Child avatar

[kali Wylder]

The problem isn't being a child avatar.   The problem is wanting to have sex as(or with) a child avatar. That's the thing that LL forbids.

Most people just want to be sure that child avatar sexuality or even the slightest suggestion of the appearance of child avatar sexuality doesn't happen in their proximity. If they are landowners, they sure don't want to be accused of harboring such activity.  If they are visitors they don't want to be accused of engaging in or condoning such activity.  

Then there are those who just like to push at boundaries.  You tell them they can't do something and that makes them want to do it. And let's not forget there are those unfortunate individuals who get turned on by the idea of sex with children.  I'm not sure what the draw is for them when we all know that wearing a child avatar does not make you a child and there are no actual children in SL.

 

[Ayashe Ninetails]

11 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Ya, it's usually just not meeting the height requirements for the sim is all.. Some of those detectors I guess must warn moderators of sims or something.. I'm not sure how they work really.. But I'll get an IM saying I need to add some height.. 

I mean I can't recall too many  really being rude to me, because I don't question their rules.. Most have just asked  pretty politely really.. Most anyways.. there was a few arrogant ones.. But I don't let them get to me.. It's as easy and clicking  home to deal with.. hehehe

That's just so pointless, especially if other non-human avatars are generally allowed in. If it's exclusively human, okay, I guess? If not, though...

So what height should I make my frog? Or my Sphynx cat? Or my candelabra? Granted the whole chandelier and cat on my head gives me a ton of added height, but if I shrunk her down...wut happens then? 😂

A manual review would be a lot better than a height detector, IMO. Lots of obvious things they could miss just going by that (plus, teens can be tall as hell, too - have you seeeen some of them?!).

[Ceka Cianci]

5 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

That's just so pointless, especially if other non-human avatars are generally allowed in. If it's exclusively human, okay, I guess? If not, though...

So what height should I make my frog? Or my Sphynx cat? Or my candelabra? Granted the whole chandelier and cat on my head gives me a ton of added height, but if I shrunk her down...wut happens then? 😂

A manual review would be a lot better than a height detector, IMO. Lots of obvious things they could miss just going by that (plus, teens can be tall as hell, too - have you seeeen some of them?!).

To be honest, I don't really run into those detectors as much as I used to.. I'll see some and seem to skirt in just around that fine line of good enough.. hehehe

And ya, they have really always been a silly thing to me, since height is not really a determining factor.. But there were those that took that route to use..

I don't know if they were just human or not.. I never really stuck around long enough to find out.. I was off to another place, because it just really never came to mind to argue with them.. Don't want me here, Hey you don't have to ask me twice. I'll take those big tips I was dropping at the time, somewhere else.. hehehe

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Yeah, I was somewhat shocked and disappointed that they were chosen 

Yeah... I wonder who's decision that was. Ugh just kidding we all know. 

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Sparkle Bunny said:

What I don't get is why would anyone wearing a child avatar be in a managerial role? Surely the whole point of roleplaying as a kid is so you can avoid those responsibilities?

When it's time to go to work, you pop your adult avatar on and people listen to what you say. Problem solved.

Maybe because the person contributes to the sim either financially or with their time, has shown that they care about the sim, and is good at managing people.

@PheebyKatz would be a good exanple.

[Orwar]

1 hour ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

Yeah not so welcoming to women apparently. That's okay though, no one is complaining about that cause it's women. So who cares. 

   There's also no shortage of lesbian-catering venues where no men are allowed. I don't really mind, personally, if I'm not wanted somewhere there's other places to go. I also don't really feel like it's an issue that a venue in SL (or RL for that matter) want to make a space for just men or women or trans-people or furries or whatever. It's like nude beaches where no clothes are allowed - if you don't feel comfortable going around naked then just don't go there? Not all venues must try to cater to everyone. 

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

10 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   There's also no shortage of lesbian-catering venues where no men are allowed. 

That's sh** too though. But at least those venues weren't chosen by LL to showcase at the official second life welcome hub where new people are introduced to communities. Not a good look and just underscores the crap that needs to be sorted at LL.

Edited April 6 by Ingrid Ingersoll

[Orwar]

1 minute ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

That's sh** too though.

   Eh, guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that bit.

2 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

But at least those venues weren't chosen by LL to showcase at the welcome hub. Not a good look and just underscores the crap that needs to be sorted at LL.

   This I do agree with though. And, I don't really know if I like the idea of LL showcasing any particular communities at all, it's inevitably going to appear like favouritism.

   .. But I do agree with their choice of showcasing DoSL. I'm totally not biased though! 

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

4 minutes ago, Orwar said:

 I don't really know if I like the idea of LL showcasing any particular communities at all, it's inevitably going to appear like favouritism.

Yup.

"Here at LL we fully endorse and celebrate this group that won't let you dance in their club of you have a cooter. Welcome."

Get Fu**ed. 

Edited April 6 by Ingrid Ingersoll

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

That does say that child avatars in proximity sex stuff is against rules. It doesn't suggest that it's only against the rules if the sex stuff is indicated as such. That's the way I read it, anyway.

True, but I have a vague recollection that once upon a time, a Linden had said that it was alright for families with children to live in the same house, even if the parent's bed had sex animations in it - as long as no sex was happening when an child was around.

Trying to search brings up so much stuff that it is like looking for a needle in a haystack -- and I did say "vague" recollection.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

I had a revelation the other day. This might seem blindingly obvious to everyone else (ok, so I'm a little slow) but . . .

I've always harboured the assumption that LL was concerned about "bad things that we might do" in SL. And I've suddenly come to realize that, no, they really aren't much.

They are concerned with optics.

I don't just mean in the "public relations" sense of that. I mean that they've sort of dumbed-down the entire process of evaluation to something that probably almost could be handled by AI: does "this" apparently objectionable activity or object or whatever need to be interpreted as a violation? Is there some degree of "plausible deniability" there? Can it be read as "innocent," even if there is a good chance it is not?

Basically, they don't want to have to think very hard about this. And generally, the evidence suggests that they don't: if something slaps you in the face -- a child avi standing next to a bondage device, for instance -- then they'll act. If it doesn't -- for instance, a child standing next to a mere sex bed that could just have PG animations in it -- they won't.

There's not much room for subtlety or nuance here, I think: their approach is liking ticking off boxes and determining violations on the basis of a really pretty primitive black-and-white approach to things. And for the most part, LL seems to err on the side of being more rather than less forgiving.

It explains so much, really.

Duh.

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I've always harboured the assumption that LL was concerned about "bad things that we might do" in SL. And I've suddenly come to realize that, no, they really aren't much.

No. They are not. And they won't listen until something drastic happens, like the entire community of content creators in SL (the people who basically make sl what it is) wake them up from their sweet little self interested slumber. 

[Persephone Emerald]

34 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I had a revelation the other day. This might seem blindingly obvious to everyone else (ok, so I'm a little slow) but . . .

I've always harboured the assumption that LL was concerned about "bad things that we might do" in SL. And I've suddenly come to realize that, no, they really aren't much.

They are concerned with optics.

I don't just mean in the "public relations" sense of that. I mean that they've sort of dumbed-down the entire process of evaluation to something that probably almost could be handled by AI: does "this" apparently objectionable activity or object or whatever need to be interpreted as a violation? Is there some degree of "plausible deniability" there? Can it be read as "innocent," even if there is a good chance it is not?

Basically, they don't want to have to think very hard about this. And generally, the evidence suggests that they don't: if something slaps you in the face -- a child avi standing next to a bondage device, for instance -- then they'll act. If it doesn't -- for instance, a child standing next to a mere sex bed that could just have PG animations in it -- they won't.

There's not much room for subtlety or nuance here, I think: their approach is liking ticking off boxes and determining violations on the basis of a really pretty primitive black-and-white approach to things. And for the most part, LL seems to err on the side of being more rather than less forgiving.

It explains so much, really.

Duh.

I agree. But what else could they do, practically speaking?

We don't want them monitoring everything we do in SL, do we? So there is no practical way for them to know what goes on in someone's private estate or skybox. As long as nobody else finds out and complains publically, they're good, right?

Short of LL controlling what kinds of avatars we can use - such as nothing below the waist or only avatars created by the lab - they can't stop users from presenting as a child. All they have any control over is what happens in public, and then only when an infraction is reported by another user.

What they probably can do is hire a couple more people to follow up on these reports, and then punish those who are clearly breaking the rules. Maybe they should also have undercover Lindens going around to investigate allegations of TOS violations and sims with dicy sounding names and descriptions. When people think they might be watched, they tend to behave better.

Being seen to be doing something, rather than doing nothing, will help with the PR.

Edited April 6 by Persephone Emerald

[sirhc DeSantis]

31 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I had a revelation the other day. This might seem blindingly obvious to everyone else (ok, so I'm a little slow) but . . .

I've always harboured the assumption that LL was concerned about "bad things that we might do" in SL. And I've suddenly come to realize that, no, they really aren't much.

They are concerned with optics.

I don't just mean in the "public relations" sense of that. I mean that they've sort of dumbed-down the entire process of evaluation to something that probably almost could be handled by AI: does "this" apparently objectionable activity or object or whatever need to be interpreted as a violation? Is there some degree of "plausible deniability" there? Can it be read as "innocent," even if there is a good chance it is not?

Basically, they don't want to have to think very hard about this. And generally, the evidence suggests that they don't: if something slaps you in the face -- a child avi standing next to a bondage device, for instance -- then they'll act. If it doesn't -- for instance, a child standing next to a mere sex bed that could just have PG animations in it -- they won't.

There's not much room for subtlety or nuance here, I think: their approach is liking ticking off boxes and determining violations on the basis of a really pretty primitive black-and-white approach to things. And for the most part, LL seems to err on the side of being more rather than less forgiving.

It explains so much, really.

Duh.

As vids seem to be the thing this is the ahem obvious response. Surprised 'teachers' do no have to know this. Never thought I would have to resort to Basil but sometimes one has to give  ones standards a little slip

 

 

[Persephone Emerald]

25 minutes ago, Ingrid Ingersoll said:

No. They are not. And they won't listen until something drastic happens, like the entire community of content creators in SL (the people who basically make sl what it is) wake them up from their sweet little self interested slumber. 

It's only about self interest. Bad PR is bad for Linden Lab. Losing users or money is also bad for Linden Lab. They have to balance the potential for increased costs vs. the potential for lost revenue or a hit to their public reputation.

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

11 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

It's only about self interest. Bad PR is bad for Linden Lab. Losing users or money is also bad for Linden Lab. They have to balance the potential for increased costs vs. the potential for lost revenue or a hit to their public reputation.

A well run company would have this figured out after 20 years. 

Edited April 6 by Ingrid Ingersoll

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said:

What they probably can do is hire a couple more people to follow up on these reports, and then punish those who are clearly breaking the rules.

I think this, yes. And maybe put a little actual thought into responding to ARs.

It's not easy, nor should we expect it to be: human behaviour, even (and sometimes maybe especially) in virtual contexts, is complicated. That's why we have trials in RL.

At what point do we determine that that "schoolgirl" (who is wearing an adult body, and whose profile insists she is 18+) being "disciplined" by her teacher across her school desk is "crossing a line"? LL has pretty clearly determined that this is acceptable: it's all over the place. When does using a tracking HUD become a "stalking"? Does a child avi at a dance club that features a lot of double entendres or "salacious" open chat constitute a violation?

Not really very clear, in real terms, is it? But LL pretty much invariably ignores something that is open to interpretation.

And when they do respond to a "crisis," it tends to be, similarly, a rather simplistic solution. When LL realized that there were bad actors using SL "Banks" to leverage ponzi schemes, their response wasn't an overhaul of the mechanics of the SL economy. They simply banned "banks."

 

Edited April 6 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

True, but I have a vague recollection that once upon a time, a Linden had said that it was alright for families with children to live in the same house, even if the parent's bed had sex animations in it - as long as no sex was happening when an child was around.

The family thought did cross my mind when I was posting. I even imagined a security device in the parent's room lol. What you said does make sense.

[Ceka Cianci]

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

The family thought did cross my mind when I was posting. I even imagined a security device in the parent's room lol. What you said does make sense.

I believe it was actually sexual activities and not things like beds and furniture or objects or even regions that may host activities..

Because they could easily be close to those things in a moderate sim as well. or a store or where ever really..

[Phil Deakins]

15 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Because they could easily be close to those things in a moderate sim as well. or a store

When the Adult regions came in a lot of people took free land transfers to them, but I chose not to even though I sold sex furniture AND I had models (bots) on sex beds in cubicles so potential customers could see and try the animations before buying.

We had been assured in the forum that things like that would be ok  on Moderate land as long as there was no nudity. Then some busybody reported the models on the sex furniture and the Linden who messaged me didn't know the new rules. It was sorted out satisfactorily and the models stayed.

In any case, when I saw child avatars in the store, I watched them to make sure they didn't try any sex furniture out, and I never saw even one doing it. I did, however, see one guy asking the model to remove her panties lol.

Edited April 6 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

37 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

When the Adult regions came in a lot of people took free land transfers to them, but I chose not to even though I sold sex furniture AND I had models (bots) on sex beds in cubicles so potential customers could see and try the animations before buying.

Rebel!