Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Using the example of an uninformed, non-ally, who effectively is trolling, isn't a fantastic argument, but potentially fair.

It makes my initial point, that the tendency of this conversation is to open us up to this kind of argument.

Nope. The ignorant are always there, always making that same argument. 

[Innula Zenovka]

14 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

Yes, they do this now.  A friend of mine was inworld working on her little avatar talking naughty to her adult husband in IM.  They were both banned the next day.  I was in present with her when she was working on her avatar the entire time so no hanky pranky was happening in world.  

This is one of the reasons I keep my adult activates on a separate account and this avatar, until recently, doesn't have an adult form.   An there is no way you can affirm any kind of  adult activity with it unless you are really,  really weird.   Time to suit up and go scare the noobs at noob island.

Do you know that was, in fact, what they were banned for, though?   

One hypothesis is that LL were monitoring their IMs and proactively decided to ban them for something which was not, as far as I can tell, against the ToS -- I don't think there's ever been a rule about what goes on in IMs, as opposed to what the avatars are doing on-screen -- but another would be that they were banned as a result of some earlier, more objectionable, incident or incidents of which you are unaware.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Who is "you"? 

I only said if they WANT: (sorry, can't multi-quote across pages on phone)

"How about this: if someone WANTS to present more ambiguously, wouldn't that also include (for some people) dressing as ambiguously as possible?"

I guess that's the confusing part for some!

Please just stop. 🙂

 

You is not "you."

And maybe I've misunderstood the point you've made above, but I'm not in a sense arguing against you, I'm pointing out the dangerous road that enforcing a sexualized and gendered kind of clothing on children has.

[Codex Alpha]

15 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I think the reality is that the vast majority couldn't give a hoot what colour they are as half the population is too impoverished to have much choice.

What wacky arguments out of left field you and others do here.

Edited May 11 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

We've been theorizing that possibility in these threads for awhile..

Which you have been poo poohing if I remember correctly as you didn't believe there was sufficient proof?

I started suggesting the possibility, recently. 🙂 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Nope. The ignorant are always there, always making that same argument. 

Of course.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your objections to what I'm saying. It's "the ignorant," who are parroting reactionary views of gender, that I am arguing against.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

the dangerous road that enforcing a sexualized and gendered kind of clothing on children has.

Not enforcing it gives something for the CA / CP / AP baddies to leer at. So..choose?

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

I started suggesting the possibility, recently. 🙂 

 

I must have missed that post. You mean "considering" that the rumours were true?

[Madi Melodious]

1 minute ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Do you know that was, in fact, what they were banned for, though?   

One hypothesis is that LL were monitoring their IMs and proactively decided to ban them for something which was not, as far as I can tell, against the ToS -- I don't think there's ever been a rule about what goes on in IMs, as opposed to what the avatars are doing on-screen -- but another would be that they were banned as a result of some earlier, more objectionable, incident or incidents of which you are unaware.

They are friends, I've known them for years.   If they say that is what happened, then that is what happened.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Nope. The ignorant are always there, always making that same argument. 

Of course.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your objections to what I'm saying.

Thank you. It's all good.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Not enforcing it gives something for the CA / CP / AP baddies to leer at. So..choose?

Are these people really leering at a 6 year old girl's flat chest?

And if they are, we need to force people into gendered straight-jackets to prevent it?

We are, again, coming close here to suggesting that women need to "cover up" because bad people will respond in a bad way if they don't.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I must have missed that post. You mean "considering" that the rumours were true?

I don't deal in rumors, just possibilities. Sorry!

Edited May 11 by Love Zhaoying

[Persephone Emerald]

44 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

So if you're in one location as a child, having sexy time in IM with someone somewhere else, and no avatars are involved or can even see each other .. are ya banned ?

If you're only in IM, how could anyone report you? Also, how can someone prove that the IM version of you is the same persona as the visual version of your avatar? As long as the dialog does not suggest ag* play, it might be allowable.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Madi Melodious said:

They are friends, I've known them for years.   If they say that is what happened, then that is what happened.

So there is much more dangerous risk of a ban then whether we have blue or pink underwear on or identify as male, female, or non binary.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Are these people really leering at a 6 year old girl's flat chest?

Yes.

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And if they are, we need to force people into gendered straight-jackets to prevent it?

Exaggeration, but I'd hope the modesty "panels" are sufficient. 

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

We are, again, coming close here to suggesting that women need to "cover up" because bad people will respond in a bad way if they don't.

I think we're only talking about "children and teens" in second life, not "women". Nice stretch, though!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

I think we're only talking about "children and teens" in second life, not "women". Nice stretch, though!

Um. Sure.

So, women can wear what they want, but we're going to demonstrate that we sexualize young women by forcing them to cover up, because . . .there are men who find them "sexy."

You can't see that forcing a 6 year old girl to wear a top is actually confirming that her chest is sexual?

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Yes.

Exaggeration, but I'd hope the modesty "panels" are sufficient. 

I think we're only talking about "children and teens" in second life, not "women". Nice stretch, though!

Not much of a stretch considering the difference between a child and a woman is 1 second. 11:59 pm to 12:00 am on her birthday.

[Katherine Heartsong]

48 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

[14:19] Keira Linden: We are also in the process now of evaluating several different products and systems to help with proactive moderation.

That's what I meant to imply with the second point. If someone doesn't think that can get caught cause "IM" then they don't know much about modern IT infrastructure and who/what can see their IMs.

[Love Zhaoying]

9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

You can't see that forcing a 6 year old girl to wear a top is actually confirming that her chest is sexual?

There is an obvious difference here that would be lost on those who disagree with us.

"Bad people" (and the ignorant) see it as sexual.

Wanting to protect the "innocent" from the "bad" by merely covering up does NOT mean we agree it is "sexual".

I hope you understand that nuance, I can't put it much more simply.

To take your apparent logic to a somewhat natural conclusion that I agree with: bodies aren't "sexual". People are "sexual". Why should we have to wear clothing at all, to appease the ignorant and avoid the gaze of those who consider it "sexual"? My answer is, because bad people shouldn't be rewarded by getting their jollies from our awesome natural genders, and the ignorant are never going to understand anyway.

ETA: Society sucks. Second Life is somewhat bound by the "norms" of Society.

Edited May 11 by Love Zhaoying

[Arielle Popstar]

16 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Do you know that was, in fact, what they were banned for, though?   

n IMs, as opposed to what the avatars are doing on-screen -- but aOne hypothesis is that LL were monitoring their IMs and proactively decided to ban them for something which was not, as far as I can tell, against the ToS -- I don't think there's ever been a rule about what goes on inother would be that they were banned as a result of some earlier, more objectionable, incident or incidents of which you are unaware.

Regardless, it points out that LL is now banning on nothing more than their proactive monitoring of IM's. I can't see this ending well if word gets out.

[Madi Melodious]

12 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So there is much more dangerous risk of a ban then whether we have blue or pink underwear on or identify as male, female, or non binary.

All I know is what I was told.  I have no reasons to doubt otherwise.   When it happened the entire time, I was present she was on a pose stand making adjustments.    They both admitted to me that the conversation was probably inappropriate given her size at the time but that is all that happened that night.

[Rowan Amore]

33 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

In reality, I would only argue that blue undies were (and still are ) traditional colors that boys wore, and pink was for girls.

And it still remains so for the vast majority of humankind, not from some social influence, but by their preference.

Just like when I see how SL women purchase and dress themselves and their preference for pastel colors vs solid colors.. Pastel colors of flowers, pink, roses and gentle colors.

You and others just don't like to deal with reality, and want to hand wave away common knowledge and to continue to argue the exception as 'normal'.

Oh really?  But please, do go on.  I very rarely wear pink.  My mother dressed my sister and I in red (for her) and blue (for me).  She disliked pink, as well.

An article titled “Pink or Blue,” published in the trade journal The Infants’ Department in 1918, said that the generally accepted rule is pink for boys and blue for girls. “The reason is that pink being a decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy,” it said.

[Ceka Cianci]

11 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Oh really?  But please, do go on.  I very rarely wear pink.  My mother dressed my sister and I in red (for her) and blue (for me).  She disliked pink, as well.

An article titled “Pink or Blue,” published in the trade journal The Infants’ Department in 1918, said that the generally accepted rule is pink for boys and blue for girls. “The reason is that pink being a decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy,” it said.

I think the majority of women from around the world  must live in the suburbs.. hehehe

[Love Zhaoying]

31 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

In reality, I would only argue that blue undies were (and still are ) traditional colors that boys wore, and pink was for girls.

And it still remains so for the vast majority of humankind, not from some social influence, but by their preference.

Just like when I see how SL women purchase and dress themselves and their preference for pastel colors vs solid colors.. Pastel colors of flowers, pink, roses and gentle colors.

You and others just don't like to deal with reality, and want to hand wave away common knowledge and to continue to argue the exception as 'normal'.

Expand  

Oh really?  But please, do go on.  I very rarely wear pink.  My mother dressed my sister and I in red (for her) and blue (for me).  She disliked pink, as well.

An article titled “Pink or Blue,” published in the trade journal The Infants’ Department in 1918, said that the generally accepted rule is pink for boys and blue for girls. “The reason is that pink being a decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy,” it said.

Yep! "Traditional" colors are pretty new. Most people don't know that, or that small boys wore dresses too. In some countries, infants and "untrained" children don't wear anything over lower parts so there is nothing to "soil" that way.

Edited May 11 by Love Zhaoying

[Codex Alpha]

16 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Oh really?  But please, do go on.  I very rarely wear pink.  My mother dressed my sister and I in red (for her) and blue (for me).  She disliked pink, as well.

An article titled “Pink or Blue,” published in the trade journal The Infants’ Department in 1918, said that the generally accepted rule is pink for boys and blue for girls. “The reason is that pink being a decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy,” it said.

Depends. Do you look good in pink? What season are you?