Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RaeLeeH

Question about prim babies in Zindra

Recommended Posts

Is it allowed? A friend has told me that prim babies are susceptible to the same rules as child avatars in A rated land; meaning whatever you can't do in front of a child avatar you cannot do in front of a prim baby. Is this true?


I'm not intending on placing said prims in overtly sexual or violent places such as a strip club; just a parcel where sex is allowed. I have a parcel set to public access in Zindra where sex (in the form of rape as well as consensual) and violence are allowed. Am I able to live here with my prim babies and not break any ToS or am I forced to subdivide or exclude one for the other?


Any help would be most appreciated, thank you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it allowed? A friend has told me that prim babies are susceptible to the same rules as child avatars in A rated land; meaning whatever you can't do in front of a child avatar you cannot do in front of a prim baby. Is this true?


I'm not intending on placing said prims in overtly sexual or violent places such as a strip club; just a parcel where sex is allowed. I have a parcel set to public access in Zindra where sex (in the form of rape as well as consensual) and violence are allowed. Am I able to live here with my prim babies and not break any ToS or am I forced to subdivide or exclude one for the other?


Any help would be most appreciated, thank you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no consideration for prim babies in LL's official guidelines.

The overriding point of the Ageplay policy is this - graphical representations of having child-like representations involved in sexual activity are illegal in many RL locations, and in Second Life.

It has nothing to do with what's done 'in front of them'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's perfectly okay, Freya; some people seem to think the minute babies and adult rated land is mentioned in the same sentence you must automatically want to involve the two like some kind of pedophilia - I completely agree that there is no place in this world or any world for that matter for that kind of behavior. It's why I attempted to phrase the question in a way that avoided that correlation.


I simply am a mother of 2 Zooby babies and would like to live in an area where sex and violence (to and with other adult avatars) is allowed. Not to exploit or abuse said babies but to be a mother to them... When I'm not involved in other adult practices that do not have anything to do with the babies other than them perhaps living under the same roof (in their own room).


Thank you for your response. It makes me feel a little better :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of course a sim owner/operator of a venue can make his/her own rules that are more strict than what LL uses, and indeed many do for their own protection (or out of ignorance as to what the LL TOS/community standards mean) do just that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RaeLeeH wrote:

Thank you for your response. It makes me feel a little better
:)

You're welcome. It's difficult to 'project' LL's interpretation of their vague rules. I hope my post didn't imply anything, I just wanted to repeat the 'spirit' of the rules in a way that makes sense to your specific case.

I would imagine, considering your explanation, that you'll have no problem here. Function-wise, these babies are just the same as other breedable pet. The maturity ratings only define the MOST allowed thing, they don't imply that material more suited to lower ratings (such as G or M)  must stay there.

Note that while owning land on Zindra, ONLY LL can decide what rules you have to obey while you're on your property. This has nothing to do with sim owners making their own rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Freya Mokusei wrote:

 

 

Note that while owning land on Zindra, ONLY LL can decide what rules you have to obey while you're on your property. This has nothing to do with sim owners making their own rules.

not quite. While you can't change the covenant of a mainland parcel or region, you can still set rules for it as long as those rules don't violate the community standards and TOS (same as with private regions).

So a venue owner on Zindra can make rules that are stricter than the generic rules for access to A rated areas. He or she for example could create a rule barring nudity (silly, but it happens).

An operator on G rated land can't make a rule allowing nudity because under the TOS nudity isn't allowed there. But they can (and many do) make a rule barring bikinis and other beachwear, which by the TOS is perfectly fine on G rated land.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a debunking of your claim that owners can't make rules that differ from LLs TOS, but you're clearly incapable of understanding that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Freya Mokusei wrote:

There's no consideration for prim babies in LL's official guidelines.

The overriding point of the Ageplay policy is this -
g
raphical representations
of having child-like representations
involved
in sexual activity are illegal in many RL locations, and in Second Life.

It has nothing to do with what's done 'in front of them'.

However, the [child] avatar should not be in proximity to sexual content or activity (pops).

 


Freya Mokusei wrote:

You're welcome. It's difficult to 'project' LL's interpretation of their vague rules.


Why do people insist on calling the rules "vague?"  There is absolutely nothing vague about them.  They may not detail every possible scenario but they are not vague.

 

 

Regardless, Linden Lab has asked, "If you are in doubt as to whether an activity may be interpreted as ageplay, we request you err on the side of caution and desist." (pops)

 

At best the placement of Prim Babies in proximity to sexual activity will be a subjective call by LL.  Personally I would lean toward LL saying "no" to it.  They also more than likely would err on the side of caution.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to maturity ratings, the rules are quite definitely vague. Even regarding the ageplay policy, it only talks about child avatars IIRC - not representations of a child (which is definitely wider-ranging, and a definition required under legal enforcement - the law doesn't care if the representation is an avatar or not).

There's currently been nearly two weeks of arguments regarding confusion over the ToS - no-one's sure whether or not one of the founding principles of Second Life no longer exists, and LL's bizarre attempt to remedy the situation was ignored.

There are multiple deliberately contradicting statements in the ToS, the rules on currency are anything except clear. Some parts are unenforcable, and have been left in anyway. Mostly this is done to allow LL room for 'grey' areas which they can flexibly enforce in their typical style (punish some, ignore others).

If none of this proves the case for 'vague', I don't know what to tell you. I have no idea if you have anything other than your post-count behind your assertions and have already wasted enough time on this thread. I don't care about prim babies, I think they're creepy as heck.

Debating probability of administrative action doesn't interest me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Freya Mokusei wrote:

When it comes to maturity ratings, the rules are quite definitely vague. Even regarding the ageplay policy, it only talks about child avatars IIRC - not representations of a child (which is definitely wider-ranging, and a definition required under legal enforcement - the law doesn't care if the representation is an avatar or not).


This then may be something we will need to agree to disagree on then.  I personally do not think the rules regarding ageplay (and child porn) are 'vague.'  In this situation I believe the OP has presented a very unique circumstance and a legitimate question.  In my opinion most of the questions I have heard in the category of ageplay have been either people trying to play "morality police" or people trying to figure out just how much they could get away with or find loopholes in the rules.

 


Freya Mokusei wrote:

 

There's currently been nearly two weeks of arguments regarding confusion over the ToS - no-one's sure whether or not one of the founding principles of Second Life no longer exists, and LL's bizarre attempt to remedy the situation was ignored.

 


 

If you are referring to the discussion about the new content rules I am very aware of them.  That involves two questions, the legality and LL's intent.  But that part of the TOS appearing to be vague (actually I think the corrcet term would be "confusing') to people does not make the ageplay policies vague.

 


Freya Mokusei wrote:

 

If none of this proves the case for 'vague', I don't know what to tell you. I have no idea if you have anything other than your post-count behind your assertions and have already wasted enough time on this thread.

 

Again, the fact that one part of the TOS may appear to be vague does not make another part vague.

As to my assertions, the statements I made are based upon my personal observations both in this Forum and In World regarding this topic.  They are based on the sum totals of that.  I personally have never engaged in such activity. 

 


Freya Mokusei wrote:

 

Debating probability of administrative action doesn't interest me.

I rarely debate and it was never my intention to engage you in a debate.

 

 

Mainly I simply state my position.  Sometimes I will enter into discussion about my position, other times I don't.

Beyond that I will agree with you, everything that can be said about this topic that would be of any value has been said.

 

 

eta:sphpelling

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...