A Healthy Debate: Avatar Regulations with loopholes Category: Anime Avatars

[DemonicSage]

Hey all! I hope you are all having a wonderful month! Today I would like to have a healthy debate and share opinions with the community. from all generations of life/age groups. 

Here is my question: Given how anime avatars are more frequent and how LL likes to sometimes miscommunicate on rule regulations regarding said category or not defining enough on said loophole. What would be healthy alternative ways to help the LL team in defining the culture of these avatars? pretty sure there are popular bodies now that are indeed healthy to use but we still have very questionable creators that are still up for question with their said content given the controversy and media coverage of said questionable content. LL never really addressed this side of the community since if they tried they would enrage the base community that are anime lovers.

Please refrain of insulting, name calling , and other hostile intent. its a healthy debate and would like to hear your personal thoughts and opinions on this matter. thank you for at least reading and debating. lets help make this community more aware and open our minds more! 

[Rowan Amore]

Why would LL need to define this at all?  

[DemonicSage]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

Why would LL need to define this at all?  

From what I herd and seen/witnessed it seems to be a very touchy subject given on all forms of groups have different opinions on the matter. like some LL admins/mods aren't anime fans and seem to have a negative view on the category of content. while others have positive views given how anime is cultured to some degree. It's a bit confusing when LL make rules and there are loophole in rules to almost become boarderline questionable if it leans towards TOS violation or not so it helps to define that said content. 

[Rolig Loon]

I don't really understand.  What's the question? And why is it "touchy"?

[Orwar]

[DemonicSage]

3 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I don't really understand.  What's the question? And why is it "touchy"?

The Question: "Given how anime avatars are more frequent and how LL likes to sometimes miscommunicate on rule regulations regarding said category or not defining enough on said loophole. What would be healthy alternative ways to help the LL team in defining the culture of these avatars?"

pretty sure there are popular bodies now that are indeed healthy to use but we still have very questionable creators that are still up for question with their said content given the controversy and media coverage of said questionable content. LL never really addressed this side of the community since if they tried they would enrage the base community that are anime lovers.

Why is it touchy: Some people can make a debate and say all anime avatars to some extent violate TOS based on height, body formations, and attire. as i have faith in the LL team and what they do its more of the question of the content creators and how they address their content. Plus how some bad apples/communities are some go to beyond lengths as to try and terminate users for wearing questionable things and outright get them banned for it because the person just doesn't like anime at all or had a bad experience in general through the community.   

Edited March 7, 2023 by DemonicSage

[Rolig Loon]

2 minutes ago, DemonicSage said:

5 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I don't really understand.  What's the question? And why is it "touchy"?

The Question: "Given how anime avatars are more frequent and how LL likes to sometimes miscommunicate on rule regulations regarding said category or not defining enough on said loophole. What would be healthy alternative ways to help the LL team in defining the culture of these avatars?"

pretty sure there are popular bodies now that are indeed healthy to use but we still have very questionable creators that are still up for question with their said content given the controversy and media coverage of said questionable content. LL never really addressed this side of the community since if they tried they would enrage the base community that are anime lovers.

That really doesn't help.  All you did was quote your original post, not explain what it means.  What "controversy"?  What "question"? Or, to put it the way that Orwar did, "What in heaven's name are you talking about?"

[Alwin Alcott]

8 minutes ago, DemonicSage said:

The Question: "Given how anime avatars are more frequent and how LL likes to sometimes miscommunicate on rule regulations regarding said category or not defining enough on said loophole. What would be healthy alternative ways to help the LL team in defining the culture of these avatars?"

pretty sure there are popular bodies now that are indeed healthy to use but we still have very questionable creators that are still up for question with their said content given the controversy and media coverage of said questionable content. LL never really addressed this side of the community since if they tried they would enrage the base community that are anime lovers.

me blinks... ehm.. can you please try to be more clear?... this is like trying to read in a dark cave with sunglasses on

 

lemme guess .. it's about banning anime because they can look underaged?
Thats no loophole.

answer:  region owners and landowners together or alone, can ban or deny access for any reason. And yes, there are anime avatars that are questionable, but don't worry.. it's not the only appearance that does.
 

Edited March 7, 2023 by Alwin Alcott

[Love Zhaoying]

I would have guessed Anime Avatars were more "touchy" / "controversial" due to Content Copyright.

But if the real question is "age/height/etc." then..

No.

 

[DemonicSage]

1 minute ago, Alwin Alcott said:

me blinks... ehm.. can you please try to be more clear?... this is like trying to read in a dark cave with sunglasses on

 

lemme guess .. it's about banning anime because they can look underaged?
 

Yes you are right on the money. it has to do with that. though its more than just that given how anime as a category is pretty branched out.

[Alwin Alcott]

Just now, DemonicSage said:

Yes you are right on the money

there is no need for regulation by anyone.
They have the same protection as any other avatar inworld.

Stick to the rules and guidelines by LL, ánd the additional access rules landowners have for their parcels.

There's no need for again, a yes/no discussion for some people if they look like adults or not.

[Rowan Amore]

4 minutes ago, DemonicSage said:

Yes you are right on the money. it has to do with that. though its more than just that given how anime as a category is pretty branched out.

If you mean LL allowing anime avatars anywhere...they already do.  However, it's up to the individual region owner who they allow in.  LL will not change that.

[Rolig Loon]

So there's some kind of controversy about copyright?  And some sort of "loophole"?  Exactly what is it that you think Linden Lab is doing (or not doing)? If there's a copyright question, that's a matter for the RL legal system.  I still don't understand what you want people to debate in the forums.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

13 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I don't really understand.  What's the question? And why is it "touchy"?

 

12 minutes ago, Orwar said:

 

5 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

That really doesn't help.  All you did was quote your original post, not explain what it means.  What "controversy"?  What "question"? Or, to put it the way that Orwar did, "What in heaven's name are you talking about?"

Translation into REAL English of the OP:

"Hi, let's have a *cough* healthy debate * where nobody denounces the search for easily exploited loopholes for people who want to make avatars that are 3d versions of badly drawn Japanese cartoons of 8 year old streetwalkers with robot arms, in cheap mail order pvc lingerie... Discuss!"

[Orwar]

Just now, DemonicSage said:

Yes you are right on the money. it has to do with that. though its more than just that given how anime as a category is pretty branched out.

   Perhaps the next time you wish for a healthy discussion, you may want to then state what you're actually wishing to discuss rather than having people try to guess for half a page before confirming the subject of the topic.

   But then, there's not much to discuss on that subject anyway. LL don't mind you using an anime avatar, there are no particular restrictions on anime avatars in the TOS. What you're referring to is the rules against child avatars partaking in adult activities; it's up to each land owner to determine whether an avatar on their land appears underaged, and it's up to any land owner who so wishes to decide whether or not anime avatars, or any other particular kind of avatars, are welcome there. If someone ARs a person for partaking in an adult activity whilst using an anime avatar it is then up to LL to arbitrate whether the avatar in question is or isn't underaged - but that's not necessarily an LL-specific question as the question of whether anime characters in 'adult content' in general is somewhat inconclusive and varies from country to country; there have been convictions for child prawnography charges based on possession of anime lewdness, so it is in LL's best interest to ensure their platform does not accommodate such content.

[Ceka Cianci]

I'm curious  of ,what loophole?

I can't really ever remember any kind of anything really bad towards the anime community that they would need a loophole..

[Rolig Loon]

There's really no reason for derogatory language. If the OP has a question, the rest of us are simply trying to understand what it is. We're not making a value judgment about Anime characters.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

12 minutes ago, DemonicSage said:

Yes you are right on the money. it has to do with that. though its more than just that given how anime as a category is pretty branched out.

Ah yes, lets dig that tired ol dead horse up to beat on some more... 

[Akane Nacht]

12 minutes ago, DemonicSage said:

Yes you are right on the money. it has to do with that. though its more than just that given how anime as a category is pretty branched out.

anime characters/avatars don't have to look underaged. If they do, and are caught doing 'adult activities', ... well, I'd report that.

[Bree Giffen]

I think it has something to do with anime faces/heads looking very young and childlike. Having an anime head on any kind of body regardless of size and shape or outfit will automatically make it seem like an underage avatar. I don’t see how that could be a loophole. Perhaps an anime face instead of a more realistic child face to get around an age restriction is the issue? 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

There's really no reason for derogatory language. If the OP has a question, the rest of us are simply trying to understand what it is. We're not making a value judgment about Anime characters.

I've known perfectly nice people in anime avatars, who are fully TOS compliant, and there is no confusion about their avatars, but there are some anime otaku who claim that simply being anime is an exemption from the TOS because "it's part of the culture". I've SEEN an anime avatar user claim that having 'anime paws' instead of feet, exempted them from the "no child avatars involved in adult activity" and then *****, whine, moan, complain and "turn informer" along the lines of "if you ban me you have to ban x and y and z or it's not fair"

The OP's "sort of a question" even mentioned "cultured" and some special category of "loophole".

The last thread on this topic a couple of months back, was started by somebody who had a 9 yr old pic of them selves in an avatar such as I laughingly described, in their profile feed.

It's a recurring theme.

[DemonicSage]

5 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

I've known perfectly nice people in anime avatars, who are fully TOS compliant, and there is no confusion about their avatars, but there are some anime otaku who claim that simply being anime is an exemption from the TOS because "it's part of the culture". I've SEEN an anime avatar user claim that having 'anime paws' instead of feet, exempted them from the "no child avatars involved in adult activity" and then *****, whine, moan, complain and "turn informer" along the lines of "if you ban me you have to ban x and y and z or it's not fair"

The OP's "sort of a question" even mentioned "cultured" and some special category of "loophole".

The last thread on this topic a couple of months back, was started by somebody who had a 9 yr old pic of them selves in an avatar such as I laughingly described, in their profile feed.

It's a recurring theme.

i only said cultured since some country's views are different from others so it was a mention since japan's laws are a bit questionable. so as to why i said cultured is more over the controversy behind that. lol like i am not a dead on Hardcore anime enthused individual. i watch it based on some well known voice actors and got introduced by it like john young bosch and so on. it was more just a discussion and see where people's views are. it's not to raise brows on but i know some people argue that LL tos regulations seem translucent and it great to get other communities voices and opinions herd. 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

11 minutes ago, DemonicSage said:

i only said cultured since some country's views are different from others so it was a mention since japan's laws are a bit questionable. so as to why i said cultured is more over the controversy behind that. lol like i am not a dead on Hardcore anime enthused individual. i watch it based on some well known voice actors and got introduced by it like john young bosch and so on. it was more just a discussion and see where people's views are. it's not to raise brows on but i know some people argue that LL tos regulations seem translucent and it great to get other communities voices and opinions herd. 

And yet, you and everyone else who uses SL agreed to follow US and California laws as applicable. Japans laws have nothing to do with SL. 

[Polenth Yue]

2 hours ago, DemonicSage said:

i only said cultured since some country's views are different from others so it was a mention since japan's laws are a bit questionable. so as to why i said cultured is more over the controversy behind that. lol like i am not a dead on Hardcore anime enthused individual. i watch it based on some well known voice actors and got introduced by it like john young bosch and so on. it was more just a discussion and see where people's views are. it's not to raise brows on but i know some people argue that LL tos regulations seem translucent and it great to get other communities voices and opinions herd. 

If you aren't intending to wear a child anime avatar and have sex, then you don't need to worry about it. If you want to wear an anime avatar to feed the ducks and visit art galleries, then you don't need to worry about it. If you're intending to wear an adult anime avatar and have sex, you'll find some places will not allow that, which is up to the land owner. The official rules don't disallow that in general, as long as the avatar is clearly an adult, so any action would only be for that location (you might get banned from a region, but not from Second Life). That's all you need to know.

Community discussion is meaningless when it comes to the risks a particular individual has chosen to take, either with their personal partner choice, or who they allow to have sex on their land. They said no. Nobody else gets a say in that. You accept it and move on.

[Silent Mistwalker]

6 hours ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

"if you ban me you have to ban x and y and z or it's not fair"

Them: "if you ban me you have to ban x and y and z or it's not fair"

Me: Who said life was fair? Who said you could dictate to me how I run my land? 🙄

/me mutes/bans/ejects in that order

Problem solved. 😁