Another sticky wicket for "broadly offensive"

How many percentiles does it take to constitute a "broadly offensive" action, statement or position? I'd say that 20% of the people finding an action offensive would be enough to constitute a "broadly."

But let's assume it takes 51% of the population to constitute "braodly". Well, if 51 percent of the population considers homosexual romance to be offensive - can we start kicking homos out of the game?

I'm just making a point here. People who find homosexuality offensive, I consider them offensive. But is that where we are going long term?

51% of the population (and more) dont even exist.

They left already.

As many as 90% of all those who start SL leave.

"Broadly" doesn't refer to a majority of residents. "Broadly Offensive" basically means "offensive to that ONE Linden who reads the AR that is against you". You might get an very liberal Linden or you might get one who is not. Seriously do you see any attempt in SL to gauge what the majority of residents think?

Nope - Just the Lindens just claim they are going by community pressures.

Based on that video of Daniel talking about policing SL and all that, LL takes "broadly offensive" to mean things like KKK and nazi material or material that otherwise causes harm to another. It's a good notion.

The thing is they have the Bay Area pseudo-hippie idealism kick in whenever they think about rules. "We don't need no rules, man! Do what you feel is right!"

I've said this before and I'll say it again. They are trying to have boundries without actually marking them and expecting a "sense of community" and consience to guide people. The problem is that not everyone's judgement is the same so "too far" to one might be "not that far" to another.

I'm glad that circumstances forced them to take an actual stand on sexual ageplay and rape RP. I think ultimately it will show that taking a definite stand on a subject and not trying to be everyone's friend (which they will never succeed at anyway) then things won't be so likely to turn so messy in the future.

I think that LL should be supported in the avoidance of marking definitive boundaries as far as possible.
One of the worst things that could happen to SL would be to have the lawyers and cartooney lawyers in here picking over some SL constitution and body of law. Lawyers operate in a moral vacuum. Lawyers are the kiss of death to imagination.

I would love a world in which most people were more concerned about their responsibilities than about 'their rights'.
An environment in which people need a list of "don'ts" and penalties in order to be coerced into good behaviour is one in which the best parts of human potential have been discarded.

In the current SL without definitive rules, how many artists have been prevented from creating, and how many businesses have failed, due to the absence of rules?

Why not use our imaginations and skills to try and achieve as far as possible a Three Rule society? That's a far more interesting project than importing the dead hand of RL law-think into SL. If we fail, nobody actually gets killed.

Did I mention that I don't like lawyers?



I don't HATE them of course. I'm not INTOLERANT towards them individually or as a group.
That would be a TOS breach


I just don't want the ********s anywhere near my life if they can be avoided.

You know that more than 99.99% of all people that start life leave?

Most stick around a lil longer than a few weeks though

68% of the time...it works every time!

I love unverifiable statistics...so much prettier and intuitive than facts!

/me just counts down the days before he can look forward to lightened server loads!

you mean the 90% number? That was given at one time by Linden Labs. Its actually Desmond posted it a few weeks ago in a Thread about how Ginko manages to pay its interest.

the 51% percent number is simple logic - there are not 3.5+ million active SL accounts.

I have no clue where your 68% number comes from but I can guess.

"Can we start kicking homos out of the game?" - you ask...

Sorry Giannia, although I respect the right for you to have your own personal opinion, using such derogatory language and inciting prejudice based on sexuality is, to me and I am sure many others, highly offensive.

I personally don't understand hetrosexuality and the thought of hetrosexual sex makes me feel sick, but you don't find me inciting prejudice and using demeaning language towards you. By all means have your own opinions and feel free to express them but please do so in a manner that is respectful. I am no less a human than you are and deserve as much respect to my rights as you do.

Good day.

I find the expression "sticky wicket" broadly offensive....

Regardless of finding "homosexuality" to be broadly offensive Giannia, you post here which uses defamatory language and incites prejudice is contrary to the section "Intolerance" in the Terms of Service.

If you had said this to me in world then I would have no hesitation in filing an abuse report based on that infringement of the Terms of Service and my right to respect for my own sexuality.

Lianna to be fair, I believe Gianna was demonstrating by way of absudity, She doesnt really give the indication she wants homsexuals banned.

She wants to compare the banning of hommosexuals to the banning on Ageplay saying that the "Broadly Offensive" is too vague and can mean they will come after gay people next.

The compariason breaks down of course since Homosexuals are protected by the Intolerance portion of the TOS.

The one portion Dan L wants to keep.

"Broadly Offensive" means:

Topics and/or lifestyles about which the media picks up, picks apart, and does a speculative, uninformed, ratings grabbing, sex-drenched "news story". No hard facts need be involved in these stories.

I'm a homo, so I know these things...

OMG , Pie - YOU are a lesbian?



hehehe

----------------
Pies right of course Broadly offensive isnt defined by the Community - Its defined by the Media.

The more Press Secondlife gets, the more things will be "Broadly Offensive"