Jump to content

Avatar height/age restrictions?


kaymichel
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3468 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Perrie Juran wrote:

Oh, I know quite well what an analogy is.

And I know very well the definition of police and of Nazis. 

Long before they had any powers of enforcment the Nazis were there doing what I described, harrassing people.

No matter how you may want to parse it, there is no getting around the fact that you brought racism into this thread. 

To be honest, not sure why you are so upset about the racism analogy? It seems a pretty obvious one when in past people were excluded from venues, places on buses etc because of the colour of their skin, and in this case we are talking about people being excluded because they have made their avi to be under 6 foot tall (or whatever the height restriction is - I know at some places where it says you have to be above this line to get in.... I at 5'8'' am below the line). Of course whilst real life height is an accident of birth like skin colour, avi height and avi skin colour are things we can pick and change. But why should we? and why does making that obvious comparison invalidate any point they are making? Also race and height are linked, South East Asians for example are considerably shorter than northern europeans.

 

You seem to be trying to claim something similar to a Godwin on racism, which is kinda ironic when this started with you claiming "Well some of the "normal height" crowd do act like height nazis. "

 

Which may or may not be true, but I can't say I have ever noticed that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

 

There are Petite only sims..

They would also be excluding normal sized avis at five to five and a half foot tall too, and in the context justifiably. Just as it would be justifiable to exclude normal sized people in a sim designed for giants.

What is weird is excluding avatars within the normal adult height range from sex sims that aren't advertised as being exclusively for avis afflicted with giantism. But it hardly seems worth getting too bothered about, I haven't noticed height restrictions that often and even less where they have been enforced. But then I am generally above average height at 5'8'' anyway, perhaps it is enforced for someone that wants to be their own size and is 5 foot tall (as is the average for a woman in Vietnam). It must feel horrible to be excluded from somewhere for being what you are in real life. If I saw that happening to someone i would stop going to that venue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:


 

Which may or may not be true, but I can't say I have ever noticed that.

As I stated above I have no reason to bare false witness.

I can also understand how some SIM owners have grown tired of people who seem unable to accept that it is their SIM, their rules, and would respond as they do, using the word "nazi," that actually it was someone else and not me that brought it into this thread.

There are people who are running Adult Venues, who have real investment in them, who don't want to mess around with the possible consequences of TOS violations, people who want to spread false rumours about them, etc, etc.  But on the other side we have a group of people who are selfishly trying to pretend that these possible consequences don't exist. 

The adult content guidlines say to "err on the side of caution."

Maybe they are over-erring, but that is their right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

 

There are Petite only sims..

They would also be excluding normal sized avis at five to five and a half foot tall too, and in the context justifiably. Just as it would be justifiable to exclude normal sized people in a sim designed for giants.

What is weird is excluding avatars within the normal adult height range from sex sims that aren't advertised as being exclusively for avis afflicted with giantism. But it hardly seems worth getting too bothered about, I haven't noticed height restrictions that often and even less where they have been enforced. But then I am generally above average height at 5'8'' anyway, perhaps it is enforced for someone that wants to be their own size and is 5 foot tall (as is the average for a woman in Vietnam).
It must feel horrible to be excluded from somewhere for being what you are in real life
. If I saw that happening to someone i would stop going to that venue.

"It must feel horrible to be excluded from somewhere for being what you are in real life"

I don't have time now to go further into this, but that is not what they are being excluded for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Coby Foden wrote:

I propose an addition to the TOS:

You
shall not
try to estimate avatar's age by avatar's height. In real life we do not estimate person's age by the person's height. Same applies to Second Life. The rule is:

• if it looks like an adult then it's an adult

• if looks like a child then it's a child

Please do note carefully, height has absolutely nothing to do how old or young something is.

 

Yes. That would put an end to this "height = age" silliness. :smileyvery-happy:
:smileytongue:

I propose a second addition to the TOS:

You shall make your your avatar's height withing the range of average humans. As this is an American company the reference average heights shall be based on Americans. Therefore the only allowed heights for human like avatars will be according to this chart:

Bell-Human-height-curve.png

We hope that this addition to the TOS will aid in stopping the height/age controversy issue in Second Life. A special allowance is given for the so called "petites" and the likes. They can be as small as they have been so far.

 

If you are very tall basketball player in real life and you want to make your avatar as tall as you are in real life, you must submit a proof of your height and basketball player status. After studying your proof documents, we may or may not grant you a permission to make your avatar's height the same as your real life height is.

 

 

Yay! Peace will be in Second Life.  :smileywink:

PS.

The constant arguments about height (and age) clearly show that Linden Lab made a big mistake as they didn't pay proper attention to default avatar height in the very beginning. :smileysad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


There are people who are running Adult Venues, who have real investment in them, who don't want to mess around with the possible consequences of TOS violations, people who want to spread false rumours about them, etc, etc.  But on the other side we have a group of people who are selfishly trying to pretend that these possible consequences don't exist. 

 

Well in the example already given, Linden Labs had the club reported many times by a whole bunch of people a few months ago, Lindens were even reportedly observed attending the sim and yet they did nothing, the club still exists and the same group of preteen child escorts are in attendance,

If there was any evidence the Lindens actually cared about AgePlay, perhaps it could be understood that some sims will "err on the side of caution". Height restrictions are however indirectly racist which is also a TOS violation, illegal in my country (dunno about rules in California) and very stupid and hurtful for those innocently excluded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


There are people who are running Adult Venues, who have real investment in them, who don't want to mess around with the possible consequences of TOS violations, people who want to spread false rumours about them, etc, etc.  But on the other side we have a group of people who are selfishly trying to pretend that these possible consequences don't exist. 

 

Well in the example already given, Linden Labs had the club reported many times by a whole bunch of people a few months ago, Lindens were even reportedly observed attending the sim and yet they did nothing, the club still exists and the same group of preteen child escorts are in attendance,

If there was any evidence the Lindens actually cared about AgePlay, perhaps it could be understood that some sims will "err on the side of caution". Height restrictions are however indirectly racist which is also a TOS violation, illegal in my country (dunno about rules in California) and very stupid and hurtful for those innocently excluded.

You keep saying  "in the example already given" I don't see any mention of a specific place before now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its an anology - to show you're applying a label backwards.

If analogies are too complex for your brain, consider the rest of what I wrote:
 

No matter how you may want to parse it, there is no getting around the fact that you brought racism into this thread. 

So what? Its a good analogy. And now you are being so pathetic that you only avenue left is to try to distract by acting as if my analogy was my point when for 3 pages prior you knew exactly what my point was.

You can't handle a fitting analogy if it uses race an example. That says more about you than my using such examples often says about me.

But as a person of mixed heritage in a country with very deep race issues; yes, race is how my world gets framed, as that has been forced upon me every day of my life - so I have gotten good with it from being forced to learn the history that shaped me.

 


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

There are Petite only sims..

I bet you feel like a real internet hero right now. You found ONE example.

Ok, got me there. I guess your one example defeats the dozens and dozens of counter examples.

Except its a pretty bad example.

 

As noted further down with the giants. Its a themed avatar concept. Not about height - but about having a specific brand avatar. Do they ban people out of theme? Or is it just a theme. They probably do ban. Much as say, if I showed up as a neko or furry on something like the Berlin sim... I'd eject myself for being out of theme.

That's not a height argument at all. So its actually a very poor example.

 

*****************

One last point: Perfectly fine to debate things on these forums - but some people feel compelled to take that inworld and keep at it there. That hasn't happened for almost two years, but it happened last night. So now I have a freshly increased mute list in SL.

If you're the sort of person who can't handle context and can't keep these arguments out of other places, you might as well mute me now so you're not tempted to start badgering this stuff in the wrong places.

Doesn't matter if you're supporting me or arguing against me: I don't put up with context-collapse.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

I think the reference may well be to a recent thread over at [snipped].

Its unwise to believe anything posted on a sight run by and full of vindictive liars, thieves, and well... 'scum and villany'.

They may be right, or they might be doctoring images and claiming X for Y as they have done often in past - either way they're just not a reliable source.

I know a lot of people like that place, and this reply is not in relation to my doubts about the activity being inworld (so I'm making this in a separate post). I'd just say people ought to take what they read there with a grain of salt. Very long topics have gone on for a notable time there with entirely false information merely because those behind it thought they were being 'funny'.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:

Well in the example already given, Linden Labs had the club reported many times by a whole bunch of people a few months ago, Lindens were even reportedly observed attending the sim and yet they did nothing, the club still exists and the same group of preteen child escorts are in attendance,

If there was any evidence the Lindens actually cared about AgePlay, perhaps it could be understood that some sims will "err on the side of caution". Height restrictions are however indirectly racist which is also a TOS violation, illegal in my country (dunno about rules in California) and very stupid and hurtful for those innocently excluded.

 I am not sure how much I'd read into the fact LL didn't apparently take swift and effective action against an apparent breach of ToS.  I mean, that line of logic might well lead you erroneously to conclude that griefing sims with self-replicating physical lolcubes and Goatse particles isn't against ToS, either.  

Similarly, I am not sure how reliable a guide RL laws are to what people may do in SL.    I mean, wandering around with a naked slave girl on a leash is (I would think) illegal in most places in the USA, as is dressing as a vampire and asking complete strangers if you may bite them, but both activities are allowed in SL.    The reason, I think, that sexual ageplay involving chid avatars is banned -- apart from the fact it's dreadful publicity for LL when it's uncovered -- is that making indecent cartoon images involving representations of children is itself a criminal offence in some countries where a lot of people use SL .

In any event,  if you seriously think that height restrictions are a violation of ToS, you start ARing some places that impose them and see what happens.  My money would be on "nothing."   I agree they're stupid and annoying, but I don't think they're banned.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you will be aware,  Pussycat, SLU is run by one person, whose SL and RL identities are both well-known.   I've certainly never heard anything bad about him, and certainly not anything that would justify calling him  vindictive, or a liar or a thief.   On the contrary, I think Cris does an admirable job of running and moderating a very lively and useful forum.

Nor would I use such terms to describe the posters in that particular thread whom I happen to know, many of whom also regularly post in these forums.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its an anology - to show you're applying a label backwards.

If analogies are too complex for your brain, consider the rest of what I wrote:
 

No matter how you may want to parse it, there is no getting around the fact that you brought racism into this thread. 

So what? Its a good analogy. And now you are being so pathetic that you only avenue left is to try to distract by acting as if my analogy was my point when for 3 pages prior you knew exactly what my point was.

You can't handle a fitting analogy if it uses race an example. That says more about you than my using such examples often says about me.

But as a person of mixed heritage in a country with very deep race issues; yes, race is how my world gets framed, as that has been forced upon me every day of my life - so I have gotten good with it from being forced to learn the history that shaped me.

 


What makes you think that you are the only member of a minority group posting in this Forum?

I can promise you that you are not the only one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

As you will be aware,  Pussycat, SLU is run by one person, whose SL and RL identities are both well-known.   I've certainly never heard anything bad about him, and certainly not anything that would justify calling him  vindictive, or a liar or a thief.   On the contrary, I think Cris does an admirable job of running and moderating a very lively and useful forum.

Nor would I use such terms to describe the posters in that particular thread whom I happen to know, many of whom also regularly post in these forums.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

I have a great deal of respect for a number of the people who participated in that thread, but the truth is that the thread in question was chock full of rampant speculation.  What started out as a complaint about sim resources, ended up with a bunch of people ranting about sexual age-play, with nothing but the wording of a group description with which to base their claims.  There was simply never any real proof that the owners of that club actively allowed and encouraged sexual age-play.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile is serious business and doing so without even an ounce of tangible, verifiable evidence is simply reprehensible.  Yet, within that thread, a number of people were doing just that (even going so far as to create a nefarious blog singling out one person in specific, simply because they disagreed with what was taking place in that thread), while the rest were patting them on the back for doing so.  It was simply one of the most disgusting displays of paranoid hysteria I've witnessed on a forum... and I've witnessed a lot.

...Dres

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Innula Zenovka wrote:

As you will be aware,  Pussycat, SLU is run by one person, whose SL and RL identities are both well-known.   I've certainly never heard anything bad about him, and certainly not anything that would justify calling him  vindictive, or a liar or a thief.   On the contrary, I think Cris does an admirable job of running and moderating a very lively and useful forum.

Nor would I use such terms to describe the posters in that particular thread whom I happen to know, many of whom also regularly post in these forums.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

I have a great deal of respect for a number of the people who participated in that thread, but the truth is that the thread in question was chock full of rampant speculation.  What started out as a complaint about sim resources, ended up with a bunch of people ranting about sexual age-play, with nothing but the wording of a group description with which to base their claims.  There was simply never any real proof that the owners of that club actively allowed and encouraged sexual age-play.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile is serious business and doing so without even an ounce of tangible, verifiable evidence is simply reprehensible.  Yet, within that thread, a number of people were doing just that (even going so far as to create a nefarious blog singling out one person in specific, simply because they disagreed with what was taking place in that thread), while the rest were patting them on the back for doing so.  It was simply one of the most disgusting displays of paranoid hysteria I've witnessed on a forum... and I've witnessed a lot.

...Dres

I guess you have never been. The two times I went, when i first saw the thread and again yesterday gave me all the evidence I need to come to my conclusions. It is not like some of them are shy about what they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Innula Zenovka wrote:

As you will be aware,  Pussycat, SLU is run by one person, whose SL and RL identities are both well-known.   I've certainly never heard anything bad about him, and certainly not anything that would justify calling him  vindictive, or a liar or a thief.   On the contrary, I think Cris does an admirable job of running and moderating a very lively and useful forum.

Nor would I use such terms to describe the posters in that particular thread whom I happen to know, many of whom also regularly post in these forums.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

I have a great deal of respect for a number of the people who participated in that thread, but the truth is that the thread in question was chock full of rampant speculation.  What started out as a complaint about sim resources, ended up with a bunch of people ranting about sexual age-play, with nothing but the wording of a group description with which to base their claims.  There was simply never any real proof that the owners of that club actively allowed and encouraged sexual age-play.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile is serious business and doing so without even an ounce of tangible, verifiable evidence is simply reprehensible.  Yet, within that thread, a number of people were doing just that (even going so far as to create a nefarious blog singling out one person in specific, simply because they disagreed with what was taking place in that thread), while the rest were patting them on the back for doing so.  It was simply one of the most disgusting displays of paranoid hysteria I've witnessed on a forum... and I've witnessed a lot.

...Dres

Pop along to the sim and take a look at the avatars and the groups they belong to and you will see why people came to the conclusions they did. The location has moved, but it and the people going there are not shy about advertising what sort of rps they engage in.

People can come to any conclusion they wish.  What I'm saying is that making accusations based on nothing but mere speculation, then acting upon those conclusions by harassing and vilifying anyone who dares disagree with you, is simply wrong... no matter how you try to justify it.

...Dres

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Innula Zenovka wrote:

As you will be aware,  Pussycat, SLU is run by one person, whose SL and RL identities are both well-known.   I've certainly never heard anything bad about him, and certainly not anything that would justify calling him  vindictive, or a liar or a thief.   On the contrary, I think Cris does an admirable job of running and moderating a very lively and useful forum.

Nor would I use such terms to describe the posters in that particular thread whom I happen to know, many of whom also regularly post in these forums.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

I have a great deal of respect for a number of the people who participated in that thread, but the truth is that the thread in question was chock full of rampant speculation.  What started out as a complaint about sim resources, ended up with a bunch of people ranting about sexual age-play, with nothing but the wording of a group description with which to base their claims.  There was simply never any real proof that the owners of that club actively allowed and encouraged sexual age-play.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile is serious business and doing so without even an ounce of tangible, verifiable evidence is simply reprehensible.  Yet, within that thread, a number of people were doing just that (even going so far as to create a nefarious blog singling out one person in specific, simply because they disagreed with what was taking place in that thread), while the rest were patting them on the back for doing so.  It was simply one of the most disgusting displays of paranoid hysteria I've witnessed on a forum... and I've witnessed a lot.

...Dres

I guess you have never been. The two times I went, when i first saw the thread and again yesterday gave me all the evidence I need to come to my conclusions. It is not like some of them are shy about what they do.

I sat there for 5 hours today.. not one IM. nothing, nada, zip. each and every female that came to the SIM had "over 18 RP" in her profile. SO, even if she looked like a teen she was Rping old enough to do whatever. actually, 18 is still a teen come to think of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Aethelwine wrote:

I don't see where or how you can talk about "nothing more than speculation".

But well (not directed you) I have had enough of the stupidity on this thread and i am done with it.

I'm done with this here aswell. If someone ever askes how pedophiles in RL get away so easily, I'll point them to this thread here. Because pedophiles are never in their neighbourhood/part of the Internet and every chat-log, group and profile can be as explicit as it can get, its still just bad speculation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Syo Emerald wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:

I don't see where or how you can talk about "nothing more than speculation".

But well (not directed you) I have had enough of the stupidity on this thread and i am done with it.

I'm done with this here aswell. If someone ever askes how pedophiles in RL get away so easily, I'll point them to this thread here. Because pedophiles are never in their neighbourhood/part of the Internet and every chat-log, group and profile can be as explicit as it can get, its still just bad speculation.

 

So, in one breath you tell someone not to play down the role of pedos and in the next you are the one doing it. Pedos don't get awy with it because of internet blindness, they get away with it because they scare the **bleep** out of the kids they molest. They tell them they will kill thier ofamily, or they are fammily and the child is so scared what their mother will think if she found out her father raped her son, he says nothing.. not even at his trial. Don't tell me it has to do with a stupid forum. Don't tell me people turn a blind eye in this day and age. Just don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Syo Emerald wrote:


Aethelwine wrote:

I don't see where or how you can talk about "nothing more than speculation".

But well (not directed you) I have had enough of the stupidity on this thread and i am done with it.

I'm done with this here aswell. If someone ever askes how pedophiles in RL get away so easily, I'll point them to this thread here. Because pedophiles are never in their neighbourhood/part of the Internet and every chat-log, group and profile can be as explicit as it can get, its still just bad speculation.

 

Of course you're both done with it, because you can't dispute the fact that there was absolute no proof to back up the wild accusations that were flying around in that thread.  But, it is a perfect example of how normally ration people can let their emotions override their common sense when such a volatile subject is being addressed.  It's no wonder that some people get so freaked out about it that they're kicking avatars of perfectly normal, adult height out of their sims.

...Dres (I didn't even mention the idiots that were donning child avatars and going there in an effort to incite the very activity that they had no evidence of with which to being.  And all because of a dispute over sim resources.) *rolls eyes*

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

As you will be aware,  Pussycat, SLU is run by one person, whose SL and RL identities are both well-known.   I've certainly never heard anything bad about him, and certainly not anything that would justify calling him  vindictive, or a liar or a thief.   On the contrary, I think Cris does an admirable job of running and moderating a very lively and useful forum.

Nor would I use such terms to describe the posters in that particular thread whom I happen to know, many of whom also regularly post in these forums.

That's what I used to think, but... I have my reasons now... And less than zero respect for the place and suspicions of anyone who frequents it as a result.

That place specializes in 'witch hunts' - especially by taking what a person says or does in one context or the heat of a moment, and drawing it out at length in a sort of exaggerated crucifixion. They'll use all the lolcats and faked images needed to do it too. And they do it for fun, not even so much as to expose or target anything, than that there is an element which enjoys harming others.

If they are right on something, it is more by chance than honesty.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

What makes you think that you are the only member of a minority group posting in this Forum?

I can promise you that you are not the only one.

What makes you think I said that. Is it just random attacks and meandering now?

Or are you one of those types that believes that since all minorities ar exactly the same anyway, I need to confer with the others before saying my perspective. Because there must be something wrong if mine isn't the same as some of theirs... since we're all just a type or something anyway, not individuals like "other people".

Or... if not that... then what does what you just posted there have to do with anything at all?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 
It doesn't. Somebody maybe got in trouble like 32 years ago, according to an article on 'made-up-journalism-dot-com', and now folks are acting like the End of Days are here... The problem only exists in the imagination of the paranoid.

While I respect your opinion and thoughts on the matter, I also do not consider myself paranoid.  I have witnessed, not just read about, sexual ageplay taking place in sl. Yes, I did report it, and whether or not my report itself was acted upon, the offending avatars did not last long on sl after that.  Of course there is nothing to say they didn't merely use another account of course, or that it was because multiple reports were made, as I was most definitely not alone when I witnessed it(and it wasn't on some sim specially created for such things, or within some group, or anything like that).  However I do know it IS a problem that exists, whether it is only a small portion of people involved, or not.  Having witnessed it firsthand, I can say with absolutely no doubt, it exists, and LL does act on it when it is reported..at least some of the time.

I don't need a forum(run by LL or any other party) or even the thoughts and opinions of others to base my stance on this particular issue(which really is not even the same as the height restriction thing, although i do know why the two often get lumped together). Now just because I do not *need* another forum, or others' personal opinions or even experiences on the matter, doesn't mean I can't take them into consideration on some issues. Whether credible or not, is for me to decide, of course. I do still consider them, and that is probably based off the fact that I know the problem exists...somewhere, in sl. Much the same that it can, and does, exist elsewhere out there on the 'net, on other platforms, in other virtual worlds..whatever have you.

The fact that you have not witnessed it, and have your personal feelings about a particular forum others might use to discuss the problem, while I do respect of course, does not make the problem non-existant. There are a lot of things I have not personally witnessed in my life that I cannot simply pretend are non-existant just because *some of the sources of the information doled out may or may not be credible. Again, I do respect your opinion, and your doubts, as much as I would respect others. I just find that a very, I'm not really sure how to word this without sounding as if I am being overly judgmental, but...bad, or at least not productive way to look at an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A picture would help because I actually am friends with avis who are smaller then that who look very much adult. Personally I dont look at the height. I go with general crowd. I am taller then most woman and way shorter then most guys.. I could not tell you how tall I am. It would only drive me mad. I am four feet 9 inches and real life and I think on the slider that would get me banned as well. I still feel like a shortie and portraying myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3468 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...