Rolig Loon

Exactly! Some people identify very closely with their avatar. Others don't. There's no right or wrong about it. Your attachment to your avatar is definitely subjective.

Absolutely. All avatars are. The question is really "How closely do you identify with your avatar?" Some people think that their avatar is just a cartoon that they move around on a screen. Others, like me, feel more connected to their avatar, as if a part of us was actually in world with the avatar. I am Rolig Loon when I am logged in. The question of "immersion" is a very active question among SL residents. It's really why a lot of people feel that they are being personally harmed or attacked if something bad happens to their avatar, but other people can just shrug and walk away.

She's referring specifically to a sock puppet (look it up with Google). My reply a minute or two ago wasn't talking about sock puppets but real puppets (or the digital equivalent of them). Either way, a puppet is a representational figure that is controlled by a real person. You might, indeed, argue about how immersed the controlling person feels in her puppet's behavior, so you raised a good point. Still, whether you think of a puppet as an extension of yourself or as a toy that you play with at a distance, you are still in charge. The puppet can't do anything without you.

Well, you click buttons on your screen or type commands on your keyboard and they make your avatar move and say things. You're controlling all of that remotely, exactly the way you would control a puppet or make a doll do things. You get the dress it up, make it dance, fly, rearrange furniture and all sorts of other fun things. Your avatar isn't doing those things by herself. You're doing them -- just like playing with a doll or a puppet. So, if your avatar does something BAD, it's not the one who gets in trouble. You do. You're the one in charge.

Not at all. I've known a lot of people over the past 17 years who have done something that they got AR'ed for. Governance doesn't usually permaban someone for a first offence unless it's clearly an egregious violation. LL would rather have people stay in SL, so they'll show you the error of your ways and give you a chance to do better if they can. Besides, most TOS violations are pretty minor things that might get you a verbal warning or a short time out. If you are giving people scripted things that drain their L$, or are phishing to get their passwords, you'll get nailed. Otherwise, an AR will get you the equivalent of a parking ticket.

I have been out of the loop for a couple of hours, so I'm glad to see that I haven't missed anything new. Thank you, @Rowan Amore, for taking the bait in the fruitless argument about what the word "subjective" means. I was tempted before I stepped out, but said, "Nah" and closed the door behind me. Besides, you were doing so well.

Avoid thinking about Donatello's putti, then.

We're wandering into the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory. The answer is that I don't know. However -- since you're asking me personally -- I think I'd take my cue from the rabbits that are now in my RL back yard. Mother rabbits with vulnerable bunnies keep them out of sight and away from predators. If I were being a mer-mommy, I would personally keep my mer-child in a nice quiet part of SL where we can cavort in safety. But that's just me. YMMV.

You're hardly on trial. We're generally agreeing here. The only difference is that I think I have more faith in people than you may, so I don't see a need to draw hard lines to define the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The world is full of fuzziness and I am very confident that most people are quite capable of navigating gray areas. They don't need hard barriers to do the thinking for them. For those few cases where people can't agree, SL has an AR process and a Governance team that sees dozens of cases a week. They're in a better position than we are to recognize what the gray areas look like and to make an unemotional judgment.

You can. Read up. ^^

I'm sure that's true, and that Governance is smart enough to be able to sort out accidental from deliberate incidents, and to apply nothing worse than a warning if the case is ambiguous. I can imagine plenty of hypothetical situations when a nude adult and a child avatar might accidentally be in the same place. For example, I like to explore underwater places as a mermaid. I've done it all over the grid, especially in Bellisseria, where there's some cool stuff to find. My mermaid is topless. (I don't think scratchy seashells are a realistic expectation. They look dorky.) If I swim into a grotto where some child av is playing innocently, then, we'll both say "OOops!" and feel a bit awkward. Theoretically, anyone could submit an AR on both of us at that point. If they did -- even if the AR was filed by one of us -- I am very confident that Governance would throw the case in the dumpster. Frankly, though, I think what would actually happen is that one of us would simply swim away and forget it. I am confident that most people are not trying to get each other in trouble and that most people are rational enough to see that in a situation like that, there's no sexual intent. Someone will always avoid the appearance of impropriety by just leaving.

Either. You're just not allowed to engage in sexual activity in public on a Moderate region. Nudity is OK.

Nope

Turned a politician's experience sour: NIXON

I have no idea. On the scale of 1 to 10, that issue ranks about -4 on my list of personal concerns. YMMV