The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[leliel Mirihi]

I'm not supporting LL in this but in a way you could say they are just punishing people that violated the community standards by not keeping their profiles G rated.

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Result: users under 18 will only find people whose profiles are rated G.

---

 

I don't see what's wrong with this. ()

 

 

[wrable Amat]

viewer 2 is buggy in the search...I use to invest 30k in adds...now 0 as its not worth it in the new search.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

I can certainly see the problem from a business owner's perspective, but I nonetheless think that this works as intended by LL and is in our best interest. After all, adult residents who have mature or adult content in their profiles could get into trouble if kids were able to see this content. I don't see why LL should make an exception for underaged business owners.

If anything, this shows how idiotic it was to merge the two grids and how little LL thought this through. I also wonder if minors who are not yet fully contractually capable should be allowed to sell content or offer services in SL in the first place.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

leliel Mirihi wrote:

I'm not supporting LL in this but in a way you could say they are just punishing people that violated the community standards by not keeping their profiles G rated.

---

Since LL introduced maturity ratings for profiles, we no longer have to keep our profiles G-rated (afaik). Why else would our profiles be rated in the first place?

Adult residents have often complained about the "profiles and picks must be PG" rule in the past. We can't have it both ways.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.now for sure.

[leliel Mirihi]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

---

leliel Mirihi wrote:

I'm not supporting LL in this but in a way you could say they are just punishing people that violated the community standards by not keeping their profiles G rated.

---

Since LL introduced maturity ratings for profiles, we no longer have to keep our profiles G-rated (afaik). Why else would our profiles be rated in the first place?

Adult residents have often complained about the "profiles and picks must be PG" rule in the past. We can't have it both ways.

---

I'm not asking to have it both ways. I think being able to rate our profiles and have the system obey the rating is the right way to do things. My complaint is about LL's usual MO of half implementing something, hiding the option for it, then not telling us about the change.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

Perhaps it should be possible to find a person without being able to see their profile photo and -texts in case their profile maturity rating doesn't match one's own settings. I agree that LL didn't think this through.

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

 

I'm thinking if you were < 18 and have a business and your customer has an M rated profile you can't find them through search.  Which seems like a problem but like I said - that's not me so I put it out there for those who would know for sure.

---

I consider the idea that an adult and child can establish a private and anonymous conversation online a far more pressing matter than some pixel seller trying to reach a virtual customer. (=_=)

 

[Void Singer]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Since LL introduced maturity ratings for profiles, we no longer have to keep our profiles G-rated (afaik). Why else would our profiles be rated in the first place?

---

 just because you infer it it doesn't make it true, the fact is that it was probably done to clean up the image of search, and since search is the ONLY place those profile ratings are used and applied, you assumption doesn't make any sense unless those rating are also applied to directly accessing those same profiles via web or by clicking on someone who happens to be in a G region (or an M region for A rated profiles)

until they actually make a policy statement to the contrary, the G value is the only one actually allowed by CS.

I'm not saying that this functionality isn't a move towards less stringent standards on profiles, it could very well be. But jumping the gun on it is only likely to make you a target.

[Steph Catseye]

are people under the age of 18 allowed to have a business? Just asking!

[Void Singer]

yes!