Luna Bliss

Indeed, and I wouldn't say it has been 200 pages of whining. The majority of it has been sensible and civil discussion. What I've discovered in my 20 years of Second Life, is that those who trash child avatars tend to have trouble accepting their own inner child. So I hope those who play child avatars don't take it too personally, and have some sympathy for those so out of touch with themselves. It really is a miserable state to be in -- to be so out of touch with a fundamental part of the self.

The same happened to gazillion of people who bought some scripted stuff ages ago which was rendered obsolete by LSL changes. They did not make up 200 pages of whining over that. People tend to stop whining when you pay attention to their feelings...when you show some consideration for their side of things.

haha love it...remembering this line...

but what if it really is intentional as some people experience it? I'm sure sometimes it is. I was only referring to someone saying they're certain comments said in the past, over 15 years, could never be misconstrued as such, and pointing out that the potential for distortion is great.

There are two separate issues here. One is the issue that is being discussed in this thread: clarification of the updates to the Child **** policy. I think there's general agreement that people in this thread and elsewhere in SL find some parts of the update unclear and would like further information from LL. The other issue, however, is not new at all. The TOS (Sect. 3.4) has said for a very long time" You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land must be consistent with the Agreements, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify the Agreements. The region owner has always had the right to allow or forbid any to have access to the region, for any reason whatsoever, and is not even required to explain why. That's the reply I was giving in my earlier post. Edit: To be sure you understand my meaning.... I agree that LL needs to provide more clarification of the policy. I also agree that region owners need to be better informed about what the policy is. My point in this post is simply that regardless of all that, the region owner can still do whatever he/she wants to when it comes to allowing or ejecting a visitor. She/he doesn't even need to HAVE a reason, much less explain it. Rolig, I think almost everyone on this forum knows this...it's been discussed many, many times -- yes, the sim owner can do whatever they want. But...that doesn't mean it's automatically the right thing to do, most especially when it disenfranchises a segment of the residents in SL. If LL could do something to reduce restrictions on those affected it would make things better. And I think they can, through clear definition or rules and adequate education so as many residents as possible are aware what's needed for their personal region.

We know that on this thread. The point is that most of SL does not know this. So how do we get this information out there to everybody else?

Okay so you are wanting a reeducation system, to teach them how they think is wrong? Not taking into consideration of them maybe being uncomfortable with actual child avatars or even cautious who they let in I'd like to see the sim owners reactions/limitations based on official, clear rules as opposed to what they imagine the rules are. Then they could choose wisely.

But we're getting reports of severe limitations regarding where child avatars and shorter avatars can visit. If it gets too severe it would impact the quality of their SL.

Don't know to be honest with you. But I also don't think avatars are entitled to every region on the grid. My proposal is that these region owners learn exactly what the rules are so they don't overreact. They would learn through education by LL and other residents. I don't think child avatars should be allowed everywhere yes, but it could get to the point where they can hardly go anywhere if the rules aren't clearly defined.

What might the solution to this be?

I mean you really can't stop region owners choosing who they will or will not allow in their regions. True that. But if LL creates a problem that diminishes the quality of so many users experiences they need to make an effort to remedy it through proper definitions and education. Imagine if child avatars could hardly go anywhere due to freaked out region owners.

But LL has a duty to minimize this problem through proper definitions and education. This is the point.

Don't hang around here too long...you seem very nice and I don't want to see you corrupted 😉