal or not is irrelevant.
Whether ageplay is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Perception is what matters, not facts. With the exception of a few countries where governments look the other way, sexual activity involving children invokes the same horror and outrage that incest does. It is a biological trigger that is built into most normal humans.

If SL becomes known internationally and in the US as a place where pedophiles can come to act out their fantasies, it is dead. It took years for SL to earn acceptance among the mainstream population. If SL becomes tagged - rightly or wrongly - as Pervert Life, then back underground we go and it is goodbye to all the corporate money. It is also goodbye to growth, goodbye to telling your friends and family you are an SL resident and goodbye to any hope of SL ever fulfilling its promise.

Philip's libertarian leanings have been hard to take in some areas, but this is the one area where there can be no compromise. Ageplay must be banned for the good of SL. Age verification will not solve the public relations problem of SL being associated with child sex because the visceral reaction is so strong. LL can crow "but they are verified over 18, it's perfectly legal" all they want and it will NOT change media or public perception.

Amen. Everyone should print this post and mail it to the SL public relations crisis management team.

LL will not be able to do this without help from residents. SL is too big and there are too many of us for them to patrol the world.

While it is a good thing to ban people that commit crimes and don't follow the ToS - the story in the blog has a dark side. Griefers now know they have a tool to go a step further - by getting people banned by false accusations. The latest developments, statements etc. actually calls for protection of those of us that do nothing wrong. I've already sent an inquiry to LL about where to send requests for verification that ones avatar does not brake any rules.

My own avatar does not follow the mainstream in SL (very tall women with breasts so large they nead a trailer to get around), and that alone may give griefers, people unhappy with me and fanatics an excuse to make a false report against me. If I don't get LL's word that my avatar is ok, what is left to prevent a ban on false background?

/me smiles

Call me?

this is of course completely true.

For my own part I had questions becuase people should be banned for policies that are in place rather than policies LL takes after they did them

If they outlaw all SL sex tommorrow I shouldnt be banned for the SL sex I had last week. And I certainly shoudlnt be banned just becuase some news agency writes a story that I had SL sex last week.

It could very well be the 54 year old and 27 year old were breaking RL laws and the Policies that were in SL place at the time (with reguards to the age play) thats why I was asking.

Your point that Linden Labs needs to move to keep SL alive in the face of media scrutiny is of course completely valid.

Figuring which governments LL has to bow to is one issue, and one that is important to figure out, But if SL is going to be at the mercy of every muckraking journalist with an agenda, then things are going to get very slippery.

Well if you plot out the course to the end - one of three things happens -

LL stands its ground, fights it out , survives the media storm, challenges its right to exist in court and wins.

LL makes a lot of concessions but somehow manages to keep its head above water.

Or SL becomes Disney Life.


We might need to shop for drapes in the next virtual place

Your first scenario would be the optimal, but frankly I don't see it happening. Not from a good business/PR standpoint
In your second scenario, we may not need to shop for drapes because we would be engaging in something that would be offensive according to someone's agenda.
Scenario 3 is something I don't even want to consider.

Not true. SL has long had, and continues to have, a reputation for free-wheeling sexual activity. There are only 3 things it cannot survive:

Media exposure of Rape Similations
Media exposure of Child Sex Simulations
Media exposure of minors being able to participate in adult sexual activity.

Age verification only gets them out of hot water with the last one. We are talking about public perception here of things that will provoke universal outrage. Furry sex, Gore, BDSM, D/s - none of these things tip the universal public outrage meter like the 3 mentioned above. Those are the 3 places SL cannot go if it expects to survive out in the general public with mass market acceptance.

When it comes to touchy corporate issues and media scrutiny, most things can be spin-doctored and most storms can be weathered.

However, as Isablan mentioned, when it's this subject matter, all offensive counter-measures or stall tactics fly out the window. In this case, there can be no compromises or half-measures.

LL is about to embark on the task of trying to control the uncontrollable world they created. I expect to see heavy-handed restrictions handed down and new rules and bans that are not fair or make any sense implemented. I would also not be surprised to see the end of unverified accounts. Even then, it will be months before this blows over.

They always have been. You only notice it this time because it's not Fox News

I don't think that there should be a law prohibiting any action between two consenting adults. And I don't think that this scandal is the beginning of thought police on the internet.

As the BBC article reveals, the virtual "ageplay" between consenting adults was also linked to a group trading in actual child pornography which involved actual children.

Even though virtual "ageplay" between consenting adults over the internet may violate German law, if that is all there was too it, it wouldn't be worth the authorities' time an money to pursue it. It also wouldn't make for a very interesting news story, if that's all there was to it.

But that's not all there was to it in this case. In addition to the virtual "ageplay" between consenting adults, there was trading of actual child pornography with actual children as the subjects.

If you want to defend the right to "ageplay," this isn't the case example that you want to pick as the cornerstone of your argument. The people involved in this case deserve what's coming to them, and probably deserve a lot more than they'll actually get.

I don't mind criticizing Linden Labs, but their attempts to respond to this problem don't deserve to be criticized. They have an obligation to prevent child pornography from being traded over their service, and they have no obligation to allow any particular kind of roleplaying on their service. It would be nice if they could perfectly balance the elimination of child pornography and the preservation of customers' ability to roleplay as they choose. However, striking that kind of perfect balance isn't an easy task.

Losing a platform on which to ageplay is really only a minor inconvenience when put in perspective against the sexual exploitation of children. If you don't like Linden Labs' decision on this issue (or any issue, really), nothing prohibits you from running your own virtual world with your own rules.

What makes you think everyone wants SL to be mainstream, full of corporate money and growth so bad the grid chokes up on it?

If bad press like this forces SL back into an entertainment niche then I personally couldn't be happier. I'm on second life to relax, have fun, meet people and not to live the dream of a 3D net which is doomed to fail miserably.

I'll suffer the stigma of being in "Pervert Life" if it means the grid contracts back to the way it was before the open sign-ups. The current mess is a direct result of SL becoming mainstream and LL becoming increasingly less involved, expect more of the same the wider known it gets.

It is, sadly, very often the case that this particular type of link is alluded to but never actually backed up. It's a very common justifier in trumped-up investigations.

It may be they were involved in the child pornography - in which case they deserve banned and prosecuted.

But the Blog only mentions being banned for the ageplay - which was restricted not a banned activity.

The other allegations are mentioned AFTER they banned these two.

If they have to ban all ageplay for adults - okay - I guess they do. I was fine with them driving it underground.

The questions I had was - should someone be banned for not violating policy just becuase of Media srutiny?


-----

Now it may be the blog post was just poorly written, and the order of events isnt what really took place.

From what I read what happened is, in this order.

1. charges are made 2 adults are doing ageplay (where is unspecified)
2. those 2 adults are banned from Second Life
3. some news agency claims they have pictures of RL child porn somehow involved with these 2, but doesnt provide evidence
4. LL contacts the German authorities and gets no response.

LL has no proof the 2 banned were involved in anything except ageplay avatar sex.

Thats why I have questions.