Discrimination rules to be added to TOS?

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

5 minutes 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.

Expand  

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.

I see it as someone and their friend (yes, a friend -- notice the friend can't spell where the OP can) viewing all the recent talk about social justice and the like at that particular time as an opportunity to express a grievance.

[Rolig Loon]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

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.

And that's what it really comes down to. If you scroll back through the past 17 pages, you'll find most people agreeing that it's not nice to discriminate against child avatars.  And .... so what? I don't think most of us would like to have the governance team use a heavy hand and start punishing people for not being thoughtful, respectful, and welcoming.  

This is all ground that we have tromped around in many times. I don't see much to be gained here by doing it again.

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

If you scroll back through the past 17 pages, you'll find most people agreeing that it's not nice to discriminate against child avatars.  And .... so what? I don't think most of us would like to have the governance team use a heavy hand and start punishing people for not being thoughtful, respectful, and welcoming.  

This is all ground that we have tromped around in many times. I don't see much to be gained here by doing it again.

Nobody is advising some heavy-handed action from LL -- this is Scylla's (and apparently yours now too) delusion.

If there is any minority or particular type of avatar being excessively targeted I think we should pay attention to it, and think twice about excluding them, and in fact, maybe go out of our way to be more welcoming.  That's all.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

This is all ground that we have tromped around in many times. I don't see much to be gained here by doing it again.

Thank you!!!

[Rolig Loon]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

If there is any minority or particular type of avatar being excessively targeted I think we should pay attention to it, and think twice about excluding them, and in fact, maybe go out of our way to be more welcoming.  That's all.

Yup.  As I said, that's all. Each person look into her own conscience and decide how to reconcile what she finds with how she behaves.  

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

If there is any minority or particular type of avatar being excessively targeted I think we should pay attention to it, and think twice about excluding them, and in fact, maybe go out of our way to be more welcoming.  That's all.

Yup.  As I said, that's all. Each person look into her own conscience and decide how to reconcile what she finds with how she behaves.  

Yes, and I just didn't want this to be overlooked in our haste to label the OP and their friend as griefers, or as truly attempting to change the TOS to fit only their needs.

I chose to look at their frustration regarding being excluded from so many places and/or being labeled a sexual deviant.

[Arielle Popstar]

36 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

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. 

Regardless, they brought up a good point worthy of exploration by the intelligentsia of the forums. If they hadn't of we'd be left with something of even less consequence.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

the intelligentsia of the forums

/me facepalms

[Scylla Rhiadra]

25 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Nobody is advising some heavy-handed action from LL -- this is Scylla's (and apparently yours now too) delusion.

The title of the thread, just to remind you:

"Discrimination rules to be added to TOS?"

[Ayashe Ninetails]

Interesting to note, the OP mentioned being banned from stores. As an occasional furry (and a whole host of other non-human things), I've never run into any issues while out shopping. I sometimes run into other furries out and about, as well, so I wonder how many stores really ban avatars that often.

As for child avatars, I don't have one, but I see them around in the clothing/furniture/decor/etc. stores on occasion, too.

Not only that, but so many places I land in are dead and I often have the entire shop to myself - that just seems like a lot of bad luck if they keep getting banned from shopping/store regions.

Big shopping events might be different maybe, but I've dragged my furry tail to at least a few within the last few years - nuffin happened.

[Luna Bliss]

51 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

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. 

Not necessarily interested in trolling.

It could just as easily been someone (and their friend), new posters and so more vulnerable, who knew their topic would not be well-received, and so used sock puppets as support.

After all, many think they are some sort of sexual deviant inworld.

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

After all, many think they are some sort of sexual deviant inworld.

Or told in no uncertain terms that they are and of a worse variety then many of the other kinks that play out inworld.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

After all, many think they are some sort of sexual deviant inworld.

Or told in no uncertain terms that they are and of a worse variety then many of the other kinks that play out inworld.

Arielle ma buddy now    

[kali Wylder]

The OP did not specify just what kind of avatar they were talking about.  Did not mention child or furry.  The OP has posted exactly twice in the forums, once in August 2021 about the demise of gachas and this post.  So championing the rights of child avatars or furries in the OP's name and claiming to know who their friends are (and what they think) is rather revealing, don't you think?

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, kali Wylder said:

Did not mention child

His friend did -- Scylla captured it in a quote early on. All the sock puppets did too (reference child avatars).

[Wulfie Reanimator]

58 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Nobody is advising some heavy-handed action from LL -- this is Scylla's (and apparently yours now too) delusion.

If there is any minority or particular type of avatar being excessively targeted I think we should pay attention to it, and think twice about excluding them, and in fact, maybe go out of our way to be more welcoming.  That's all.

1 hour 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".

You cut off the rest of the post, which is very important in setting the tone for what OP really wanted. The quote continues:

On 8/1/2022 at 5:27 AM, WinnieTheWerewolfPup said:

ive been waiting for 3 years now and all Linden Labs has done is ban gatchas. because THAT of all things was the biggest problem. So I am asking Linden Labs. when do you all plan to do something about all this racism, discrimination, and intolerance running rampant across SL? Even when we report people that very clearly violate TOS you do nothing. Do you plan on doing anything about this?

They're waiting, hoping for LL to step in and prevent (ban) discrimination, the same way as they did gachas. All of the context is still in the original post. And you don't need to find any deleted posts to know that this is about child avatars.

Look at the OP's name, that's a character from Hotel Transylvania:

Edited August 24, 2022 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Luna Bliss]

11 minutes ago, kali Wylder said:

The OP did not specify just what kind of avatar they were talking about.  Did not mention child or furry.  The OP has posted exactly twice in the forums, once in August 2021 about the demise of gachas and this post.  So championing the rights of child avatars or furries in the OP's name and claiming to know who their friends are (and what they think) is rather revealing, don't you think?

Reread your post -- are you trying to say you think I am the OP, or that I'm overstepping my assumptions as to what child avatars experience?

I've said elsewhere that I actually worked with people in SL who suffered from DID (Multiple Personality Disorder) and who had child avatars representing their inner parts, and also designed some environments for them. So I have a soft-spot for them yes, and want to make sure their voices are heard on this thread. I wish I could convey the torture which caused their condition, and perhaps others would understand my sympathy for them.

I've also talked to other child avatars who are also tired of being viewed as sexual deviants inworld.

It really is a problem here, and I don't think we should be blaming them for it or not recognizing their current plight inworld, despite the incompetence of the OP and his friends/sock puppets in bringing up some of the issues.

[EliseAnne85]

30 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Or told in no uncertain terms that they are and of a worse variety then many of the other kinks that play out inworld.

Wait...I don't see the child avatars "as a kink".  I believe as Luna said that the vast majority are in a child avatar because they aren't involved in any kind of kink nor slex.  They just want to play.  Some of the child avatars are cute.  I wouldn't do it because I don't need the drama.

Couldn't LL make a work-around of some kind and offer a land or area that allows only tiny sized avatars in it, for an example?  Or is that something LL doesn't do...offer a place to go for certain avatars?

Some things were mentioned in this thread about "pedo stuff", "FBI"...I don't know anything about that and have only heard this just recently here on the forums but there used to be family oriented events...so those aren't happening 'right now' perhaps?  I could also suggest check with Rockin' Robin and see if they still allow family events or not.

Edited August 24, 2022 by EliseAnne85

[Kathlen Onyx]

@Luna BlissYou often post under the guise of "championing" or "speaking" for the OP because somehow you have determined that they can't speak for themselves.  Something they neither ask for or acknowledge you doing for them.  Basically what you are doing is assuming you know what they meant and then go on for pages trying to prove your point as theirs.

As far as child avatars I think a lot of people simply don't want to deal with them because they force you into RP that you may not be interested in participating in.  I have children in RL. I honestly don't want to interact with them in depth here in SL.  It's especially frustrating when they seek help in a chat group and continue to speak in "baby talk".  We all know the people behind the avatars are adult (or should be) so when not in a RP situation they should act like adults.  

I have no issues with child avatars being in G or M rated sims but I think that people just don't want to have to deal with making sure everyone behaves in front of them so they make a sweeping ban. We all know that there are those child avatars that use it to their advantage to behave badly, because after all they are a child and do not know better, so they say.

It is really not that hard to make an adult avatar and switch if you want to go to a particular sim you know has banned child avatars. After all, it's the same person behind the avatar.  

Edited August 24, 2022 by Sam1 Bellisserian

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

They're waiting, hoping for LL to step in and prevent (ban) discrimination, the same way as they did gachas.

Yes, and I believe they just did not understand what the ramifications of such an action by LL would create -- my assumption. I have faith that once they read the rest of the thread they might understand this would not be the way to solve their problem. Unfortunately they did not return so we could dialogue.

But whether they would want a change in the TOS or not once they looked at our feedback, I choose to pay attention to their frustration regarding being so unaccepted inworld, or even labeled as sexual deviants.

[EliseAnne85]

19 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

They're waiting, hoping for LL to step in and prevent (ban) discrimination, the same way as they did gachas. All of the context is still in the original post. And you don't need to find any deleted posts to know that this is about child avatars.

Look at the OP's name, that's a character from Hotel Transylvania:

That's adorable.  That would fit right in Raglan Shire and many other groups you can find through Raglan Shire by attending events and asking questions.  

And, that is NOT a child avatar.  That is what is known as a tiny; a tiny is small animal/human type of avatar; animals that talk and wear clothes like in many cartoons.

Raglan Shire is home to the tinies - tinies are mostly human talking animals.  They are small in height.  

Edited August 24, 2022 by EliseAnne85

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

Basically what you are doing is assuming you know what they meant and then go on for pages trying to prove your point as theirs.

I have known a lot of child avatars over the last almost 20 years, and I know what they are experiencing now.  Do you?

[Wulfie Reanimator]

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Yes, and I believe they just did not understand what the ramifications of such an action by LL would create -- my assumption. I have faith that once they read the rest of the thread they might understand this would not be the way to solve their problem. Unfortunately they did not return so we could dialogue.

But whether they would want a change in the TOS or not once they looked at our feedback, I choose to pay attention to their frustration regarding being so unaccepted inworld, or even labeled as sexual deviants.

That's fine, but I don't think you should be calling anyone (let alone multiple people) delusional or projecting because they wouldn't assume that 1) the person didn't understand 2) they came back to read the responses 3) they changed their mind.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Wulfie Reanimator

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I have known a lot of child avatars over the last almost 20 years, and I know what they are experiencing now.  Do you?

OH ok...you're the expert I guess. We can stop the discussion now.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

That's fine, but I don't think you should be calling anyone (let alone multiple people) delusional or projecting because they wouldn't assume that 1) the person didn't understand 2) they came back to read the responses 3) they changed their mind.

Sorry, but I believe a lot of people's stuff (their own considerations/bias) is being projected without looking at the 'other side' or taking it much into consideration. And projection is a type of delusion.