Ageplay.. whats allowed and whats not?

I think that, if you're saying that someone has to either roleplay with you on your terms, or not talk to you at all, then you are "imposing roleplay" on them.

Of course this does not mean that they are forced to roleplay. It does mean, however, that they may decide not to like you - or to allow you to be around them - for the reason that they don't like being imposed upon that way.

I mean, since we're talking about child avatars here, just suppose that there was a girl in school who refused to talk to anyone unless they called her "princess". I don't think she'd be very popular, and the people who did talk to her under those terms might not be happy about it (since the reality is that not everyone can just walk away from every social situation they don't like)

If I ask a reasonable question to a child avatar - something that the real life person would certainly know, and that isn't to do with any fictional situation in SL - and they respond with something like "what's that?", or that they have to ask their mummy or something similar, then they're imposing roleplay, and while it's not always bad it can be a bit of a nuisance at inappropriate moments and it's a bit disrespectful of the other person.

You just made a good argument against some of those laws, I think. Of course, photoshopped images of kids (I am assuming you are talking real kids) remain real kids, and making pointed ears on the original image doesn't change it.

But this leads to a conundrum. Is this child pornography?

http://www.ericandleandra.com/photos/asheville/day3/images/cherub.jpg

(Possibly NSFW classical-style art image)

This is the problem with these laws, IMO. If an avatar is 45'3" (for example) and has sex, does that apply? Even if the avatar is, oh, a bearded male dwarf? How about a 5'2" female avatar with obvious secondaryu sexual charactistics?



Let's look at the law-as-given-by-the-Lindens: LLs policy requires actual sexual situations, e.g. sex between two avatars, in which one or both are presented as child avatars. Everythign else is considered acceptable and non ARable except actual sexual contact. As such, it would seem that such "griefing" is not possible, and would lead not to action against the viewing party, but against the "griefers" themselves.

Does German law differ on this? Yes, most likely. Are there gray areas? Yes, big enough to sail the QMII through) - but it is what it is.

Mari

*** AR`d them on the spot after telling them to take it private and they didn`t stop as more on that place can`t stand it there ***

So you wasted your time and some Linden's time (approximately 2 seconds before he hit the delete key on the AR I'm sure). Congratulations.

But we are talking about the law-as-given-by-landowners.

Why?
Why would it be Any Wierder than a Drow, or a Robot, or a Furry, or a Vampire, or a Dragon, or an 8 foot Budgie, or a Tiny Squirrel, or a Supermodel, or a knight, Or Any of the artificial appearances we put on in SL?
Those giving the support know what SL is about. "Your world, your imagination". They Know what is in front of them, Adults who want to Play in a Fantasy, and they treat them all with equal respect. They Don't make Unjust assumptions based upon appearances.

Angel.

...and I was adding the Linden perspective as a cclarification.



Well said

Mari

.. and another excuse to say Hi angel! <wave>

Yummi, a few months back, I found myself in the initially spooky situation of having to rezz my female alt in-world whilst speaking to a Linden on support. Now she's rather dishy if I say so myself and for about a microsecond I really wondered what kind of response I'd get from my helper.

Looking back on this I realise how much SL had impacted even in that short time on my being able to fight my shyness.

He was great. We had an interesting discussion on roleplay while he went into support role at his end.

He was quite complimentary. Heck, I think I might even have 'pulled' if it hadn't been for the voice communinication

I understand what you're saying, but we're wandering away from the original point again - which was someone complaining that the owner of a land parcel complained about/ejected them for wearing a child avatar.

It's great that the Lindens will accept child avatars. And just to clarify, I accept them too. But in spite of this the Lindens are not going to force every landowner on SL to accept them. So if the problem you're having is that you're barred by the landowner from places where you'd like to go, the letter of the law (as given by countries or Lindens) doesn't matter.

That's what I've been trying to deal with here, and I've suggested that accepting certain restrictions on child avatars might reduce the problem, because it would become impossible for child avatars to do something that maybe the landowners in question fear, while being no loss to the actual child avatars because it's something they don't want to do anyway.

This is true land owners should be able to do what they want.

However, Residents using child avatars should be free from harassment as the Community Standards describes.

Thus being AR'd for just wearing a child avatar shouldnt take place. People also should embelish the facts any in order to write up ARs either.

And finally when on "neutral" land (one where the owner's wishes are not known, or there is no "no kids" policy). Kid avatars should be free from derogatory or rude remarks , just as if they had an adult avatar on.

Anybody can AR anybody for anything, obviously. But it's a complete waste of time. There's nothing more hilarious than to have someone inform you that you've been AR'd.

Dan Linden stated that they get over 5000 AR's per day. And how many wind up in the blotter: a handful at most. And most of those are warnings.

The whole AR system is nothing but a pacifier for the gullible.

Unfortunately, again, the proposed method is unworkable. Likewise, I would like to think there are better ways of handling the situation, maybe.



'zactly, Misses Meiji!

Mari

Yumi San,
Do you get upset at all of the things that "annoy" you? Where are you from? Would you support residents ejecting and banning residents just because they do not like their avatars for any reason?
Myself, I can not stand the ideal of slaves, subs and Goreans. They might start doing their activities at any time! Thus Linden Labs needs to set up a special catagory so land owners can ban this class?
I would like the Lindens to make a special class for prudes, so I can ban them

to forbid everything is never a solution

We have RL for *that* kind of Utopia

What exactly was the rationale behind your AR? You didn't mention what they actually did wrong. From your description, it sounded as if they were just talking in a perfectly wholesome, non-sexual way - but your description is pretty vague, so we don't know.

I mean, I hear kids and parents arguing in real life all the time in public places (go to a supermarket and you'll see; "Mom, can I have some sweets?" "No, put them back." "BUT MOMMY, I WAN 'EM!" etc etc), I still don't call the cops on them though. Now if that parent were screwing their kid next to the frozen fish, I'd have a thing or two to say about it however.

Forcing people into what? Forcing people to hear their normal conversations? Should they be allowed to AR you for talking to your friends? Incase you hadn't noticed, parents and children speak to each other all the time - that is perfectly normal and wholesome.

Even though I'm sympathetic to roleplayers of all sorts just wanting to roleplay and be left alone, I'm also pretty sympathetic to this viewpoint. Afterall, to paraphrase the famous expression, "A Secondlifer's home is his castle."

Personally, if I owned any land (which I don't at the moment) I'd be happy for roleplayers of all sorts to continue their roleplay there. But I agree that an owner of land should have a say who does or does not go on their land, and that it's a matter of personal preference on the part of the landlord. I may allow slaves and masters, but if I don't like your hat I may boot you

I have a way to stop the anti-child griefers - make it compulsory to send your first, I don't know, 14 days (?) in SL as a child, finally becoming an adult and being able to fully customise your avatar if you wish. The number of days is an arbitrary figure I just pulled out of thin air, this could be any length of days. That would create a greater acceptance of child avatars in SL. Just a thought.

Trouble is Conan, only those who already have a target would put up with that. Those people who know what they want to do and are happy to wait a fortnight to do it. How many people would read the 'fortnight' and think 'this stinks' and leave?
But I do understand the sentiment!

Like I said, 14 days was an arbitrary figure. It could be as little as an hour and still work. If there was some system by which child avatars became part of the norm, attitudes towards them would be changed.

Actually, one spends one's first 14 days in SL as a noob. It's much the same thing.

Visions of hundreds of child noob avatars wandering round Orienation Island saying 'help me!' and 'how can I get this box off my head?' ... I like it

ROFL

Mandy C

This is all very humorous, but my suggestion is based on the idea that making child avatars more familliar will reduce hostility to them.

I do not see an easy solution. If you do not like children,you could just eject and ban them. I am thinking about doing the same to the ones that "offend" me. What you want to do is get the child avatars banned from Second Life. What group of avatars will get banned next? Will Linden Labs forbid all avatars except ones that look like their rl selves next. What do you really want? Second Life to conform to your neocon prudish values? This is how I read your postings. Please tell me more of your intentions.