Do people wearing obvious adult avatars also get in trouble if being in an adult venue with people in avatars deemed to be under 18 by Linden Lab?

[Persephone Emerald]

.

Edited May 16 by Persephone Emerald

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 minute ago, brodiac90 said:

I think the reality is that most of these places will just become family-friendly non-nude beaches as you said. They'll do whatever they can to just barely toe the line in public and still do the sick stuff they want to do in private. 

Thanks for pointing that out about the search. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for LL to do something about those venues. IMO,, they should be disappearing or with at least a name change pretty quickly.

[Persephone Emerald]

7 minutes ago, Sadvhi said:

If you search for the term "family", other sims that are highly suspect also show up, like that family swimming pool sim. I did a scan of avatars in that region (from afar) and there was someone there who had a photo of a real life child as her profile picture, and another person whose profile pic was an old man with white hair. But there is nothing wrong with those sims, since they disallow nudity - and peole there could just be engaging in wholesome family roleplay for all I know. But I'm always suspicious when a sim gets a lot of traffic and is advertised as being a playground for "all ages". I'd never actually visit one of those places to find out what goes on there, regardless of whether I was wearing a child avatar or an adult body.

We can be suspicious as much as we like, but ARs and bans need evidence. It would be very wrong to punish people based on unsupported suspicions.

[Sadvhi]

8 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

We can be suspicious as much as we like, but ARs and bans need evidence. It would be very wrong to punish people based on unsupported suspicions.

I would only report someone if I actually heard them (in local chat) trying to engage a child avatar in illegal activities. And since that will never happen (since people aren't THAT stupid) I don't see myself as ever having to deal with this sort of thing.

[Jaylinbridges]

I must have missed it, since I don't care about nude beaches.  But where in the FAQ does it say children are not allowed on these M-rated nude beaches, assuming the child is wearing the modesty layers and beach clothes over them?  

OK I guess this is the statement from the new policy prohibiting Age-Play:

Residents presenting as Child Avatars shall be prohibited from the following:

• Entering any Region rated Adult. Residents must change to a non-child or non-childlike avatar to visit Adult rated regions.
  Engaging or participating in any event or location where nudity and/or sexual activity is present, encouraged and/or expected.

Edited May 16 by Jaylinbridges

[Kathlen Onyx]

50 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

We can be suspicious as much as we like, but ARs and bans need evidence. It would be very wrong to punish people based on unsupported suspicions.

Actually this is wrong. Bans should need evidence but an AR doesn't.  You are reporting the situation/avatar  based on your perception.  If you think something is going on better to AR it than ignore it. LL can do their investigating and if they don't find anything nothing will come of it. But one should not assume they need concreate evidence to submit an AR.

Edited May 16 by Kathlen Onyx

[ErwinVonVlotho]

1 hour ago, Sadvhi said:

If child avatars are still allowed to hang out at nude beaches chatting with naked adults, the illegal activities are going to continue since those kinds of venues attract people who are interested in doing things that are against the TOS.

They're not. Have you actually read the TOS?

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Thanks for pointing that out about the search. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for LL to do something about those venues. IMO,, they should be disappearing or with at least a name change pretty quickly.

Hopes you're not holding your breath.

[Bree Giffen]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

We need flowcharts!

LL's minor avatar decision chart would look something like this:

[Qie Niangao]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If the short avatar IS banned from the venue, that doesn't mean any AR's were filed. "Banning" can be automatic, via script. "AR's" require a human to do stuff.

Meanwhile, every short avatar banned from a Region will be paranoid that they were also AR'd. But chances are, they weren't.

Right, but re-read the OP. It starts from the assumption that the venue will be ARing the short avatars, but they may or may not also be banned. That's what had (has) me confused.

20 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Actually this is wrong. Bans should need evidence but an AR doesn't.  You are reporting the situation/avatar  based on your perception.  If you think something is going on better to AR it than ignore it. LL can do their investigating and if they don't find anything nothing will come of it. But one should not assume they need concreate evidence to submit an AR.

Pretty sure "ban" in this thread is (mostly? exclusively?) about parcel bans, not banning (nor suspending) from the platform, which presumably is the part that needs evidence. (Because I can parcel ban anybody for no reason at all, certainly not requiring evidence.)

It might be okay to file an AR without evidence, although somewhere they do specify pics should be in standard lighting, like Midday or something, so that's pretty suggestive that without evidence they won't be taken seriously. With or without evidence, the reporter needs to be pretty confident that Governance will be able to conclude there was indeed a violation. Filing on suspicion of a violation seems to risk being accused of a false report, which could have… unspecified consequences for the filer.

1 hour ago, Sadvhi said:

But I'm always suspicious when a sim gets a lot of traffic and is advertised as being a playground for "all ages". 

Wow, this reminds me of something I haven't thought of for many years, that I now realize I misunderstood at the time. One of my first scripting projects was to make photo/info panels for an adoption agency. They wanted to set up a kind of casual club-like setting for clients to meet and hang out and I suggested a pool, and the owner said no, pools are a bad idea because people don't dress well for pools. I remember thinking "so what? why does it matter whether they're well dressed just to hang out?" Now, after all these years, I realize he meant that people might not stay dressed at pools.

Honestly for the first time now I wonder how many of those adoptions were something other than growing wholesome roleplay families. At the time I thought that project was so much more innocent than the casinos I was contracted to build.

[Sadvhi]

9 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Honestly for the first time now I wonder how many of those adoptions were something other than growing wholesome roleplay families. At the time I thought that project was so much more innocent than the casinos I was contracted to build.

People who roleplay as a child in SL need to be very cautious because there are many people with unwholesome intentions who adopt children in order to engage in illegal activities that are against the TOS. There are even some children who put themselves up for adoption for this very purpose. Their profile will say something along the lines of, "Looking for a Daddy only"

[brodiac90]

2 minutes ago, Sadvhi said:

People who roleplay as a child in SL need to be very cautious because there are many people with unwholesome intentions who adopt children in order to engage in illegal activities that are against the TOS. There are even some children who put themselves up for adoption for this very purpose. Their profile will say something along the lines of, "Looking for a Daddy only"

I just want to point out that the last part isn't necessarily true, the same way that parents can specify whether they only want to adopt boys, girls or either / both. 

There are lots of reasons why someone might only want a daddy or a mommy. In fact, you often find it's the reverse and that kids only want to be adopted by mothers because of how some men are percieved. 

Additionally, adoption agencies tend to police this stuff pretty strongly for obvious reasons.  

[Sadvhi]

1 minute ago, brodiac90 said:

I just want to point out that the last part isn't necessarily true, the same way that parents can specify whether they only want to adopt boys, girls or either / both. 

There are lots of reasons why someone might only want a daddy or a mommy. In fact, you often find it's the reverse and that kids only want to be adopted by mothers because of how some men are percieved. 

Additionally, adoption agencies tend to police this stuff pretty strongly for obvious reasons.  

Thanks for pointing this out! Very true!

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Kathlen Onyx said:

Actually this is wrong. Bans should need evidence but an AR doesn't.  You are reporting the situation/avatar  based on your perception.  If you think something is going on better to AR it than ignore it. LL can do their investigating and if they don't find anything nothing will come of it. But one should not assume they need concreate evidence to submit an AR.

Evidence in an AR would be a picture and/or a copy of local chat, group chat, or an IM exchange in which you are one of the parties.

"I heard this person is engaging in ag*play" or "I think this avatar looks suspect because they're short, wearing pigtails and have small breasts" are not valid reasons to file an AR, imo.

[Love Zhaoying]

47 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

3 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If the short avatar IS banned from the venue, that doesn't mean any AR's were filed. "Banning" can be automatic, via script. "AR's" require a human to do stuff.

Meanwhile, every short avatar banned from a Region will be paranoid that they were also AR'd. But chances are, they weren't.

Right, but re-read the OP. It starts from the assumption that the venue will be ARing the short avatars, but they may or may not also be banned. That's what had (has) me confused.

I maintain (still) that the OP conflates "AR" vs. "ban from Second Life" vs. "ban from a Region".

[Jaylinbridges]

I checked that safe family beach mentioned earlier in this thread.  Avatars were a mix of tweens, teens, furries, and adult men, and no young children avatars.

There a lot of places in Adult regions for Tweens and Teens.  They will all have to age up, change their name, or be banned.  Easier for them to move to M-rated sims.  They are now all technically illegal if on Adult land, which most are.   Some family beaches now have swimsuits required, no nudity, in the M-rated regions.   From what I could gather they are mostly LBGTQ+ at these places.  

[Sadvhi]

1 minute ago, Jaylinbridges said:

I checked that safe family beach mentioned earlier in this thread.  Avatars were a mix of tweens, teens, furries, and adult men, and no young children avatars.

There a lot of places in Adult regions for Tweens and Teens.  They will all have to age up, change their name, or be banned.  Easier for them to move to M-rated sims.  They are now all technically illegal if on Adult land, which most are.   Some family beaches now have swimsuits required, no nudity, in the M-rated regions.   From what I could gather they are mostly LBGTQ+ at these places.  

Thank you for being brave enough to visit that place! I inadvertently found myself on a family beach sim once a decade ago after following a link on the Marketplace to a shop and was really freaked out by what I saw there.

 

[Bree Giffen]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I maintain (still) that the OP conflates "AR" vs. "ban from Second Life" vs. "ban from a Region".

To clarify what I think: a venue manager can do two things. They can region ban the avatar and they can AR an avatar. The manager has no control over LL's decision to do a SL ban.

But, the manager themselves are open to being AR'd by someone else who thinks the manager is allowing certain activity. What I want to know is if it's possible for a manager or any adult avatar in the venue to be free from fault if they are clothed, adult, not participating, set up warnings, etc. If they can be free from fault, should they bother with trying to ban a short avatar that is fully clothed teleporting into their venue? 

I guess one could argue that it's ultimately the manager's and owner's freedom to set their own rules and be arbitrarily stricter than SL's terms of service.

[Codex Alpha]

.

Edited May 17 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

15 minutes ago, Bree Giffen said:

If they can be free from fault, should they bother with trying to ban a short avatar that is fully clothed teleporting into their venue? 

If the short individual is "obviously" a child, and the rating is "A", then yes.

"Child" avatars are not allowed in "A"-rated regions, by TOS, even if the venue itself has no "Adult activities".

The "Child" avatar should know better (ok, after the TOS has time to be communicated, etc.) than to go to "A"-rated Regions.  There are been a few threads now where people were reminded how easy it is to restrict yourself to only "G", or "G"/"M" Regions.

Allowing a "Child" avatar on one's "A"-rated Region is just asking for trouble.

IMO, YMMV.

[Qie Niangao]

I don't think we should be too eager to assign anybody responsibility for policing their SL property for other avatars' ToS violations.

In fact, anybody who would want that responsibility seems like the kind of person who should never have that role.

[Alwin Alcott]

5 hours ago, brodiac90 said:

 and still do the sick stuff they want to do in private. 

as will many people with kid avatars that do it now also  ..

seeing some responses i think it would be better to ban that whole nest instead of just neuter them.

Edited May 16 by Alwin Alcott

[PekeNL]

Did you ever get arrested as well for being in the same store as a shoplifter?

[Roxy Couturier]

6 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Irony: if 90% of SL users are naked IRL when online. (Made up figure.)

Pics, or it didn't happen.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

Pics, or it didn't happen.

No idea how Adobe got hold of this (I need to put tape over my webcam?), but this is TOTALLY me.
Really.