Clubs that deny access to certain lifestyle groups within SL

[Liru Moonshadow]

Hi

I have been told that Linden Labs supports club owners in denying access to their parcel/land to certain groups on SL, such as furries or bloodlines.

Can anyone show me where it says they are allowed to do this in the TOS because they seem to be in direct violation of their own standards which is 100% against intolerance http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php

Surely judging someone by what their avatar looks like is equivalent to intolerance?

Thanks

[Kylie Jaxxon]

Bottom line...every owner has a right to allow or not allow access, whatever the reason

 ETA:  Linden Lab does not support intolerance.  What they do support are the rights of the landowner, who pays for the property.  Those rights include access or not.  If there is verbal intolerance, file an AR.  If not, move on to another place that is more acceptable...it's not worth the hassle or the upset.

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

The post above me is not entirely accruate.

Intolerance of RL groups such as ethnicity, race, gender, age, sexual orientation; yeah - AR the heck out of that. That's a ToS violation, and if it was not, LL would be in violation of California anti-discrimination law.

 

But intolerance of Star Trek geeks versus Babylon 5 geeks versus 'two & a half men' geeks... that's not the same thing.

Frustrating as a furry / neko that some places bar on such a stupid basis, but its not the same thing.

 

[wrable Amat]

I have a dislike my self for all the "female only" or "male only" or really any club that dose not let people in due to their gender , at the same time this is not soil ground it is a  pay to play world in  SL .

Might seem unfair (and it is) but people that pay for land have the right to not grant access to any one they wish for any reason outside of blatant  racial predigest signs on the land as I have seen signs that say "No males" or "No females"  but put a sign up that says "No N word(censored for obvious reasons)" or " No J word (censored for obvious reasons)"  and I am sure they put a stop to that fast , In my mind it is the same crime  to not let access to a   gender , race or religion .

[Dilbert Dilweg]

I don't see why it bothers anyone. There is a place for everyone.

Does roll playing as a furry make it a race? Or Just a roll play that others wish not to involve them selves with. I dont see it as racial at all

 

[Syo Emerald]

Its not simply  a roleplaying thing. I, and many others who chose an avatar that is not some 0815 human, don't simply play a role. I didn't thought as I brought a furry "Oh lets play some charakter who is member of an exotic race from the jungle" or something like that. The same goes for most nekos and other avatars.

Its not a fictional charakter who gets said she is not allowed to go somewhere. Its me who gets told that the avatar I tend to chose is not allowed. My taste gets voted down to something harmfull or disgusting. We don't harm anyone, we don't bother anyone. We are friendly people doing nothing bad to others........

Hating us out of nothing is intolerance. Its exactly the same as being rude to people in RL because of their apperance.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

Its not a fictional charakter who gets said she is not allowed to go somewhere. Its me who gets told that the avatar I tend to chose is not allowed.

---

The important word in this sentance is 'chose'. It's not that you - as a user of the Second Life service - is not allowed. It's that your virtual (fictional) cosmetics that aren't necessarily appreciated. It's all about choice, and you're always free to choose differently. You can choose to change, or choose to go elsewhere.

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

Hating us out of nothing is intolerance. Its exactly the same as being rude to people in RL because of their apperance.

---

Disagree. Because unlike RL, your appearance in SL is 100% choice. No-one has to be 'tolerant' to allow 50ft tentacle demons on their land, and no-ones human rights are being stepped on by asking avatars conform to a dress code.

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Editted for clarity.

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

Its not a fictional charakter who gets said she is not allowed to go somewhere. Its me who gets told that the avatar I tend to chose is not allowed.

---

The important word in this sentance is 'chose'. It's not that you - as a user of the Second Life service - is not allowed. It's that your virtual (fictional) cosmetics that aren't necessarily appreciated. It's all about choice, and you're always free to choose differently. You can choose to change, or choose to go elsewhere.

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

Hating us out of nothing is intolerance. Its exactly the same as being rude to people in RL because of their apperance.

---

Disagree. Because unlike RL,

your appearance in SL is 100% choice

. No-one has to be 'tolerant' to allow 50ft tentacle demons on their land, and no-ones human rights are being stepped on by asking avatars conform to a dress code.

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Editted for clarity.

---

Agree

[Syo Emerald]

You are both wrong. Otherwise it would be ok to bully people in RL for everything except their age, gender and other biological things which can't be changed. Make up, hair, the way someone speaks, clothes and everything else. Cause you can change it! Change everything you are, cause it isn't intolerant to be mean to others cause of their choices. Wonderful world really.....

But what should I expect from two people with human avatars? You'll never get into those situations....

Grief them all, that is what I would like to see and many places where humans are not allowed.

Its more than just dresscode. My skin, my head, my ears, my eyes...that not a damn dresscode!

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

You are both wrong. Otherwise it would be ok to bully people in RL for everything except their age, gender and other biological things which can't be changed. Make up, hair, the way someone speaks, clothes and everything else. Cause you can change it! Change everything you are, cause it isn't intolerant to be mean to others cause of their choices. Wonderful world really.....

But what should I expect from two people with human avatars? You'll never get into those situations....

Grief them all, that is what I would like to see and many places where humans are not allowed.

Its more than just dresscode. My skin, my head, my ears, my eyes...that not a damn dresscode!

---

Syo, I respect your opinion and obviously you have come across things that I haven't experienced, in SL and perhaps RL  

I still believe that people have a right to grant access or not to their own parcel for whatever reason, even if it is because of the avatar...I don't consider that being a bully though

 

[Syo Emerald]

I can understand if someone who owns a region or a club has a good reason for those steps, like advising people to wear enough clothes cause of the maturity rating or if its a roleplay sim and there are specific clothes needed to play in this setting, or if its an adult sim that is highly conected to sex and because of not hurting the rules they don't like children to be at that place.

But everything else I see as a violation against anybodies free choice to be who they want to be. Nobody gets harmed by a fluffy tail. :catindifferent:

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

You are both wrong. Otherwise it would be ok to bully people in RL for everything except their age, gender and other biological things which can't be changed. Make up, hair, the way someone speaks, clothes and everything else. Cause you can change it! Change everything you are, cause it isn't intolerant to be mean to others cause of their choices. Wonderful world really.....

But what should I expect from two people with human avatars? You'll never get into those situations....

Grief them all, that is what I would like to see and many places where humans are not allowed.

Its more than just dresscode. My skin, my head, my ears, my eyes...that not a damn dresscode!

---

Your basic premise is incorrect. Setting standards is not the same as bullying. As I wrote at the end of my last comment; "No shirt, no shoes, no service." - a dresscode that by no means 'bullies' those not wearing shirts. It plainly states that they won't be welcome. Insults, intimidation, harrassment and whatever else is completely separate from simply having expectations from people using a service or arriving at a location. Bullying implies that there's a definable, defenseless victim; in the case of a dress-code the only victims are people who willingly choose to become victims.

Your skin, head, ears, eyes, are all attachments or clothing layers. They're all dress, and all choice.

I also resent the implication that I've never been discriminated against.

[Kylie Jaxxon]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

I can understand if someone who owns a region or a club has a good reason for those steps, like advising people to wear enough clothes cause of the maturity rating or if its a roleplay sim and there are specific clothes needed to play in this setting, or if its an adult sim that is highly conected to sex and because of not hurting the rules they don't like children to be at that place.

But everything else I see as a violation against anybodies free choice to be who they want to be. Nobody gets harmed by a fluffy tail. :catindifferent:

---

I will agree with you there

 

[Syo Emerald]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Syo Emerald wrote:

You are both wrong. Otherwise it would be ok to bully people in RL for everything except their age, gender and other biological things which can't be changed. Make up, hair, the way someone speaks, clothes and everything else. Cause you can change it! Change everything you are, cause it isn't intolerant to be mean to others cause of their choices. Wonderful world really.....

But what should I expect from two people with human avatars? You'll never get into those situations....

Grief them all, that is what I would like to see and many places where humans are not allowed.

Its more than just dresscode. My skin, my head, my ears, my eyes...that not a damn dresscode!

---

Your basic premise is incorrect. Setting standards is not the same as bullying. As I wrote at the end of my last comment; "No shirt, no shoes, no service." - a dresscode that by no means 'bullies' those not wearing shirts. It plainly states that they won't be welcome. Insults, intimidation, harrassment and whatever else is completely separate from simply having expectations from people using a service or arriving at a location. Bullying implies that there's a definable, defenseless victim; in the case of a dress-code the only victims are people who willingly choose to become victims.

Your skin, head, ears, eyes, are all attachments or clothing layers. They're all dress, and all choice.

I also resent the implication that I've never been discriminated against.

---

It is mean, cause as I explained it now more than one time. My avatar is this one and not the basic shape and eyes every avatar needs to have due to Second Life software. Is your avatar just the shape and your eyes? I'm sure it isn't.

And its a prove of your misunderstanding in avatar choices that you compare it with simple clothes. You can change your clothes, but as a human you can keep your skin, your eyes and everything else.When I change, I lose my complete avatar.

Yes and I think you never had problem with discrimination other way you wouldn't talk like that.

[LaraLarisson]

It is just amazing how you people are so desperate to "play" at being a disciminated against minority.

Whether its your skin or tail or shape - you CHOOSE to wear that in SL.  It is your right.

Other people, some landowners, choose what type of avatar they want on their land.

You choose your appearance, they choose who to let in.

Get a life, real or second!

[Syo Emerald]

---

LaraLarisson wrote:

It is just amazing how you people are so desperate to "play" at being a disciminated against minority.

 

Whether its your skin or tail or shape - you CHOOSE to wear that in SL.  It is your right.

 

Other people, some landowners, choose what type of avatar they want on their land.

 

You choose your appearance, they choose who to let in.

 

Get a life, real or second!

---

I know its what they can choose, but I think I pick my right to express my opinion in a forum discussion, just like everyone else here.

Well, after all I have enough "life" not feeling in need to advertise myself like you do in your profile. Thank you for that, really made me laugh.

[UncommonTruth]

---

Syo Emerald wrote:.

But everything else I see as a violation against anybodies free choice to be who they want to be. Nobody gets harmed by a fluffy tail. :catindifferent:

---

 

You're right no one gets hurt by fluffy tails, its the barbed ones that do damage.

 One club I've been to a few times asks that only human ava's come to keep the place as realistic as possible. I've also been to a club that human's weren't allowed, so it goes both ways. Like has been said already, its up to the sim owner as it's their land. 

[Dilbert Dilweg]

I don't see it as hate. I see it as freedom of choice whom you play with and associate with. You can't force people to like your lifestyle which is why you should always find like minded people to play with,. No one should be forced to like or enjoy something that doesn't fit their lifestyle. Just like we have the choice to go places where we fit in..

 

Hate is followed by derogatory statements and hate crimes. To not allow a life style to enter is not hate. It is choice of how they want to lead their own lifestyle without others imposing their beliefs on them

 

I used to run a popular romance and dating sim. I would not allow child avatars in the club. It was not a matter of hate. It was a matter of choice . I felt it is inappropriate for child avatars to be engaged in a romantic setting with adult avatars. I wont allow that activity on my premises. As is my choice and right when it is not only my home but also a place of business

 

Why would you want to go where you are not welcome anyway. Move on it is your choice. . Say you made laws to force your way in. Would it be productive after you arrived and everyone left because they didn't agree with your life style? I mean come on. Get over it and make choices to go where you would fit in and don't force people to like you just because you are different

I allowed all other avatars. But I still feel it is a choice of the place to allow or disallow

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Liru Moonshadow wrote:

Hi

I have been told that Linden Labs supports club owners in denying access to their parcel/land to certain groups on SL, such as furries or bloodlines.

Can anyone show me where it says they are allowed to do this in the TOS because they seem to be in direct violation of their own standards which is 100% against intolerance

http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php

Surely judging someone by what their avatar looks like is equivalent to intolerance?

Thanks

---

Since no on has actually provided the link  you asked for here it is.  The Terms of Service specifically state that this is allowed In Section 6.  The fourth paragraph reads:

You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land must be consistent with these Terms of Service, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify these Terms of Service.

 

Don't confuse public access with public land.  Public land is actually owned by a governing body.  In Second Life that would be Linden Lab and so no resident can restrict or deny another resident access to a welcome center for example.  A club on the other hand allows public access to private land as long as they follow any terms that the owner wishes to enforce, even if they boot you off because they personally dislike you.  The person who owns the land is paying for it and has every right to decide who can go on the land, as long as it doesn't conflict with other provisions of the TOS. (Lifestyle and choice of avatar is not  protected by the TOS).  In RL you cannot tell me who I can or can not have as a guest on land I own as long as I don't illegally discriminate, so why should you be allowed to dictate to me as the landowner what I can or cannot come on my own property in SL?  People buy virtual land in order to control their or their guests environment and thus their experience.  There would be no reason to own virtual land otherwise.

[Dilbert Dilweg]

:matte-motes-big-grin:

[Allazondra Torii]

I find it ironic that the  ones complaining about "intolerance" seem to be the ones guilty of the intolerance.  

If it is about freedom and creating your own world, then why shouldn't others be free not to have YOUR choices forced on them?  If someone wants to be a Vampire or furry or whatever, they can do that  just as the must respect the fact that those who wish to live in a human only world (or vampire only etc. etc.) have the same rights to make those choices.  (As long as those choices are not causing harm to others.)

And when it comes to property owners, it is THEIR land after all....they're paying the tiers you're not so why should they not be allowed to set whatever guidelines they wish to?  It is not like there are not plenty of alternatives and other choices out there so everyone can find the places that are best for them.  And is that not what tolerance is really all about, letting everyone have their own place and be in peace?

[JoJo Aurelia]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

The post above me is not entirely accruate.

Intolerance of RL groups such as ethnicity, race, gender, age, sexual orientation; yeah - AR the heck out of that. That's a ToS violation, and if it was not, LL would be in violation of California anti-discrimination law.

 

But intolerance of Star Trek geeks versus Babylon 5 geeks versus 'two & a half men' geeks... that's not the same thing.

Frustrating as a furry / neko that some places bar on such a stupid basis, but its not the same thing.

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

It is my understanding that LL does not police.

[JoJo Aurelia]

PS. I can honestly say that I am a frequent customer to a few clubs that have strict codes about who can enter (some at a membership fee), and I like that.

[Akihiro Kytori]

In all honesty, a sim owner should have the right to decide who they want on a sim and who they do not, however they are loosing buisness when they say "no furries" - RP sims are especially affected by this loss, wether or not they know it as many furries are "geeky" and enjoy role play.

 

FYI to those who say you should be able to say no to a lifestyle choice: 

 

1. There are many people, including scientists and psychologists who say homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. If someone said no homosexuals are allowed on their sim, you would choose to ar them in a heartbeat.

2. Dressing in drag is also considered a lifestyle choice, would you ar a sim for stating no dressing in drag. This would be considered a legal violation in real life.

3. The furry fandom is not only limited to second life avatars. What if the person also wears fursuits in real life. Now its real life discrimination.

 

Remember that there are always two sides to a situation. Just because you believe in your side, does not instantly mean there is no other logical and or meaningful side.