Child Avatars on Combat Sims

[ColinMcRay]

Ive had several people say that child avatars are not allowed by Linden Labs on Combat Sims.  However, I have thoroughly read through both LL and SL TOS and can find nothing about child avatars outside ***** and child avatars barred from being around sexual objects and rps.  Can anyone find the rules of children on combat sims and show me?  Thank you.

[Rolig Loon]

Neither the policy on child avatars (https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Clarification_of_policy_disallowing_ageplay) nor the Community Standards (https://www.lindenlab.com/legal/community-standards) which underlie them make any mention of combat regions (or any other specific type of region), nor do they mention any prohibitions related to violence with respect to child avatars.  I am not a lawyer and I do not represent LL, however.  If you are uncertain about what those basic documents mean, I suggest consulting your own lawyer and the legal department at Linden Lab.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Rolig Loon
typos. as always.

[Solar Legion]

To be rather blunt: Anyone telling you that child avatars are not allowed on combat regions due to the ToS or CS is absolutely talking out of their posterior.

[Odaks]

32 minutes ago, ColinMcRay said:

and child avatars barred from being around sexual objects and rps.

You might find this WiKi FAQ page helpful, too:-

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Adult_Content_FAQ

 

 

[purrrkitten]

If the sim owner is telling you they're not allowed on their sim, you won't win this. It doesn't matter if the reason is a lie or not.

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, purrrkitten said:

If the sim owner is telling you they're not allowed on their sim, you won't win this. It doesn't matter if the reason is a lie or not.

If they are using the ToS or CS as an excuse, they need to drop the pretense/act and simply state that they do not allow/want/like it.

[Sparkle Bunny]

Combat sims are, as a rule, privately owned and not on Mainland. This means the sim owner can ban you for any reason (or none) and there's nothing you can do about it. Arguing the toss about the ToS is only going to make them dig their heels in more.

[Love Zhaoying]

So..kill them "softly". Crying children ruins the game.

[purrrkitten]

1 hour ago, Solar Legion said:

If they are using the ToS or CS as an excuse, they need to drop the pretense/act and simply state that they do not allow/want/like it.

It doesn't matter at the end of the day. If the sim owner doesn't want child avis there then that's that.

[Solar Legion]

53 minutes ago, purrrkitten said:

It doesn't matter at the end of the day. If the sim owner doesn't want child avis there then that's that.

At the end of the day, they're misrepresenting the Terms of Service and/or Community Standards (or otherwise perpetuating said misrepresentation) and it needs to stop.

If they do not want any particular type of Avatar, they need to come out and say it. Not hide behind a misrepresentation.

That is my entire point.

It is something I have grown quite tired of giving a pass to or waving away.

To reiterate: No one should be using the Terms of Service or Community Standards as an excuse for disallowing any particular Avatar type from their parcel or region if there is nothing pertaining to such contained within said documents. The only such example pertains to a specific type of adult activity that can be enraged in and content that is used for such. That is the beginning and end of such specifics.

The correct response to being asked why one has been removed from a particular place is "I/we do not allow that here/wish to see that particular type of Avatar here". The incorrect response is pinning it on the above mentioned documents.

[Coffee Pancake]

There are no rules saying child avatars can't be on combat sims or participate in the combat.

However, a private region owner can set any rules they like for their own region with no justification at all (so long as said rules are themselves within the ToS).

 

 

[purrrkitten]

3 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

At the end of the day, they're misrepresenting the Terms of Service and/or Community Standards (or otherwise perpetuating said misrepresentation) and it needs to stop.

If they do not want any particular type of Avatar, they need to come out and say it. Not hide behind a misrepresentation.

That is my entire point.

It is something I have grown quite tired of giving a pass to or waving away.

To reiterate: No one should be using the Terms of Service or Community Standards as an excuse for disallowing any particular Avatar type from their parcel or region if there is nothing pertaining to such contained within said documents. The only such example pertains to a specific type of adult activity that can be enraged in and content that is used for such. That is the beginning and end of such specifics.

The correct response to being asked why one has been removed from a particular place is "I/we do not allow that here/wish to see that particular type of Avatar here". The incorrect response is pinning it on the above mentioned documents.

And I'm saying the reason doesn't really matter if the sim owner made that decision. It sounds like OP is looking to show a sim owner that the TOS doesn't say that. It won't change anything if that's what they have decided.

[Solar Legion]

Just now, purrrkitten said:

And I'm saying the reason doesn't really matter if the sim owner made that decision. It sounds like OP is looking to show a sim owner that the TOS doesn't say that. It won't change anything if that's what they have decided.

I am rather aware of what you were getting at.

The reason both does and does not matter: It matters in that the way it was presented to the OP is a gross misrepresentation of the Terms of Service and Community Standards. A practice which must stop. It does not matter in that at the end of the day, the owner still does not want such.

That of course assumes that said owner actually does not want such as opposed to their going on the misrepresentation. That is also a problem - there actually are those who believe it and are only barring access based on such.

[ColinMcRay]

That is my thing.  If they dont want children there, that is fine.  But dont go claiming TOS if it isnt so.

[ColinMcRay]

Here is the thing.  I have a SL daughter that likes to be on her little, but we enjoy going to Tulagi and taking out the subs to hunt drone ships.  If there is a TOS against it, then I need to stop her before she gets in trouble.  But if its not, then where is the harm?

[purrrkitten]

3 minutes ago, ColinMcRay said:

Here is the thing.  I have a SL daughter that likes to be on her little, but we enjoy going to Tulagi and taking out the subs to hunt drone ships.  If there is a TOS against it, then I need to stop her before she gets in trouble.  But if its not, then where is the harm?

That's something you should take up with the sim owner then. If they still say no then that's your answer.

 

You can't really blame them. Child avis are creepy af.

[PermaRuthed]

It would be easier for them to say they hate kids, they are antinatalist, and proud to be childfree. No kids allowed, come back when you're grown up. No fancy explanations needed. He who pays the piper calls the tune, right? 

[Setsuki Takeda]

4 hours ago, purrrkitten said:

You can't really blame them. Child avis are creepy af.

I have seen some "street urchin" avatars that were pretty interesting, and well played, it's just *most* of them with the bad baby-talk and penchant for riding the lines of ***** restrictions that are creepy.

 

The orphan pickpocket living in the slums?

 

We could do with *more* of those as the people behind them tend to actually understand the concept of RP instead of "Barbie with a Character Sheet."

[Setsuki Takeda]

Wow, that was weird, I guess they're so against it they censor even mentioning it as a creepy and bad thing XD

[StarlanderGoods]

8 hours ago, ColinMcRay said:

Here is the thing.  I have a SL daughter that likes to be on her little, but we enjoy going to Tulagi and taking out the subs to hunt drone ships.  If there is a TOS against it, then I need to stop her before she gets in trouble.  But if its not, then where is the harm?

The possible harm is getting banned by the sim owner, and then the wont be able to go there even if they change bodies.

It takes very little effort to make an adult outfit and use that for combat situations.

[belindacarson]

says in the sim's covenant, no child avis or child like avis.

[Sparkle Bunny]

20 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

The reason both does and does not matter: It matters in that the way it was presented to the OP is a gross misrepresentation of the Terms of Service and Community Standards. A practice which must stop.

Sometimes people lie. I suppose you could AR them for lying, but generally LL don't do anything about residents lying to other residents unless there's money involved; and to be honest I'm not sure they'd interfere even then.

If she's not trying to RP with anyone other than the OP then I can't see a problem. If they go ahead and ban them both, then yes, they're being unreasonable; but you wouldn't want to be gifting traffic numbers to unreasonable people and hanging out in their spaces anyway, right?

[Lindal Kidd]

They just ban them because those little kids are VICIOUS!

[Starberry Passion]

No one wants to bend down trying to hit some tiny target.

And no one wants to beat on a child, even if the child is not really an actual child.

[Darius Wilberg]

Owners of Private sims have the final say on who is and is not allowed on their sims. They're paying the bill. not you. As long as they stay within the TOS, they can decide to tighten the rules even more for their own reasons.