Avatar conduct and land owner rights

This came up at my work the other day. For the record, it's a large mall focused on clothes furniture, etc. for kid avatars.

An adult avatar, who belongs in some "escort" groups, was at the mall, shopping (for what, she did not say: when me an the store owner came upon her, she was Away). She was wearing a very skimpy outfit - g-string and a bra just above pasties. The land owner asked her to please put on something less revealing, and was rebuffed because the store happens to be located within a mature-rated sim.

Does the landowner have the right to determine what is or is not appropriate in their locale, as far as conduct/attire/etc is concerned, or must it adhere to the regions overall setting? Can we say what we want (and take appropriate action (eject/ban) if necessary to enforce same?

Mari

The land owner can do anything they want within the TOS, that is no pushing, caging, etc. There are no rules for free entrance, discrimination, or anything like that.

You might loose a customer though of course.

Taking a look at Gorean sims, yes. It's not very different from requesting (and generally enforcing) some sort of formal wear in restaurant or similar place when you think of it.

Yes. The mature and PG ratings are there to allow people some idea of what to expect - if you go to a PG sim, you can be pretty sure you're safe from boobies because the sim doesn't allow it. Mature sims do - but it's then within the individual land owners' rights to specify whether *their* land allows boobies - the sim rating just means that if they want to, they can.

I live in a mature sim because if I want to run around nekkid and swearing on my land, I'd like to be able to (I generally don't, but you get the picture... ). That doesn't mean I haven't booted people for waving their prim wangs in my face. If I don't consider it appropriate, I have the right to ask someone to stop doing what they're doing, and remove them if they don't. It's my land and *I* decide who gets to do the nekkid sweary dance

I find that parts of the grid have more of a 'rule of culture' than a 'rule of law'.

A sort of natural order of things.

If you are in a shop selling naughty bits, under a neon sign blinking "Casino" and "Girls" well then... there is a certain set of expectations.

On the other hand, if you are in an expensive boutique in a themed sim, there's another.


It's rare, but occasionally there is someone intentionally causing a fashion ruckus in Caledon, and I never have to do anything about it.

They simply get embarrassed and leave, or people simply treat them like incorrigible children and steadily ignore them.

No culture police required!

If the land owner identifies him/herself as such and finds either behaviour or dress making them or anyone else uncomfortable, he or she has every right to boot them.

Think of it this way: take their line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion. Would it be okay for a couple naked people to start having sex in the middle of your store? Of course not. Don't be mean about it (ie. ask them politely first, which is what you did,) but you most certainly can enforce appropriate behavior within your land. As for worrying about losing the customer, it's better to lose one problematic customer than to ruin the shopping experience for everyone else.

How ironic, that age players who have complained of intolerance in SL, would be intolerant of skimpy dress. I find this very amusing.

If it's ageplayer-oriented environment then the alternative is having half-or-more-naked adult-looking AVs in the midst of what appears to be kids. Like *that* is going to make them look much better? o.O;

What you said.

Its the difference between avatar (kid vs. adult: apply whatever other class you wish to to this: vampire, gorean, furry, etc.) and action (inappropriate behavior).

Mari

Now *that* is how I'd prefer such. My concern was more of who has the right to do what -- the "was the store owner correct, or was the shopper in the right?" issue. Me, I'm more likely to jes start making weisenheimer comments about their outfits or whatever.

Mari

I am curious do all those who like having kid avatars automatically consider perverts if they are on mature lots in Second Life?

I'd go further than that. If a land owner just feels like booting someone because he or she doesn't like their face, they can. It's your land, you can do pretty much as you wish within the TOS.

*cough*

Could we keep on topic and not get into a disguised morals dispute? Trolling in this forum can result in being banned from this forum.

Land owners have a certain amount of cart blanch to set the rules on their property. They can't break any of the rules but they set rules that bend them a bit.

So... land owners trump sim ratings to a certain point?

Mari

Having a "child Avatar" is not automaticly the same thing as doing sexualy-related age play. There are a LOT of people who have a child avatar for perfectly innocent G-rated roleplay. For example, I have one that is the "daughter" of my SL Partner and I. Funny thing, with all the sex in SL, occasionally that results in someone having a child as a result of all that mating. My child avatar, Reisuki, does not hang out in x-rated areas, is a virgin, and is quite certain to remain a virgin until after I roleplay her "growing up" to a mature age, and cease playing her 'as a child'. But until then, my SL family can still enjoy G-rated roleplaying of innocent family activities, like sharing meals together, going swimming, etc...

A sim owner or property owner can ban or eject someone for any reason, or for no reason at all. It's one of the perks of owning property. Just as in Real Life, you have the right to deny access to the interior of your home, or your property, or your place of business, for anyone who is not an invited guest, or who you choose not to serve. It isn't "discrimination". It's property rights that you pay for when you buy land.

The Goreans buy land to do roleplay for their fictional scenario. In their "world", Furries don't exist. So it is perfectly reasonable for them to disallow access to people in a furry avatar.

Likewise, if someone is trying to accurately recreate a village from feudal-era Japan, it is perfectly reasonable for them to exclude access for anyone who is not in a Human, Japanese-looking avatar, dressed suitably for the time period that they are trying to recreate. It's what they are paying to create, and anyone not in the group that owns the land does not have some God given right to traipse in and do whatever they please.

Now certainly a business owner that kicks someone out for a frivolous reason is likely to lose business. But that is their choice. In the case of someone running a child-oriented business, I certainly wouldn't want an adult dressed for x-rated play hanging around my shop! Imagine if someone showed up at a Real Life Toys-R-Us, dressed like a hooker? Do you think they would be escorted to the exit by store security? Of course they would! It's no different in SL.

*Great* post. This answered my question quite well. I particularly liked the last couple sentences here. Especially when one considered that the local Toys R Us (good comparison to where I work in-world) could be in the same strip mall (which would be very roughly abnalgous to a sim) as, oh, Victoria's Secret. Hence, one could argue that the area is mature rated, even though the shop/store itrself is not as such.

Thankoo Ceera. Love to meet Reisuki some day.

Mari

To a certain point, yes. Mandating PG behavior in a given area of a Mature sim (provided you have land rights, naturally) is perfectly all right. The opposite would be problematic.

Right: it can go down, but not up.

Mari

Well, there's one "sort-of" area where it can go up: as far as I know, you can declare your own land as a Damage Enabled combat area (and thus make it within TOS to attack people) any time you want to.

Even that is limited, you can't orbit people regardless. Forcing people to relog is also against the TOS and no amount of warning or agreement makes it permissible. That said if it was done at the bequest of the user LL is very unlikely to step in.

As a civil rights lawyer and board member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I feel compelled to argue -- at least for the sake of discussion -- against the common consensus, which appears to be that, landowners have an absolute, unqualified, right to do whatever they want on their property. In a nutshell, granting such broad powers to property provides no incentive for property owners to behave in a respectful and courteous manner. So often we hear something like, "well yeah, the owner maybe should not have acted precisely the way he did, but, he's or she has the complete right to kick someone of their property." The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is disruptive to the overall well-being of the community. People ejected by property owners who are not as courteous or respectful to others as they might be if they were required to at least provide some basic level of dignity, only too often return to the scene of the ejectment .. either with innocent motives to find out why they were ejected or to gather their bearings (its a disorientating experience if you haven't been ejected), or to seek some revenge or retribution. Violence begets more violence. Someone who has been ejected without first being asked to leave or stop their offensive conduct, or someone who TP's into a place they have been invited (i.e. events) only to be ejected without notice because they are not wearing the right tag, might believe that that kind of conduct is appropriate. It prevents us from being able to truly explore ourselves and our expression unjustifyably harsh measures would be taken against us, and/or, from expanding our awareness of other cultures and belief systems, making us more socially closed and hegemonic.

Tolerance and respect for others should be at the forefront of any issue. You shouldn't say a landowner can do whatever they want. The focus should be upon specific facts in a case by case basis without drawing inflexible, hardline, rules. In this case, it would appropriate for the topless gal to be ejected if she refused to wear a top or leave after being told that she would be ejected if she didn't change or leave. What if the gal had been at a beach where topless bathing is permitted (similar to the customs of many modern countries and cultures) and simply followed a friends TP? Unless there were signs or notecards prominently posted prohibiting toplessness, and a 'reasonable person' would have seen such signs, it would not be appropriate for the owner to simply eject her.

Little Gray
SL Avatar Civil Liberties Union

When a person owns land, they have the absolute right to allow or eject anyone they wish, at any time, for any or no reason. You have no automatic right of access to anywhere in Second Life.

If I decided that I didn't want anyone with blonde hair on any land I owned, that is my right. Period.

It's unfortunate that a lot of people think that someone else is intolerant because they don't want something on their land - without thinking for one moment that they are being intolerant of the other person's views. When it comes to owner v visitor, owner wins every time, no question. The only exceptions are some security orbs and suchlike which actually operate in violation of the community standards, when it is up to Linden Lab to make a decision on the issue.

I wouldn't personally be particularly bothered if someone decided that they didn't want me at their property - I'd just consider them idiots and spend my time and money elsewhere. It's not like we don't have a multiple choice of pretty much everything that exists in Second Life.

Broccoli

Someone role playing with a child av is NOT a child. Let's assume that Teen v Main is working (I realise that's a moot point, but a separate one).

However, the Estate owner has the right to restrict ANYONE from entering their space, which they are paying for, short of using griefer methods (which is again a separate thing). Oh yeah, that DOES include the way some security orbs are set up (which is against how the creator ASKS and recommends that they are set up so it's not their fault).

The day people don't assume they have the right to be anywhere they want, then perhaps there will actually be some privacy. Me, when I owned land, it was access only and even then the sim was griefed to bits.

Cherry-the-still-no-SL-access

Second life is neither real land, nor a real place. It's an abstract representation of computer data, all of which is privately owned. We have every right, as owners of that data, to decide precisely who may access and use it.

Your rules do not apply here.