Discrimination rules to be added to TOS?

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

They wanted LL to enforce the non-discrimination declarations in the ToS and CS very literally and stringently, and apply them to all regions and parcels.

So, in other words, private region or parcel owners should not have the right to ban furries or child avatars, because that constitutes a form of "discrimination."

For obvious reasons, that's a non-starter.

Has the discussion drifted? Just a tad?

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Has the discussion drifted? Just a tad?

Don't they all eventually?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

Don't they all eventually?

Yep! But with the exception of the digression on BDSM, I think most of the discussions here have been germane. This isn't the "Answers" section, after all -- discussion here isn't a bug, it's a feature.

[Rolig Loon]

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

They wanted LL to enforce the non-discrimination declarations in the ToS and CS very literally and stringently, and apply them to all regions and parcels.

So, in other words, private region or parcel owners should not have the right to ban furries or child avatars, because that constitutes a form of "discrimination."

For obvious reasons, that's a non-starter.

Has the discussion drifted? Just a tad?

Not with Scylla's comment.  She's right back to the OP's statement.  And she's right.  It was a non-starter.  We've just managed to start it anyway and run with it for 17 pages.  There's not much more to say.

[EliseAnne85]

14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

They wanted LL to enforce the non-discrimination declarations in the ToS and CS very literally and stringently, and apply them to all regions and parcels.

So, in other words, private region or parcel owners should not have the right to ban furries or child avatars, because that constitutes a form of "discrimination."

For obvious reasons, that's a non-starter.

Ok, thanks.  I didn't read much of the first page because I read much of the first page was deleted and had sock puppets.

Furries are most welcome at Raglan Shire.  Child avatars, I don't know but Raglan Shire is perhaps a good place to ask.  Raglan Shire allows everybody as far as I know but no nude humans. And, furries perhaps need to wear some clothes.   I'm not sure of the exact rules there; they'd need to ask.  

The private sims here are what they are.  LL has no control of that except perhaps general, moderate, adult.  

Edited August 24, 2022 by EliseAnne85

[kali Wylder]

15 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

But, to get to the person who started this thread and their title, do they want discrimination rules added to the TOS?  Such as, Please be advised that SL sims are privately owned and therefore some sims may be subject to a specific dress code.  Rules differ from sim to sim and LL has no control over our patrons choice of which dress code they allow or do not allow.  

I'm not really sure what the person starting the thread wants.

It is my belief that the OP is long gone and really only wanted to start a ruckus.  And I think they succeeded.

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

They wanted LL to enforce the non-discrimination declarations in the ToS and CS very literally and stringently, and apply them to all regions and parcels.

So, in other words, private region or parcel owners should not have the right to ban furries or child avatars, because that constitutes a form of "discrimination."

For obvious reasons, that's a non-starter.

You're projecting. They never said such a thing. He specifically states he's against people who reject him just because they're scared of him or don't like him.  In other words, there's reasons that are more valid to discriminate or exclude others (for thematic purposes, for example), vs ones that are questionable and based on merely not liking someone's representation or fearing them.  This is totally within a sim owners right of course but is this really necessary -- exclusion based on hatred and fear?  Here's what they said:

"People flip their lids if a certain type of avatar shows up and immediately ban said person from events, public sims, and public stores even though the person did nothing wrong other than choosing an avatar that other people dont like.  We all have our opinions but this is starting to get ridiculous that certain avatars cant go practically anywhere because people are "scared of them" or just simply dont like them. that is not how this place is supposed to be".

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, EliseAnne85 said:

The private sims here are what they are.  LL has no control of that except perhaps general, moderate, adult.

I don't think LL wants control, or they would enforce their non-discrimination rules (in whatever way that would look).

One of the appeals of owning land, or even renting, is precisely that you can make your own rules. To change that would make the whole thing much less attractive to some people, and would impact on the bottom line.

As for the ratings, they aren't really "control," in the sense that one is forced to be general, moderate, or adult. While it's true that you can't be "Adult" on mainland outside of Zindra, these are really just "labels" rather than mechanisms for control, censorship, or what-have-you.

[Love Zhaoying]

Thank you for getting this thread back on-topic.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You're projecting. They never said such a thing. He specifically states he's against people who reject him just because they're scared of him or don't like him.  In other words, there's reasons that are more valid to discriminate or exclude others (for thematic purposes, for example), vs ones that are questionable and based on merely not liking someone's representation or fearing them.  This is totally within a sim owners right of course but is this really necessary -- exclusion based on hatred and fear?  Here's what they said:

"People flip their lids if a certain type of avatar shows up and immediately ban said person from events, public sims, and public stores even though the person did nothing wrong other than choosing an avatar that other people dont like.  We all have our opinions but this is starting to get ridiculous that certain avatars cant go practically anywhere because people are "scared of them" or just simply dont like them. that is not how this place is supposed to be".

I'm not sure what you mean by "projecting," but I'm sort of interpreting the implications of what was said: that one shouldn't be able to ban avatars "that other people don't like," based on dislike or fear. In other words, that they should not be discriminated against.

Where does this suggest that there are more valid reasons to discriminate?

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Thank you for getting this thread back on-topic.

yvw

[kali Wylder]

Hatred and fear cannot be dictated.  People experience them whether they want to or not.  It is their actions that they must be responsible for, not their feelings.

[Rowan Amore]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "projecting," but I'm sort of interpreting the implications of what was said: that one shouldn't be able to ban avatars "that other people don't like," based on dislike or fear. In other words, that they should not be discriminated against.

Where does this suggest that there are more valid reasons to discriminate?

I know @Jordan Whitthas a fear of clowns so she would undoubtably ban those from any regions she owned.  She's well within her rights to ban something she fears.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

I know @Jordan Whitthas a fear of clowns so she would undoubtably ban those from any regions she owned.  She's well within her rights to ban something she fears.

 

Both funny, and true!

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

You're projecting. They never said such a thing. He specifically states he's against people who reject him just because they're scared of him or don't like him.  In other words, there's reasons that are more valid to discriminate or exclude others (for thematic purposes, for example), vs ones that are questionable and based on merely not liking someone's representation or fearing them.  This is totally within a sim owners right of course but is this really necessary -- exclusion based on hatred and fear?  Here's what they said:

"People flip their lids if a certain type of avatar shows up and immediately ban said person from events, public sims, and public stores even though the person did nothing wrong other than choosing an avatar that other people dont like.  We all have our opinions but this is starting to get ridiculous that certain avatars cant go practically anywhere because people are "scared of them" or just simply dont like them. that is not how this place is supposed to be".

I'm not sure what you mean by "projecting," but I'm sort of interpreting the implications of what was said: that one shouldn't be able to ban avatars "that other people don't like," based on dislike or fear. In other words, that they should not be discriminated against.

Where does this suggest that there are more valid reasons to discriminate?

He doesn't state that there are more valid reasons to discriminate, but he does state reasons people discriminate that he believes are unfair, and I agree with him.  There actually is a lot of hatred toward child avatars for various reasons, and it goes far beyond simply needing to keep a sim in theme or Adult only.  I have been exploring a bit lately and I am seeing an unusual prejudice toward child avatars going far beyond what is necessary.

I'm hoping it will settle down once the Pedo stuff is far in the past, as I do think this is a big reason for it.

[Luna Bliss]

Wasn't it earlier in this thread someone who is primarily a child avatar expressed others acting as if she's doing something wrong by simply presenting as a child in SL, assuming something sexual was going on?  I think this is a common experience here these days for those with child avatars.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

He doesn't state that there are more valid reasons to discriminate, but he does state reasons people discriminate that he believes are unfair, and I agree with him.  There actually is a lot of hatred toward child avatars for various reasons, and it goes far beyond simply needing to keep a sim in theme or Adult only.  I have been exploring a bit lately and I am seeing an unusual prejudice toward child avatars going far beyond what is necessary.

I'm hoping it will settle down once the Pedo stuff is far in the past, as I do think this is a big reason for it.

I can't even imagine the push back there would be if LL were to start dictating who can or cannot be banned from private regions and parcels. Here on the forums, we'd be swamped with angry posts.

I've suggested, above, that I can see some logic for enforcing non-discrimination rules in cases where the identity being discriminated against is an RL one, and especially an RL one that is subject to discrimination in RL. So, for instance, banning representations of black or Asian people from a sim. But even that is pretty tricky. Does that mean also that one shouldn't be able to ban men or women from certain places?

To be honest, I have no problems with banning child avatars if that is your preference, and it need have nothing to do with fear of AP. And of course there are those regions where the immersion might be spoiled by certain kinds of avatar.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

Wasn't it earlier in this thread someone who is primarily a child avatar expressed others acting as if she's doing something wrong by simply presenting as a child in SL, assuming something sexual was going on?  I think this is a common experience here these days for those with child avatars.

And that's dumb. The vast majority of child avatars are guilty of no such thing, of course.

But the fact that reasoning is dumb doesn't mean that it should be legislated against. Who gets to decide what is unreasonable?

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

He doesn't state that there are more valid reasons to discriminate, but he does state reasons people discriminate that he believes are unfair, and I agree with him.  There actually is a lot of hatred toward child avatars for various reasons, and it goes far beyond simply needing to keep a sim in theme or Adult only.  I have been exploring a bit lately and I am seeing an unusual prejudice toward child avatars going far beyond what is necessary.

I'm hoping it will settle down once the Pedo stuff is far in the past, as I do think this is a big reason for it.

Expand  

I can't even imagine the push back there would be if LL were to start dictating who can or cannot be banned from private regions and parcels. Here on the forums, we'd be swamped with angry posts.

I've suggested, above, that I can see some logic for enforcing non-discrimination rules in cases where the identity being discriminated against is an RL one, and especially an RL one that is subject to discrimination in RL. So, for instance, banning representations of black or Asian people from a sim. But even that is pretty tricky. Does that mean also that one shouldn't be able to ban men or women from certain places?

To be honest, I have no problems with banning child avatars if that is your preference, and it need have nothing to do with fear of AP. And of course there are those regions where the immersion might be spoiled by certain kinds of avatar.

I've never said LL should do a thing -- not looking for 'legal action'. I'm only voicing his concerns of feeling excluded, and my own concern for him and other child avatars.  I am hoping we can treat child avatars better in SL as most of them are not here for AP.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I've never said LL should do a thing -- not looking for 'legal action'. I'm only voicing his concerns of feeling excluded, and my own concern for him and other child avatars.  I am hoping we can treat child avatars better in SL as most of them are not here for AP.

I can agree with that, personally.

But the OP's title specifically references the ToS, so it's pretty clear that they were advocating legislation of some sort.

[Love Zhaoying]

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Wasn't it earlier in this thread someone who is primarily a child avatar expressed others acting as if she's doing something wrong by simply presenting as a child in SL, assuming something sexual was going on?  I think this is a common experience here these days for those with child avatars.

Someone threatened to call the FBI.  Remember that?

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I can agree with that, personally.

But the OP's title specifically references the ToS, so it's pretty clear that they were advocating legislation of some sort.

I don't think he really understood the ramifications of a change in the TOS.

I responded to his feelings of feeling excluded due to others simply not liking child avatars or fearing them. I think that's the way to go -- to respond to his hurt.  I trust, if he read the ensuing storm, he might see the problems that would occur if LL stepped on the rights of private sim owners.

This doesn't change what I believe to be the crux of the matter though -- people need to have a good reason to exclude others. Many of the reasons to exclude child avatars these days are unnecessary and only cause them to feel unwelcome.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Rolig Loon]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I've never said LL should do a thing -- not looking for 'legal action'. I'm only voicing his concerns of feeling excluded, and my own concern for him and other child avatars.  I am hoping we can treat child avatars better in SL as most of them are not here for AP.

I can agree with that, personally.

But the OP's title specifically references the ToS, so it's pretty clear that they were advocating legislation of some sort.

And the brief flurry of sock puppet posts -- quickly deleted -- made it clear that the OP was mostly interested in trolling, not participating in a discussion about any of this. 

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

flurry of sock puppet posts

I think some were sock puppets, but I believe this one (deleted but captured in a quote by Scylla) was a friend.  MightyKu said:

"I agree with this completely.  as someone who spends a lot of time with child avatars, i personally see countless sims, stores, events etc. that will ban child and furry avatars just beacause they can or simply because they dont like them. its getting to a point that there are very few places the kids i hang out with can go and it sadens me when they get immedietly booted from a place and i dont simply because they are child avatars. they are great people but god forbit a child avatr shows up"

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't think he really understood the ramifications of a change in the TOS.

I responded to his feelings of feeling excluded due to others simply not liking child avatars or fearing them. I think that's the way to go -- to respond to his hurt.  I trust, if he read the ensuing storm, he might see the problems that would occur if LL stepped on the rights of private sim owners.

This doesn't change what I believe to be the crux of the matter though -- people need to have a good reason to exclude others. Many of the reasons to exclude child avatars these days are unnecessary and only cause them to feel unwelcome.

Well, yes.

But this is motherhood-and-apple-pie stuff, Luna. If everyone were reasonable, accepting, and inclusive, we wouldn't need laws at all, here or in RL.

Personally, I didn't detect a lot of "hurt" in the OP, or in the subsequent (now deleted) posts in support. But I can't see any objections to providing support. I just don't think that's what they were looking for.