Maturity policy boiled down to just one document left in the official parts of the knowledge base.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 

I'd also like to see depictions of consensual sex moved back into "M," so someone seeking a "vanilla" experience (i.e., one not involving instruments of torture, degredation, or murder and the like) isn't exposed to representations of violence. But as we North Americans seem to be far more horrified by sexuality than by violence (much of which is still permitted in "M" areas), I guess that isn't going to happen.



---

I'd prefer the addition of a 'V' rating for violent. A for 'teh sexxors' and V for the whips and chains.

- Though I guess then we'd be arguing over where the BDSM folks fall...

 

 

---

I'd probably be ok with this suggestion.  Except that "V" might have to be a separate kind of rating, or you'd have BDSM dungeons next to combat sims.  And we all know how much soldiers hate sex.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

So, assuming that happened . . . would you then take issue with those who get turned off by violence? Is it equally "silly" to be nauseated or disturbed by animations depicting gutting, garroting, throat-slitting, or rape? Should we all just take a deep breath and realize that these too are just part of the "human experience"?

---

I realize you weren't talking to me but that's never stopped me before.

For one thing, nobody really gets physically injured here, anymore than anyone gets physically inseminated. Garroting and throat-slitting in SL are not all that far removed from children saying, "Bang! You're dead!". I know, we're not talking about children. I also know there are probably some who get some kind of thrill from that behavior. But in fact there is no physical harm. Children at play know, and I do mean KNOW, that the kid they are talking to isn't really dead. I believe the same is true of residents of SL.

I do not think equating sexual or combative behaviors in Second Life with Real Life is a valid argument. Avoiding places and people that do things you don't like is much easier in SL than in RL. Person to person relationships, for me at least, are a different story. Hurtful behavior of any kind, the same.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I was wondering about that and still am. I looked at a piece of land for sale in a G (as in PG) sim and having read the current ratings wasn't sure. Did that mean I couldn't have a sexbed in my

house

? The owner never answered probably  because he or she didn't know either. It says one can not be 'located' without any further descpription.

---

What's not to understand about "sex beds may not be located in G-rated regions"?   If your house is located in a G-rated region then it has to follow that anything inside the house is located there, too, doesn't it?

 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

So, assuming that happened . . . would you then take issue with those who get turned off by violence? Is it equally "silly" to be nauseated or disturbed by animations depicting gutting, garroting, throat-slitting, or rape? Should we all just take a deep breath and realize that these too are just part of the "human experience"?

---

I realize you weren't talking to me but that's never stopped me before.

For one thing, nobody really gets physically injured here, anymore than anyone gets physically inseminated. Garroting and throat-slitting in SL are not all that far removed from children saying, "Bang! You're dead!". I know, we're not talking about children. I also know there are probably some who get some kind of thrill from that behavior. But in fact there is no physical harm. Children at play know, and I do mean KNOW, that the kid they are talking to isn't really dead. I believe the same is true of residents of SL.

I do not think equating sexual or combative behaviors in Second Life with Real Life is a valid argument. Avoiding places and people that do things you don't like is much easier in SL than in RL. Person to person relationships, for me at least, are a different story. Hurtful behavior of any kind, the same.

---

Well, it goes without saying that the violence isn't "real," Dillon. I don't think people want to avoid representations of violence (please note the qualifier "representations") because they think "OMG SOMEONE IS BEING HURT!"  They want to avoid them because the imagery is disturbing or upsetting.

Use the analogy of a slasher flick. We all "know" that the blood and gore aren't real, but that doesn't prevent people from being horrified, frightened, disgusted, etc.  It signifies something that is upsetting, and what we feel from it is a sort of version of that same emotion, even though, again, we are aware that it is an illusion. If such imagery didn't affect us, we wouldn't bother going to slasher flicks at all -- or engaging in violent role play. For some, the visceral emotional response is part of the turn on, and for some, it is merely upsetting.  It's the imagery that does this: it has nothing to do with whether it is "real" or not.

And, again, I'll ask, because I'm still not getting an answer: what is wrong with offering people choice?  Of letting them decide what kind of environment they want to be in, and what sorts of imagery or behaviour they want to be exposed to?

Why are we so anxious to impose our own attitudes on others?  It's all very well to say "You shouldn't be upset by this; I'm not!"  But they are.  Who are we to tell them they are wrong, and to insist that they be exposed to this stuff if they don't want to be?

As for how easy it is to avoid stuff in SL . . . well, yes, it is generally pretty easy now, because of the classification system.  In the "old days," when "mature" covered a very wide range of things, that really wasn't the case. Some sims, mostly those that specialized in hardcore sexual violence like the Crack Den, had notecards and warnings at their TP hubs, but in the vast majority of cases, just wandering through a mainland mature sim made it quite likely you'd find something violent or explicitly sexual -- without any warning at all.  If things are better now, it's because of the classification system.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I was wondering about that and still am. I looked at a piece of land for sale in a G (as in PG) sim and having read the current ratings wasn't sure. Did that mean I couldn't have a sexbed in my

house

? The owner never answered probably  because he or she didn't know either. It says one can not be 'located' without any further descpription.

---

What's not to understand about "sex beds may not be located in G-rated regions"?   If your house is located in a G-rated region then it has to follow that anything inside the house is located there, too, doesn't it?

 

 

---

It does follow that if I had a house in a G location, "anything inside the house is located there, too.". It just seemed so massively stupid to include objects in private residences within that clause that I questioned it. I've still not heard a definitive answer.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

Well, it goes without saying that the violence isn't "real," Dillon. I don't think people want to avoid representations of violence (please note the qualifier "representations") because they think "OMG SOMEONE IS BEING HURT!"  They want to avoid them because the imagery is disturbing or upsetting.

Use the analogy of a slasher flick. We all "know" that the blood and gore aren't real, but that doesn't prevent people from being horrified, frightened, disgusted, etc.  It signifies something that is upsetting, and what we feel from it is a sort of version of that same emotion, even though, again, we are aware that it is an illusion. If such imagery

didn't

affect us, we wouldn't bother going to slasher flicks at all -- or engaging in violent role play. For some, the visceral emotional response is part of the turn on, and for some, it is merely upsetting.  It's the imagery that does this: it has nothing to do with whether it is "real" or not.

And, again, I'll ask, because I'm still not getting an answer:

what is wrong with offering people

choice

?

  Of letting

them

decide what kind of environment they want to be in, and what sorts of imagery or behaviour they want to be exposed to?

Why are we so anxious to impose our

own

attitudes on others?  It's all very well to say "You shouldn't be upset by this; I'm not!"  But

they are. 

Who are we to tell them they are wrong, and to insist that they be exposed to this stuff if they don't want to be?

As for how easy it is to avoid stuff in SL . . . well, yes, it is generally pretty easy now,

because of the classification system

.  In the "old days," when "mature" covered a very wide range of things, that really wasn't the case. Some sims, mostly those that specialized in hardcore sexual violence like the Crack Den, had notecards and warnings at their TP hubs, but in the vast majority of cases, just wandering through a mainland mature sim made it quite likely you'd find something violent or explicitly sexual -- without any warning at all.  If things are better now, it's

because

of the classification system.

---

Okay. We have no argument on the question of whether what anyone likes or dislikes is any of our damn business. For me that only matters if they start telling me about it in a way that indicates I should change what I'm doing to accomodate them.

As for avoiding places you don't want to see; I've not been here as long as you have but I was here before Zindra. I ran across places I wished I hadn't but it didn't really bother me. Doesn't bother me now and it does still happen. I just keep going or leave. I do like the idea of having a place where that can't happen, for those who want to enjoy all of what SL can be without ever have to worry about seeing things they don't like. I just don't see any reason to spend time regulating what can or can not be done everywhere else.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

I was wondering about that and still am. I looked at a piece of land for sale in a G (as in PG) sim and having read the current ratings wasn't sure. Did that mean I couldn't have a sexbed in my

house

? The owner never answered probably  because he or she didn't know either. It says one can not be 'located' without any further descpription.

---

What's not to understand about "sex beds may not be located in G-rated regions"?   If your house is located in a G-rated region then it has to follow that anything inside the house is located there, too, doesn't it?

 

 

---

It does follow that if I had a house in a G location, "anything inside the house is located there, too.". It just seemed so massively stupid to include objects in private residences within that clause that I questioned it. I've still not heard a definitive answer.

---

Every time Blondin was ever asked about this -- and it did used to come up quite regularly at Adult Content User Group meetings -- the answer was the same; sex beds are OK in M and Adult regions, but not in G-rated ones.   I've no reason to think things have changed since he left.    I agree it's massively stupid, but so are a lot of things about Maturity ratings.

As it happens, I did raise the vagueness of the official pronouncements about what goes and what doesn't go on various regions a couple of weeks back, with Viale Linden, Blondin's successor at the Adult Content Group, and was told to take the matter up with the User Tools Group, since they're responsible for documentation like the Knowledge Base and so on (he's made it clear he's interested in Adult Content rather than maturity ratings in general).   I dropped Lexie Linden an email about it and was told that Rand Linden would look into the matter.

The next user group meeting is, I think, tomorrow week, the 23rd.   I'm going to try to attend that one (I was busy last week) to raise the matter, and maybe you'd like to attend, too.

In the meantime, all I know is that every time I've heard a Linden asked about this -- admittedly always Blondin -- over the last couple of years, the answer's been the same -- you can't have sex beds and stuff on G-rated land, indoors or out.   Maybe they are changing stuff now that Amanda and Blondin have both left; after all, the broken Age Verification system's been scrapped at last, and, from what Viale's saying, there's plans to give A-rated  destinations a higher profile, but I wouldn't rely on that affecting the policy on G-rated areas.    

Personally, I wouldn't buy residential land on a G-rated sim since there is, at best, a degree of uncertainty about whether "may not be located in G-rated regions" excludes those bits of G-rated regions inside someone's house, while there's no such confusion about anywhere else.

 

 

[Jennifer Boyle]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

@ everyone

I must admit, I am baffled by people's obsession with sexuality. To understand the absurdity of sexual classifications, imagine the whole rating debate replayed for builds. Let's say, for some bizarre reason, Linden Lab decides to zone SL based of the size, shape and color of houses. One group screams that SL should be partitioned into L (large), M (medium) and S (small) houses. Linden Lab then opens a rip-roaring debate on the definition of a 'large' house as opposed to a 'medium' house.

The fora catch fire: Person A says that a diagonal line should be used to measure the size of a house. Person B says total prim count should be the working definition. Person C says average color saturation x max width should help reconcile the differences. Person D rants that houses are evil. Person E gets into a flame war with Person D. Thousands and thousands of posts about how to define small, medium and large houses.

Then cooler heads chime in and ask why there should be a debate about house sizes at all? They point out the problems of defining house sizes and problems of enforcing such definitions. Moreover, they explain, some people like big palaces, others like Medieval castles, others like country cottages and others like modern glass bungalows. If a Spanish person wants to build a Bullring on his land or a Frenchman builds a chateau or an Indian builds the Taj Mahal, what are the neighbors to do? AR the builders because they don't like Bullrings or Medieval castles next to their treehouses?

And yet we conduct this same lunatic debate for dress codes and behavior codes with respect to appearance and sexuality. Person Q says he does not like nudity (or purple houses). Person R says she does not like public displays of sexuality (or French chateaus). Person S says he does not want to be exposed to another person's sexual fantasies (or red brick office blocks). Meanwhile the people who

like

purple houses, French chateaus and red brick office blocks ask why the hell they can only build in a separate continent. Why, they ask, should LL set country cottages as the norm and standard for SL?

Oh, but sexuality is different from houses! Is it? Is it really? Why? Think about it. Think deeply. Explain to aliens landing on Earth why sexuality should be treated differently from - exaggerated way out of proportion to - musical tastes, academic specialties, career choices, hair color, food preferences or, closer to home, whether to have children or not? Shall we partition SL into R (rock & roll), M (metal), H (hiphop) and F (folk)? How about R (Republican) and D (Democrat)? C (Christian), J (Jewish), M (Muslim), B (Buddhist)? Perhaps E (university degree) and H (high school only). Absurd? Of course. It is equally absurd to partition SL based on sexual tastes and preferences.

And yet, for some wild and crazy reason, people get all worked up about other people's sexuality as if it were somehow different from hair color or house types. If someone were to rant about how redheads should be banned from SL, he would be treated as a kook (yet it seems perfectly acceptable to rant about child avis). If someone began a campaign to stop builds being taller than 20 meters, he would be ridiculed (yet banning avatar breasts in a Marketplace ad barely raises an eyebrow). If a group of people formed a committee to force rock-metal clubs to Zindra, they would get shouted down as anathema to SL (yet it was fine to force strip clubs to move to Zindra). Everyone is a tolerant of other people

except

when it comes to sexuality. We all agree to respect other people's religion and politics, but mention sexuality and all hell breaks loose as if it were a serious topic for 'community control'. We wouldn't dream of partitioning SL based on race, religion, politics or gender, yet here we are, partitioning SL based on sexual preferences.

Personally, I would eliminate all the maturity levels, but I am quite willing to have a PG/Disney continent for those who want the seclusion and conformity of a zero-sexuality environment. I offer the analogy of a lighting dimmer switch: 'off' or a wide range of 'on'. In my opinion a PG/Disney continent would represent the 'sexuality off' setting; the rest of SL would represent the wide range of 'sexuality on'.

Perhaps more importantly, people need to get a passport and see the world. I realize SL caters specifically to those who can't easily travel, but at least read books about the world, discover the huge differences in national customs and social norms, learn about human sensuality in different cultures and sub-cultures, go to some clubs! The world is a marvelous place, rich in diversity. That people come to SL from all over the world makes it imperative we avoid narrow thinking and crude sexual stereotypes. If SL is to survive, we must stop being dogmatic about personal tastes and preferences.

---

This is the best post that I have ever read.  Therefore, it is quoted in its entirety.

 

[Gavin Hird]

There is something odd in the logic of this policy. It states "To access adult search results and Adult regions, you must confirm that you are at least 18 years old by visiting the age verification web page.  ", but the fact is that you have to be 18 year or older to access M regions too.

After the teen grid merge, they allowed the age group 16-18 to enter SecondLife proper, and these individuals are restricted to G regions only. 

Back to another tread on this subject, my prediction is that in less than a year we will come full circle and only have 2 maturity ratings. A and G. G with pretty much the current definition, A for the rest. 

 

Zindra Alliance has suggested the following to Linden Lab:

For current residents:

* On login or by email divert the resident to the age verification page and have them confirm their age. Make this a mandatory, once off operation. 

* After confirmation of age, direct the user to the Preferences General tab to set their desired maturity rating. 

 

For new residents:

* On signup, lead them through the same procedure, the difference being that you record their maturity preference in the web based process before first logon, and set this preference for them in the Basic viewer on first logon.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

As for avoiding places you don't want to see; I've not been here as long as you have but I was here before Zindra. I ran across places I wished I hadn't but it didn't really bother me. Doesn't bother me now and it does still happen. I just keep going or leave. I do like the idea of having a place where that can't happen, for those who want to enjoy all of what SL can be without ever have to worry about seeing things they don't like. I just don't see any reason to spend time regulating what can or can not be done everywhere else.

---

There are two very different kinds of behaviour and/or imagery that are at issue here:  sex, and violence. A classification system that recognizes only two classes -- :"General," and everything else -- is conflating and equating those two things. They are emphatically not the same thing, and it is entirely possible, and indeed probably pretty common, to be very liberal about the one, and deeply upset by the other. Indeed, most of the women, and some of the men, whom I know personally have no objections to sexuality at all, but don't like strong or excessive violence.

Now, I am well aware that for many Goreans and practitioners of BDSM sex and violence do go hand-in-hand. And that's fine: let such people have a place where they can indulge in both, separately or together, to their heart's content.

But for a great many people, of whom I am one, sexuality is wonderful, but violence is upsetting, disturbing, or even abhorent , and sexual violence perhaps most disturbing of all. If someone wishes to explore his or her sexuality at a strip club, bathhouse, or whatever, they should be able to do so secure in the knowledge that they are not also going to be exposed to images and role playing of sexual violence. Providing a classification system caters to both kinds of people: there are still places where one can play around in a BDSM dungeon, but there are also places where sexuality is openly expressed that answer to the right of people not to be exposed to violence. 

It's a win-win situation!  Why then insist that those who want to be exposed only to depictions of consensual sexuality are somehow "wrong" or "uptight"? Who are we to tell them that their needs are not as important as those who like sexual violence?

Again, I remain perplexed by this apparent insistence that everyone should just learn to be cool with stuff that they don't like because you, or I, or whoever, isn't bothered by it. The issue, again, is choice. Providing choice is always a good thing: it's really another expression of personal liberty. We all have a right to association; we should also have a right to not associate with things with which we disagree, or which disturb us. To use the analogy of movies again: I want to know if a movie is going to be excessively violent and gory before I pay money to see it, because it empowers me to exercise my personal choice in deciding to see it or not.

As things stand on Zindra right now, there is no distinction between sexuality and violence, and the situation there is, as a result, not unlike what it used to be on mainland "Mature" sims: I can't go to a strip club there without potentially being exposed to exceedingly violent imagery.

Now, personally, I do deliberately go to places like Hard Alley or the Dolcett Diner, or the Crack Den, reasonably often, for my own reasons. But I want, and fully support the rights of others who also want, to be inforrmed before I TP somewhere that I am going to be potentially upset by what I see there. 

How can providing information to make informed choices about where we go -- which is one of the most important functions of a rating system -- not be a good thing?

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

@ everyone

I must admit, I am baffled by people's obsession with sexuality. To understand the absurdity of sexual classifications, imagine the whole rating debate replayed for builds. Let's say, for some bizarre reason, Linden Lab decides to zone SL based of the size, shape and color of houses. One group screams that SL should be partitioned into L (large), M (medium) and S (small) houses. Linden Lab then opens a rip-roaring debate on the definition of a 'large' house as opposed to a 'medium' house.

---

In practice, though, most privately-owned sims do have some sort of building code -- one of the attractions of private sims vs mainland is that, if this is the sort of thing that matters to you,  it's usually not too difficult to find somewhere privately-owned where the landowner won't allow anyone to build a great big gothic castle or freebie mega-mall next to your tropical beach-hut.    

The same goes for dress-codes and conduct generally, and also resource use.   Before my business partner and I moved our main store from Zindra to a private island we owned already (we didn't have a problem with Zindra, but someone made us so generous an offer for the land, we decided we couldn't afford not to sell), the sim next door housed a very popular club, which I often attend myself -- when I can get there, that is, because the sim's usually full.  

If our shop had been on that same sim, rather than next door, we'd have been sunk; no one would ever have been able to get to the shop because the 40 people who can fit on a mainland sim were always over in the one parcel housing the club.   And in those circumstances, we'd have had no recourse I can see but to move.   It's not a situation any sensible private landowner would have allowed to arise, but I don't really see what assistance LL could offer in such circumstances.

LL's problem, it seems to me, is that they're trying to establish rules and policies for continent-wide contiguous areas, and it's a very blunt instrument.     I'm coming to the opinion -- and I know this isn't likely to happen, not least because of the uproar there would be about how to dispose of existing Mainland sims and people finding their landlord wasn't LL any more  -- that the ideal solution would be for LL to get out of the land business altogether and concentrate on stuff like search, the marketplace and the destination guide.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

actually blondin was speaking with residents..but it was residents that were merchants..

these are the ones directly affected by the changes and ratings.

 

 

in other words private residents and their private homes don't fall under the ratings defenitions.

nothing has changed from what it was before for private residents..

we could never be nude or have sex on General lands..it's always been disney..

 

it's not speaking about private residents and things they do in their private homes..because private residents don't advertise..

---

I was wondering about that and still am. I looked at a piece of land for sale in a G (as in PG) sim and having read the current ratings wasn't sure. Did that mean I couldn't have a sexbed in my

house

? The owner never answered probably  because he or she didn't know either. It says one can not be 'located' without any further descpription.

.

---

you can have a sex bed in General lands..but it would have to be disabled

G maturity rating would probably be a good one for private residents to follow..i mean thats the only rating where they actually  do stray from it being just about businesses and stuff like that and show they are speaking beyond it being about search or open to the public..

this line alone shows it..

A region designated General is not allowed to advertise or make available content or activity that is sexually explicit, violent, or depicts nudity.  Sexually-oriented objects such as "sex beds" or poseballs may not be located or sold in General regions.

basically they don't want any of those poses or animations in general but disabled sex beds are fine..it only becomes a sex bed when those poses are avalable to use..

---

---

A typical (if there is such a thing) American residential area in RL is pretty much PG. Anything out of line would draw fire from somebody. But I am almost positive that behind closed doors sexual intercourse takes place in those areas. I do realize that 'camming' in SL is a lot easier and less expensive than doing so in RL, but it seems to me that a person should be allowed some discretion in his or her private residence no matter where it's located. I even read a quote from a Linden on one of the wiki's saying in essence that 'we won't be looking at what people are doing in their houses'. Is that official?

I'd like to see those definitions 'unfuzzed' at least to that degree.

---

i would have to see the place in the wiki where they said this..if LL is going to say one thing and a linden say another..i would have to go with LL over a lone linden..

it would be better to just see the quote  to see what led up to that quote..

 

[Deltango Vale]

Scylla,

Because I know I have a direct style of writing, I try not to let my posts appear personal or confrontational. Let me therefore rewrite your post twice: first as a counterpoint (replacing sex with something else) then as an abstraction. Here goes:

----------------

Del, personally I agree with you entirely about [non-human avatar] hang ups.  I don't particularly "want" to run across people [speaking a foreign language] all over the place, but neither would it much bother me.  That's why I suggested that representations of [Germanic castles] be permitted again in "M" areas.

So, assuming that happened . . . would you then take issue with those who get turned off by [steampunk]? Is it equally "silly" to be nauseated or disturbed by animations depicting [foxes in human clothes, robots with guns, nuclear particle bombs exploding across a whole sim, or women dancing in a g-string]? Should we all just take a deep breath and realize that these too are just part of the "human experience"?

And I'll say it again, because I don't think you really answered it: what is wrong about giving people choices? No one here is talking about banning different forms of [builds] -- [building] is no more "ghettoized" in Zindra than ["scripts"] (to use a loaded term) is being "ghettoized" in PG areas. 

It seems to me a bit arrogant to decide that because you -- and I -- are cool about [badly designed office towers], others must be "educated" through forced exposure into a similar attitude.  Real tolerance, surely, is providing a place where everyone can feel "safe" and at home.

----------------

Del, personally I agree with you entirely about [X] hang ups.  I don't particularly "want" to run across people [doing X] all over the place, but neither would it much bother me.  That's why I suggested that representations of [X] be permitted again in "M" areas.

So, assuming that happened . . . would you then take issue with those who get turned off by [Y]? Is it equally "silly" to be nauseated or disturbed by animations depicting [A, B or C]? Should we all just take a deep breath and realize that these too are just part of the "human experience"?

And I'll say it again, because I don't think you really answered it: what is wrong about giving people choices? No one here is talking about banning different forms of [Z] -- [Z] is no more "ghettoized" in Zindra than ["Q"] (to use a loaded term) is being "ghettoized" in PG areas. 

It seems to me a bit arrogant to decide that because you -- and I -- are cool about [X], others must be "educated" through forced exposure into a similar attitude.  Real tolerance, surely, is providing a place where everyone can feel "safe" and at home.

----------------

The point I am trying to make is that we need to shift this debate away from its obsession with sex to the nature of SL in general. Sex is only one subset of thousands of activities possible in SL. Why should one activity among thousands be singled out as something special, deserving special treatment?

I personally hate Medieval castles. I think they are ugly. I also hate Victorian RP. I think it is ridiculous to watch Americans lusting after an era that many British people dismiss with scorn. I also hate guys in clubs pretending to be Axel Rose. I think the apeman look of most male avatars is stupid. I especially hate seeing RL country flags in SL. I find them offensive. Want me to go on? I can spend all night listing the things I don't like in SL. Shall I start a thread to get everyone to list their own personal dislikes about things they see in SL?

If it were anything but sex, we would all say, "this is SL; it is full of things you may like or dislike, so, mind your own business." Would I like to ban RL national flags from SL? You bet, but I would never seriously suggest it - and I would argue vigorously against anyone who did. Just because I don't happen to like national flags or Victorian RP or Axel Rose does not mean I and my friends get to zone SL to suit my tastes. Same goes for houses, vehicles, RP, clubs, avatars and sexuality.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

when reading the maturity definitions you have to look at it as if you were a business or someone using search or some sort of advertising to promote your land..looking at it as they are talking to private residents will keep it confusing..

 

---

I know...

And that drives me nuts because I suspect a -LOT- of us do more in SL than -just- sell stuff to the noobs.

After all... the noobs buy the stuff, for a reason. Usually that reason is to go do 'stuffz'.

So what kinda stuffz can we do where?

-sigh-

 

---

well also a lot of us own a business but also may have a private home hehehehehe.

say you own a home on moderate land somewhere but also have an adult business located on adult land somewhere else that sells.....hmm  whats a good example of a product?

ok ..something that is not allowed on the Moderate market.....this is a make believe product by the way  lol

say you make these and sell them from your adult store in say zindra or at a mall in an adult rated sim...

an orgy gor violent human bloody body chopper that has all this included..

• Representations of intensely violent acts, for example depicting death, torture, dismemberment or other severe bodily harm, whether or not photo-realistic (meaning that images either are or cannot be distinguished from a photograph.)
• Photo-realistic nudity.
• Expressly sexually themed content, spaces or activities, whether or not photo-realistic.

then one night you say to yourself..i'm gonna take one of these home and call up some friends and have a party..

 

you could do that  in your home on moderate land..as long as it wasn't an advertised event..

General..well i would keep it as G disney as i possible..they don't want a mans nipple showing up in general..remember the  one LL birthday they had ..no nipples day? LOL

if this is what you were meaning by what we could do and where?

 

 

[Gavin Hird]

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

---

To use the analogy of movies again: I want to

know

if a movie is going to be excessively violent and gory before I pay money to see it, because it empowers me to exercise my personal choice in deciding to see it or not.

 

---

Exactly, and how do you do that? 

You research the movie upfront using internet, papers and broadcast media reviews (which for SecondLife translates to use search, blogs and forums).

You check the maturity rating of the movie and theater upfront (for SL use search or the map to check the rating of the sim)

You don't just barge into a red light theater RL and start screaming for police and auhorties (Linden Lab and governance) becaue you did not like the movie or the people there. 

You don't just go to a random movie and make all kinds of fuzz when there is a scene of violent content that exceeds your limits. You simply leave.

This behavior is easily translated to SecondLife.  

If you want to avoid content that disturbs you, you simply don't teleport into random, unresearched  locations on land that has adult content (adult in the meaning of the full range of activities that adults do.) 

Otherwise you simply stay in G regions where you will have an experience compatible with having children around and strict business. 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

---

To use the analogy of movies again: I want to

know

if a movie is going to be excessively violent and gory before I pay money to see it, because it empowers me to exercise my personal choice in deciding to see it or not.

 

---

Exactly, and how do you do that? 

You research the movie upfront using internet, papers and broadcast media reviews (which for SecondLife translates to use search, blogs and forums).

You check the maturity rating of the movie and theater upfront (for SL use search or the map to check the rating of the sim)

You don't just barge into a red light theater RL and start screaming for police and auhorties (Linden Lab and governance) becaue you did not like the movie or the people there. 

You don't just go to a random movie and make all kinds of fuzz when there is a scene of violent content that exceeds your limits. You simply leave.

This behavior is easily translated to SecondLife.  

If you want to avoid content that disturbs you, you simply don't teleport into random, unresearched  locations on land that has adult content (adult in the meaning of the full range of activities that adults do.) 

Otherwise you simply stay in G regions where you will have an experience compatible with having children around and strict business. 

---

that was well put..just had to give you props =)

[Deltango Vale]

Before LL got itself tangled up in the 'adult' policy, there were two maturity ratings: PG (restricted) and M (unrestricted). It worked just fine. Notice the binary nature of restricted v unrestricted. That's why it worked. The nightmare began when LL tried to construct an analog rating system of PG (restricted), M (kind-of-sort-of-maybe restricted) and A (unrestricted).

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Before LL got itself tangled up in the 'adult' policy, there were two maturity ratings: PG (restricted) and M (unrestricted). It worked just fine. Notice the binary nature of restricted v unrestricted. That's why it worked. The nightmare began when LL tried to construct an analog rating system of PG (restricted), M (kind-of-sort-of-maybe restricted) and A (unrestricted).

---

well M is still unrestricted for the  private resident/home owner so to speak..

just the  land owners with search adds or showing events and stuffs like that to advertise whats on their lands are restricted..

 the business owners merchants and places open to the public that use the channles that are on those lists in maturity definitions are restricted..

on mature as a private home owner..i could do all the things listed on the adult list and anything as general as i want and  not be restricted..

 

as i said before..if we had to qualify to be able to move to a certain rating..that Moderate private home owners would not qualify for adult rated land..no matter what kink or fetish or body chopping  or orgy or shoot'em up went on in there house..

they could qualify for General though if they toned it down..but never Adult rated..

 

 

 

 

[Deltango Vale]

"just the  land owners with search adds or showing events and stuffs like that to advertise whats on their lands are restricted."

-------------------------------------------------

The devil, of course, is in the details. Where does vermilion end and burnt orange begin? How does one subvivide a rainbow?

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

"just the  land owners with search adds or showing events and stuffs like that to advertise whats on their lands are restricted."

-------------------------------------------------

The devil, of course, is in the details. Where does vermilion end and burnt orange begin? How does one subvivide a rainbow?

---

But that's inherent in any system of regulation, surely?   There's no particular reason for restricting the speed limit on a particular stretch of road to 30 MPH rather than 31 or 29, though there may well be obvious reasons why it should be "about 30" rather than "about 70".   Similarly, while you and I may disagree about whether something is vermilion or burnt orange, we'll have no difficulty in agreeing that it's neither blue nor green.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

"just the  land owners with search adds or showing events and stuffs like that to advertise whats on their lands are restricted."

-------------------------------------------------

The devil, of course, is in the details. Where does vermilion end and burnt orange begin? How does one subvivide a rainbow?

---

i was showing that private residents are still on unrestricted land if they lived on moderate lands..lets call them residential areas for the sake  of it..

if you look at land owners using any way of reaching out to the public as say an industrial park so to speak..they all would be under the restrictions..

if you are asking what their restrictions would be and how to separate them by which ones go to which  industrial park..general ,moderate or adult..

that would determine where they lined up with in the maturity definitions or in oother words the restrictions..

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

well M is still unrestricted for the  private resident/home owner so to speak..

---

But where does it say that? We all assume that, but where does it say it, now?

They've expressly denied all of the old conversations that never said it either, but hinted at it. Now, it neither says nor hints at that.

 

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

well M is still unrestricted for the  private resident/home owner so to speak..

---

But where does it say that? We all assume that, but where does it say it, now?

They've expressly denied all of the old conversations that never said it either, but hinted at it. Now, it neither says nor hints at that.

 

---

i don't assume the rules..

show me where they are talking about restrictions to private residents? i don't see anything anywhere  that says we can't do any of the things we want on moderate..

show me the rules that say what we can't do before looking for what we can..see if you can find anything..

because if it's not in the rules then we can do it.. it would be in the TOS someplace..you won't find it in the maturity definitions because those are not to private residence..those are for merchants and places reaching out to the public..

 

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

well M is still unrestricted for the  private resident/home owner so to speak..

---

But where does it say that? We all assume that, but where does it say it, now?

They've expressly denied all of the old conversations that never said it either, but hinted at it. Now, it neither says nor hints at that.

 

---

Well, I would infer from the fact that something is expressly forbidden, in terms, on G-rated land and not mentioned for any of the others, that the prohibition only applies to G-rated land.  

Is that less reasonable than suspecting they may mean the prohibition applies elsewhere but just aren't telling us about it?

And certainly, if there is such prohibition in force, daily experience tells us it's as unenforced as it is unwritten.    Have you ever heard of anyone having a sex bed returned from a private residence on M rated land, or a sim owner being asked to change the rating of his or her sim because the tenants have such items in their private residences?   I haven't.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

---

To use the analogy of movies again: I want to

know

if a movie is going to be excessively violent and gory before I pay money to see it, because it empowers me to exercise my personal choice in deciding to see it or not.

 

---

Exactly, and how do you do that? 

You research the movie upfront using internet, papers and broadcast media reviews (which for SecondLife translates to use search, blogs and forums).

You check the maturity rating of the movie and theater upfront (for SL use search or the map to check the rating of the sim)

You don't just barge into a red light theater RL and start screaming for police and auhorties (Linden Lab and governance) becaue you did not like the movie or the people there. 

You don't just go to a random movie and make all kinds of fuzz when there is a scene of violent content that exceeds your limits. You simply leave.

This behavior is easily translated to SecondLife.  

If you want to avoid content that disturbs you, you simply don't teleport into random, unresearched  locations on land that has adult content (adult in the meaning of the full range of activities that adults do.) 

Otherwise you simply stay in G regions where you will have an experience compatible with having children around and strict business. 

---

 

You analogy is a faulty one, Gavin.  there is a "gateway" to movies that ensure that I am informed about ratings before I even pay my money: it's called a ticketbooth, and it ensures that I don't have to "research" a movie before going to the theatre. If there were a similar gateway in SL -- a warning that popped up before a TP was completed, for instance -- there wouldn't be this problem.

There's an additional problem with your analogy.  When I go to a movie that is rated Adult Accompaniment, I am sure that I will not, during the course of that movie, be exposed to the X-rated material associated with the "Adult" movie playing in the theatre next door. If, on the other hand, I go to sex club on Zindra that doesn't feature violent RP or images, I have no assurances that I'm not still going to be bombarded with those from parcel next door.

Finally . . . agreed that blindly teleporting is always a somewhat unwise thing to do. However . . .

1) Parcel descriptions are frequently rather vague about what is actually on offer at a particular place, so in some cases the only really viable "research" possible is to go see for oneself.  A nice plain "V" for violence on all parcel descriptions and LMs so designated would indeed make "research" possible.

2) One doesn't need to blindly teleport around to bump into violent stuff. I rarely do this, in fact: I wander, physically walking (or sometimes scootering, where possible). Are you suggesting that those who don't wish to be exposed to violent materials should avoid roaming Zindra for fear of running across something they find objectionable?

 

And again I'll ask, because I still have not received an answer:  Why is providing people with choice, and with the information necessary to make an informed choice, not a good thing?????

 

I'd also like to know, frankly, why you and other landowners on Zindra really object to classification.  Do you feel it stigmatizes or ghettoizes you?  What's really behind this opposition to classification. Please don't tell me that it's "too difficult":  ratings for movies, video games, zoning laws in RL, and a host of other examples suggest that it's actually quite possible to produce workable ratings.