Coney Island build

Theresa Tennyson · August 17, 2013

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

Don't do it. The poor girl might be traumatized by adults being adults.

I wouldn't worry about it. It's pretty rare for the adults of SL to ACT like adults...

Griffin Ceawlin · August 17, 2013

Either way, the other visitors to the Coney Island build probably aren't expecting that a 13 1/2 year old is among them. They shouldn't be expected to tailor their behavior to accommodate someone who should not be there in the first place (even if she's just looking over Uncle Storm's shoulder).

Perrie Juran · August 17, 2013

Storm Clarence wrote:

Perrie, it's a little more than getting clearance (I almost wrote Clarence, go figure.) To get clearance you have to explain what SL is. Shall I point my sister in-law to the forum? Perhaps she will not read past the "LESBIAN FEM FOR STUD" on the homepage before she rips me a new one. It is SL, I would not subject my child or any child to this environment.

ETA Although I agree with the crux of what you wrote.

I'm coming back to this because I really didn't catch at first your choice of that thread as an example.

Is your Sister In Law homophobic?

Outside of my personal opinion that the OP's attitude was a little rough, I saw nothing untoward in that thread.

I'd hate to think that you were having to deal with your Sister In Law about this.

Storm Clarence · August 17, 2013

I have no idea how my sister in-law is wired, nor do I care. But, my post was not about the adults in my family it was about a 13 year old child participating where she has NO place or right to participate.

If my sister in-law wants to explain the modern facts of life to this child then so be it, I will not. Equally, I will not have her sit on my lap as I play on-line poker with the guys while sipping a Manhattan or two and with a burning bone in the ashtray.

Perrie Juran · August 17, 2013

Storm Clarence wrote:

I have no idea how my sister in-law is wired, nor do I care. But, my post was not about the adults in my family it was about a 13 year old child participating where she has NO place or right to participate.

If my sister in-law wants to explain the modern facts of life to this child then so be it, I will not. Equally, I will not have her sit on my lap as I play on-line poker with the guys while sipping a Manhattan or two and with a burning bone in the ashtray.

I understood from your OP your concern that your Niece might get "virtually flashed" by a flasher in SL and I believe in general your concern that she might get exposed to Adult content.

I was however puzzled by your choice of that thread as an example of the kind of behavior and content your Sister In Law might object to and the kind of thing you'd consider being a reason for your Niece not participating in SL. For example, I would not consider seeing two men or two women dancing together in a club as objectionable. I would however consider seeing them bumping pixels a completely different issue but that would hold true no matter what genders were involved.

As far as "NO place or right to participate," that is a matter of personal opinion.

I have stated my thoughts on this. I make one exception for it to be OK for a child to be in SL, that is under direct adult supervision in a "G" rated atmosphere. Other than that I agree with you. Second Life is not a place for children.

Ima Rang · August 17, 2013

Perrie Juran wrote:

Storm Clarence wrote:

I have no idea how my sister in-law is wired, nor do I care. But, my post was not about the adults in my family it was about a 13 year old child participating where she has NO place or right to participate.

If my sister in-law wants to explain the modern facts of life to this child then so be it, I will not. Equally, I will not have her sit on my lap as I play on-line poker with the guys while sipping a Manhattan or two and with a burning bone in the ashtray.

I understood from your OP your concern that your Niece might get "virtually flashed" by a flasher in SL and I believe in general your concern that she might get exposed to Adult content.

I was however puzzled by your choice of that thread as an example of the kind of behavior and content your Sister In Law might object to and the kind of thing you'd consider being a reason for your Niece not participating in SL. For example, I would not consider seeing two men or two women dancing together in a club as objectionable. I would however consider seeing them bumping pixels a completely different issue but that would hold true no matter what genders were involved.

As far as "NO place or right to participate," that is a matter of personal opinion.

I have stated my thoughts on this. I make one exception for it to be OK for a child to be in SL, that is under direct adult supervision in a "G" rated atmosphere. Other than that I agree with you. Second Life is not a place for children.

It is not a matter of personal opinion. The ToS does not allow for 13 year olds to be on the grid for a reason. The ToS does not say they can be on SL with adult supervision. They literally have NO place or right to participate.

Storm Clarence · August 17, 2013

And if the responsible adult does allow the child to participate (and here is the point of this whole conversation) they have NO right to lash-out/admonish any *adult* on the sim who may use language that is not appropriate for a 13 yr. old. Absolutely no right what-so-ever! It is they who failed in their responsibility.

Ima Rang · August 17, 2013

Storm Clarence wrote:

And if the responsible adult does allow the child to participate (and here is the point of this whole conversation) they have NO right to lash-out/admonish any *adult* on the sim who may use language that is not appropriate for a 13 yr. old. Absolutely no right what-so-ever! It is they who failed in their responsibility.

Indeed. LOL, I can't even imagine what kind of parent would assume themselves so entitled as to dictate the behavior/language of other adult SL participants for the sake of their underage child.

Dresden Ceriano · August 17, 2013

Ima Rang wrote:

Storm Clarence wrote:

And if the responsible adult does allow the child to participate (and here is the point of this whole conversation) they have NO right to lash-out/admonish any *adult* on the sim who may use language that is not appropriate for a 13 yr. old. Absolutely no right what-so-ever! It is they who failed in their responsibility.

Indeed. LOL, I can't even imagine what kind of parent would assume themselves so entitled as to dictate the behavior/language of other adult SL participants for the sake of their underage child.

I can.

...Dres

Perrie Juran · August 17, 2013

Ima Rang wrote:

Perrie Juran wrote:

Storm Clarence wrote:

I have no idea how my sister in-law is wired, nor do I care. But, my post was not about the adults in my family it was about a 13 year old child participating where she has NO place or right to participate.

If my sister in-law wants to explain the modern facts of life to this child then so be it, I will not. Equally, I will not have her sit on my lap as I play on-line poker with the guys while sipping a Manhattan or two and with a burning bone in the ashtray.

I understood from your OP your concern that your Niece might get "virtually flashed" by a flasher in SL and I believe in general your concern that she might get exposed to Adult content.

I was however puzzled by your choice of that thread as an example of the kind of behavior and content your Sister In Law might object to and the kind of thing you'd consider being a reason for your Niece not participating in SL. For example, I would not consider seeing two men or two women dancing together in a club as objectionable. I would however consider seeing them bumping pixels a completely different issue but that would hold true no matter what genders were involved.

As far as "NO place or right to participate," that is a matter of personal opinion.

I have stated my thoughts on this. I make one exception for it to be OK for a child to be in SL, that is under direct adult supervision in a "G" rated atmosphere. Other than that I agree with you. Second Life is not a place for children.

It is not a matter of personal opinion. The ToS does not allow for 13 year olds to be on the grid for a reason. The ToS does not say they can be on SL with adult supervision. They literally have NO place or right to participate.

You know, unless with the re-write of the TOS is got buried deeper somewhere than I am finding at the moment, I think LL has missed something:

3.2 Age Requirements for Use of Areas of the Service.

Over 18 Users. If you are at least eighteen (18) years of age (or the legal age of majority in your jurisdiction, if greater), then you may use any public area of the Service and, with respect to Second Life, in accordance with our Maturity Ratings.

Under 18 Users. If you are less than eighteen (18) years of age (or the legal age of majority in your jurisdiction, if greater), then you may access the General area of the Service in accordance with our Maturity Guidelines.

Under 13 Users. Certain limited aspects of the Service (for instance, Linden Lab’s Blocksworld application) may be directed toward children under the age of thirteen (13) (or such age as determined by local law; in the following, the age thirteen (13) is used for ease of reference). When a child under the age of thirteen (13) contacts Linden Lab, for example to participate in a contest or to ask a question, we may collect that child's email address and the e-mail address of the child's parent or guardian. We will use the child's e-mail address only for the purpose for which it was collected, and we will use the e-mail address of the parent(s) or guardian(s) only to provide notification about the child's contact with us, and to provide notification of the types and uses of personal data collected, if and as required by law.

As a parent or guardian of a child under the age of thirteen (13) from whom we have collected personal data, you have the right to review and request deletion of such personal data, and to refuse to permit further collection or use of such personal data. To do so, please contact us at privacy@lindenlab.com. Parents and guardians who wish to review personal data concerning their child(ren) will be required to specify the usernames and passwords of the child(ren) concerned, and to provide their own e-mail address for verification and contact purposes.

We cannot and will not establish conditions that will require or encourage children to disclose personal data over and above what is reasonably necessary to participate in any activity features on our web sites.

Children under thirteen (13) years of age are allowed to participate in contests. However, if such a child wins, notification will be sent to the parent or guardian's e-mail address (provided by the child when he/she enters the contest). Also, we will not ask the child for any personal data beyond e-mail addresses without obtaining prior parental consent. Any personal data obtained from children and parents during contests will be kept until the contest ends and prizes are delivered, and then it will be deleted.

If any online activity offered by us will allow children under the age of thirteen (13) to reveal personal data publicly (for example via un-moderated forums), we will obtain parental consent before allowing the child to participate.

-----------------------------------

There is no reference to 13 years or older not being allowed on the Grid. Only that they are allowed access to "G" content only.

I do believe in the old TOS it was more specific, i.e, "you affirm you are at least 16, etc." But that was to register an account.

And while the old TOS did not allow a parent to let their Minor Child to acces the Grid with that Parent's Account, it did not forbid it either. Regardless, the Parent would still be resposible for the Childs activities.

Perhaps Linden Lab needs to add some specific language to deal with this scenario. It does appear to be an oversight on their part.

There could still be something buried deeper in the specific Terms that apply to SL at the bottom of the TOS. I don't remeber right now and my eyes are blurry from trying to decipher a lot of the new changes.

Storm Clarence · August 17, 2013

Perrie, see my last post.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am not trying to prove you wrong or right. I am not playing semantics with you. There is no arguement here. Chill for a little and read what is written. I could care less about children as long as they KEEP OFF MY LAWN!

You seem to be going way out of your way to 'prove' something that I am just not getting or even talking about. Which is cool, but...

Pie Serendipity · August 18, 2013

Perrie Juran wrote:

You know, unless with the re-write of the TOS is got buried deeper somewhere than I am finding at the moment, I think LL has missed something:

3.2 Age Requirements for Use of Areas of the Service.

Under 18 Users

. If you are less than eighteen (18) years of age (or the legal age of majority in your jurisdiction, if greater), then you may access the General area of the Service in accordance with our Maturity Guidelines.

Wow, they sneaked that in, didn't they!

It means that there is NO lower age limit on SL members, as long as they stick to General areas.

Venus Petrov · August 18, 2013

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ima Rang wrote:

Storm Clarence wrote:

And if the responsible adult does allow the child to participate (and here is the point of this whole conversation) they have NO right to lash-out/admonish any *adult* on the sim who may use language that is not appropriate for a 13 yr. old. Absolutely no right what-so-ever! It is they who failed in their responsibility.

Indeed. LOL, I can't even imagine what kind of parent would assume themselves so entitled as to dictate the behavior/language of other adult SL participants for the sake of their underage child.

I can.

...Dres

I thought that no adult would try to dictate the behavior of another adult in SL (especially since one can eject annoyances off private property or teleport away from any behavior they find offensive). This sounds like a drama event. Wait. Let me grab some popcorn in case it happens again.

Ceka Cianci · August 18, 2013

Pie Serendipity wrote:

Perrie Juran wrote:

You know, unless with the re-write of the TOS is got buried deeper somewhere than I am finding at the moment, I think LL has missed something:

3.2 Age Requirements for Use of Areas of the Service.

Under 18 Users

. If you are less than eighteen (18) years of age (or the legal age of majority in your jurisdiction, if greater), then you may access the General area of the Service in accordance with our Maturity Guidelines.

Wow, they sneaked that in, didn't they!

It means that there is NO lower age limit on SL members, as long as they stick to General areas.

ya that is what shocked me..because if it was 13 to 15..

those were only allowed in sims for like education and limited to those ages and the adults that were allowed to be in there with them..like teachers and parents or guardiens..

now it's 13 and up in general from what i read..if i understood it right..

they must have revamped the TOS right before this thread was made..

now i see why it was made hehehe

Storm always has a unique way of getting on subjects.

once i seen the changes i understood what he was doing ..

Dresden Ceriano · August 18, 2013

Venus Petrov wrote:

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Ima Rang wrote:

Storm Clarence wrote:

And if the responsible adult does allow the child to participate (and here is the point of this whole conversation) they have NO right to lash-out/admonish any *adult* on the sim who may use language that is not appropriate for a 13 yr. old. Absolutely no right what-so-ever! It is they who failed in their responsibility.

Indeed. LOL, I can't even imagine what kind of parent would assume themselves so entitled as to dictate the behavior/language of other adult SL participants for the sake of their underage child.

I can.

...Dres

I thought that no adult would try to dictate the behavior of another adult in SL (especially since one can eject annoyances off private property or teleport away from any behavior they find offensive). This sounds like a drama event. Wait. Let me grab some popcorn in case it happens again.

I've seen such activities take place and it is indeed popcorn worthy. Even if the only drama at the time was the offering and acceptance of an apology. There's more than ample opportunity for drama to ensue once the "responsible parent" decides to try to villainize the adult friend with half-truths and misrepresentations of the incident once their friendship has ended. Doesn't everyone try to use a formally non-issue to attack someone once they've had a falling out? That's just drama at it's finest... I think someone deserves an applause.

...Dres

Pie Serendipity · August 18, 2013

Ceka Cianci wrote:

now it's 13 and up in general from what i read..if i understood it right..

Nope - there is no mention of under-13s being any different in SL from any other under-18s in the section I quoted. In fact, LL acknowledges that they intend to interact with under-13s, and try to cover themselves against action which might ensue as a result of organisation to whom they sell their mailing lists sending offers on BDSM equipment to 8 year olds.

Their lawyers are messing up BIG TIME trying to draft a single ToS that would cover all LL's properties when there are HUGE differences between them. You can drive a coach and horses between the inconsistencies and LL had better watch out that some civil liberties activists don't set them up as targets.

Dresden Ceriano · August 18, 2013

Pie Serendipity wrote:

Their lawyers are messing up BIG TIME trying to draft a single ToS that would cover all LL's properties when there are HUGE differences between them.

My thoughts exactly, but heaven forbid that I should post anything questioning the intelligence of the wonderful employees at LL.

...Dres

Venus Petrov · August 18, 2013

I think it is exactly that, Pie. One TOS to fit all circumstances. Follow the logic flow between the paragraphs and it does sound like SL is pretty much open to all. Wheeeeee!

Perrie Juran · August 18, 2013

Storm Clarence wrote:

Perrie, see my last post.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am not trying to prove you wrong or right. I am not playing semantics with you. There is no arguement here. Chill for a little and read what is written. I could care less about children as long as they KEEP OFF MY LAWN!

You seem to be going way out of your way to 'prove' something that I am just not getting or even talking about. Which is cool, but...

I didn't think you were arguing with me.

I thought we were discussing.

Peace.

p.s. I'm kind of glad this discussion came up. I've been following some of the 'what had changed in the TOS' threads. Many people are fixated on the "all your base are belong to us" provisions. And missing that ripe red ready to be popped pimple on the tip of it's nose changes to the age requirements provisions.

Madeline Blackbart · August 18, 2013

Perrie Juran wrote:

Storm Clarence wrote:

Perrie, see my last post.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am not trying to prove you wrong or right. I am not playing semantics with you. There is no arguement here. Chill for a little and read what is written. I could care less about children as long as they KEEP OFF MY LAWN!

You seem to be going way out of your way to 'prove' something that I am just not getting or even talking about. Which is cool, but...

I didn't think you were arguing with me.

I thought we were discussing.

Peace.

p.s. I'm kind of glad this discussion came up. I've been following some of the 'what had changed in the TOS' threads. Many people are fixated on the "all your base are belong to us" provisions. And missing that ripe red ready to be popped pimple on the tip of it's nose changes to the age requirements provisions.

the age requirment provivsions? you meant he ones that meantion you should not display lewd sexual acts? or is this yet another provision I have not seen?

Perrie Juran · August 18, 2013

Madeline Blackbart wrote:

Perrie Juran wrote:

Storm Clarence wrote:

Perrie, see my last post.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am not trying to prove you wrong or right. I am not playing semantics with you. There is no arguement here. Chill for a little and read what is written. I could care less about children as long as they KEEP OFF MY LAWN!

You seem to be going way out of your way to 'prove' something that I am just not getting or even talking about. Which is cool, but...

I didn't think you were arguing with me.

I thought we were discussing.

Peace.

p.s. I'm kind of glad this discussion came up. I've been following some of the 'what had changed in the TOS' threads. Many people are fixated on the "all your base are belong to us" provisions. And missing that ripe red ready to be popped pimple on the tip of it's nose changes to the age requirements provisions.

the age requirment provivsions? you meant he ones that meantion you should not display lewd sexual acts? or is this yet another provision I have not seen?

See above.

I am not going to rehash this whole thread.

Thanks.

Ima Rang · August 24, 2013