Could Linden Lab even clean up Second Life if they wanted to?

[Seicher Rae]

:::throws a gauntlet, hits a bunny, ooops, sorry, pets bunny:::

@Scylla Rhiadra is always taking credit for other people's good ideas! (I have 12 years of documented history, in alphabetical and chronological order, cross referenced by thread title) I think I mentioned the "expanded like tv" sim ratings, like A-V(iolence) first. Not sure if it was this thread or elsewhere. But I know for a FACT she stole it.* So you can reference ME if you LIKE the idea. If you want to argue how stupid it is, the slippery slope, etc, please reference Scylla, it was her idea.

*I have no idea. Semi-serious but a lot of my tongue in my cheek.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

I think I mentioned the "expanded like tv" sim ratings, like A-V(iolence) first.

/me bridles

Well, dahling, I floated the idea in 2009.

But if you came up with it first, or independently, it merely confirms that you are the very clever person that I've always thought you to be. And I'm more than happy to share the kudos -- and rotten vegetables -- with you.

ETA: And I actually have no idea if it was me who first floated the idea in 2009. I may well have brazenly stolen it from someone else! That would be just like me.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Coffee Pancake]

16 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

I don't care what the topic is, this (above) is always on topic. I have never understood this, over the years, of why everything from LL is opaque, under any ownership.

I've knocked my forehead on the desk a lot (which explains much) when trying to get specific answers to specific questions from staff. It is always a sideways answer. And the communication to the customers at large? ha!

Agreed, Linden communication leaves a lot to be desired, especially when it comes to guidance on the rules or ToS.

When Oz was running viewer development, the only guidance we ever had was "if you have to ask, the answer is no". This as you might expect stifled all interest in work with LL to develop new viewer features or exploring the best way to accomplish things that were important to TPV's and their users.

The end effect is always self censorship, deliberate probing or withdrawal.

[Seicher Rae]

12 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

/me bridles

Well, dahling, I floated the idea in 2009.

But if you came up with it first, or independently, it merely confirms that you are the very clever person that I've always thought you to be. And I'm more than happy to share the kudos -- and rotten vegetables -- with you.

ETA: And I actually have no idea if it was me who first floated the idea in 2009. I may well have brazenly stolen it from someone else! That would be just like me.

Good lord. 2009? I was talking the last few days. LoL. But I probably came up with it before I was in SL, tis true.

And omg, if that doesn't just prove: 1) No one listens to good ideas from the Forum and 2) If they do, things in SL move glacially, and welcome to 2004 and 3) you can remember what you did in 2009???

And apparently I flogged a bunny for no good reason.

[Arielle Popstar]

20 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Where have I said anything even remotely like this, Arielle?

Quote me please.

You are clearly implying that I am calling for bans. I have never done so. I've suggested that we add a new rating system that is purely informative, and would have absolutely zero impact on what is allowed, who can choose to see it, or where it is permitted.

And it's got nothing to do with what *I* deem "objectionable." I myself wouldn't screen out violent content.

Well seems obvious then that neither you nor Teresa read the first few posts on the first page on banning certain content and you have supported the idea of a rating system for extreme violence. So it isn't me she should be talking to about what should be banned or rated.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Seicher Rae said:

Good lord. 2009? I was talking the last few days. LoL. But I probably came up with it before I was in SL, tis true.

And omg, if that doesn't just prove: 1) No one listens to good ideas from the Forum and 2) If they do, things in SL move glacially, and welcome to 2004 and 3) you can remember what you did in 2009???

And apparently I flogged a bunny for no good reason.

Well, what brought me to the forums -- the old RA forum in particular -- in the first place was a discussion (a rather disastrous one) started by a friend about the proposed new rating system (i.e., the one we have now). And oh god, do I "remember" it. I still come out in hives when I remember how that conversation went.

And dahling, don't flog bunnies. Unless, of course, they consent. But you know that. 😉

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well seems obvious then that neither you nor Teresa read the first few posts on the first page on banning certain content and you have supported the idea of a rating system for extreme violence. So it isn't me she should be talking to about what should be banned or rated.

I did indeed read the OP. I don't want to speak for @Persephone Emerald, but it's my sense that she was floating a topic in order to generate a discussion, rather than advocating for bans of anything. But I'll let her answer you in that regard.

In either case, so far as I know, neither Theresa nor I have called for banning anything.

And your loose use of the phrase "banned or rated" seems to equate these two very different things. Banning disenfranchises us: it prevents us from doing things, by definition. A rating system empowers us, because it doesn't remove anything, but enables us to make informed decisions about our own experience here.

[Madelaine McMasters]

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I'm not trying to define it (violent content), just suggesting a way to handle it when it is.

5 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

To me the better solution would be to have a viewer not display those things which a resident may object to.

Condensed, doesn't this become...

To me, a better solution would be to have a viewer not display those objectionable things I won't define.

[Arielle Popstar]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I did indeed read the OP. I don't want to speak for @Persephone Emerald, but it's my sense that she was floating a topic in order to generate a discussion, rather than advocating for bans of anything. But I'll let her answer you in that regard.

In either case, so far as I know, neither Theresa nor I have called for banning anything.

And your loose use of the phrase "banned or rated" seems to equate these two very different things. Banning disenfranchises us: it prevents us from doing things, by definition. A rating system empowers us, because it doesn't remove anything, but enables us to make informed decisions about our own experience here.

She doesn't have to answer me as all I am doing is suggesting an alternative way to keep everyone happy. What should be rated or banned is between you two and is not something I am bringing up so just telling Teresa who she should be directing her points to.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

She doesn't have to answer me as all I am doing is suggesting an alternative way to keep everyone happy. What should be rated or banned is between you two and is not something I am bringing up so just telling Teresa who she should be directing her points to.

 

Well, ok. Then please stop implicitly misrepresenting my views on the subject?

[Ayashe Ninetails]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

A rating system empowers us, because it doesn't remove anything, but enables us to make informed decisions about our own experience here.

Just to clarify my own idea of how I see this working (which may be different from yours) - I envision this being an option a land owner could set, should they so choose to, in About Land. A checkbox perhaps, in the Options tab or somewhere, that someone could flip and add a little "EV" or however it's named into the title bar, next to the land's current rating.

I wasn't at all suggesting that LL come in and start shuffling whole regions to sort them into A vs. A-EV or restricting content to certain areas based on new ratings or any of that. That'd be a whole mess and way too much work!

[Love Zhaoying]

What was the topic again? If LL could clean up SL even if they wanted to?

Just checking!

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Condensed, doesn't this become...

To me, a better solution would be to have a viewer not display those objectionable things I won't define.

Is like "Fight Club" viewer?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Ayashe Ninetails said:

I wasn't at all suggesting that LL come in and start shuffling whole regions to sort them into A vs. A-EV or restricting content to certain areas based on new ratings or any of that. That'd be a whole mess and way too much work!

No, neither was I -- and I think I explicitly say just that above somewhere.

It's an interesting question how well a voluntary system would work. Would landowners choose to use it because it might reduce complaints, ARs, and so forth, as well as making their parcels and regions more visible for people looking for this sort of content?

Or would they resist it or be too lazy to use it?

I don't know. One thing that might make a difference is adding the ability to filter for it in Search.

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

Just to clarify my own idea of how I see this working (which may be different from yours) - I envision this being an option a land owner could set, should they so choose to, in About Land. A checkbox perhaps, in the Options tab or somewhere, that someone could flip and add a little "EV" or however it's named into the title bar, next to the land's current rating.

I wasn't at all suggesting that LL come in and start shuffling whole regions to sort them into A vs. A-EV or restricting content to certain areas based on new ratings or any of that. That'd be a whole mess and way too much work!

Simple, easy and concise and for that reason, it will never happen.  Please over-complicate and resubmit your proposal.  😁

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, ok. Then please stop implicitly misrepresenting my views on the subject?

I didn't. That is on how you chose to interpret it. My response to Teresa was:

Respond to the OP or Scylla who have been advocating for something to be done for what they deem objectionable.

Nothing there that specified whether that meant bans or Ratings.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

I didn't. That is on how you chose to interpret it. My response to Teresa was:

Respond to the OP or Scylla who have been advocating for something to be done for what they deem objectionable.

Nothing there that specified whether that meant bans or Ratings.

You are implying that I deem this content "objectionable."

I have nowhere here said that.

[Madelaine McMasters]

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

She doesn't have to answer me as all I am doing is suggesting an alternative way to keep everyone happy.

Would you define "happy"?

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

You are implying that I deem this content "objectionable."

I have nowhere here said that.

You have certainly implied it from the perspective of how some of that content had the potential to trigger some people, which I agreed with that it might be a good thing from that perspective.

 

 

[kali Wylder]

35 minutes ago, Seicher Rae said:

And apparently I flogged a bunny for no good reason.

Be careful, Bunnies might fight back

[Ayashe Ninetails]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

No, neither was I -- and I think I explicitly say just that above somewhere.

It's an interesting question how well a voluntary system would work. Would landowners choose to use it because it might reduce complaints, ARs, and so forth, as well as making their parcels and regions more visible for people looking for this sort of content?

Or would they resist it or be too lazy to use it?

I don't know. One thing that might make a difference is adding the ability to filter for it in Search.

I think, if given the option, land owners would use it. I'm not really seeing how ARs come into play - at least, I would hope nobody is getting AR'd for, say, putting a gruesome horror house on their land during Halloween, for example. Or even just making a whole horror-themed roleplay sim and making it as gross as they want. That's entirely fair to do, but a teensy bit of warning might be nice before setting their TP landing point right in the center of it LOL.

I don't think content should be restricted or limited at all, in fact. I just like the idea of giving land owners the option to warn their visitors that hey...it's about to go dooowwwn, and think it would be a fair ask and something a lot of people would potentially be willing to do AS LONG AS it's super easy to do it (hence, a simple checkbox).

[Scylla Rhiadra]

29 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You have certainly implied it from the perspective of how some of that content had the potential to trigger some people, which I agreed with that it might be a good thing from that perspective.

It's a very long leap from

"Scylla wants rating systems so that those easily triggered are informed about their choices,"

to

"Scylla has objections to this content."

Intentional or not (and I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt), the substantial slippage in the language you use in the latter makes me sound like some pearl-clutching Moral Majority type bemoaning the fall of civilization as embodied in SL.

I am not.

[Arielle Popstar]

10 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

makes me sound like some pearl-clutching Moral Majority type bemoaning the fall of civilization as embodied in SL.

I like that! Going to keep it as I am sure I'll have an opportunity to use it in the future. 😊

You have such a picturesque way of writing vs my more direct method. I'm jealous!

ps- in S/L it would be moral minority wouldn't it?

Edited August 6, 2022 by Arielle Popstar

[Drake1 Nightfire]

See, LL will clean up the forums of the off topic bickering... I would bet that will be coming shortly in this thread. If only they could clean up the MP of the ripped and copyright protected things. They say they cant without the holder filing a DMCA but we ll know that LL owns everything we upload anyway so they should be able to do as they wish. Personally i think its more the $L they make on the sales and upload fees they dont want to lose. 

 

ETA Don't make me pull this thread over, turn around and take us all home. I want to go to the beach as much as anyone, but the bickering is getting a bit much. Don't you want to lie on the beach and get a nice tan, ogle some cute boys or girls and have a nice picnic lunch?

Edited August 6, 2022 by Drake1 Nightfire

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Would you define "happy"?

"I want to be happy like Maddy someday!"