All Activity

On the same base, that you assume they will take measures immediately. I've been around long enough to know that if one colors somewhat within the lines, not very much will harm you. In all the 17 years that I'm around, I was once banned from a Linden estate at whim of a Linden. But that was straightened out in the end. For the rest, every contact with Lindens and Moles has been correct and pleasant. Not that I had that many of them. Stay within TOS and live your life, that is all there is to it in Second Life.

FYI, not all priests like little boys.

Of course they do; not acting on them all would be like juggling legal grenades with the pins pulled. But "acting on" does not mean banning the subject of the AR. Everyone who gets ARd is a customer. Banning them will lose money and SL is a business. They're not going to ban anyone on an unsupported AR alone. No, there really aren't that many at all. And, once again, LL are not looking for excuses to ban people. It is not in their interests to do that.

I think with the changes to TOS you're going to see less and less borederline cases, which when you think about it, is actually a good thing. It doesn't really matter that LL are not as focused on avatars that look say 16 or 17, you'll most likely find that sim owners on A sims will do the policing for them. People have already mentioned that happening in this thread. Nobody who isn't perverted wants anything to do with that sort of thing, adult and child avarars alike, so everyone is going to be a lot more cautious. Again, this is probably a good thing.

Be careful...you have no idea or data to back up that it was "believed" by more than one person. Maybe the person that was in power to "do something" woke up on the wrong side of the bed that day. <sarcastic remark>

What do you base then on, magical thinking? We have no idea what they do with it. (we do but can't say)

Not what it means - "acting" does not mean "banning", but "investigating" - "to take seriously".

Either way, even if a "false crisis", it was "believed" by enough people that the idea of "doing something" is a good one. Perhaps the investigation included merely counting reported incidents and that was found to need addressing.

I'm not going to look for it at the moment but Governance has stated in the FAQ that they act on all Child AR's. It is where they feel they are vulnerable and as such have to investigate that they don't miss something. There are so many potential infractions under the new ToS that it would likely not be too difficult for them to find something warranting a ban under the new ToS.

And what do you think the employee in charge of processing the AR's will do with the only on suspicion based ones? Straight forwarded to the bin.

Assume yes, since the OP stated that both are "a man as an avatar", not just "an avatar". Based on that statement, I assume the bear is not a man "RolePlaying a bear", but more like "a guy in a bear suit". Yep! Yes, that should have been easy. The only way I could have made it easier was if the man was driving a "FREE CANDY van". That one could go either way.

I thought the actual crisis was a false allegation of misconduct by Lindens posted by an anonymous source, which LL investigated and found to have no merit. Is there an additional “child avatar crisis” that has yet to be disclosed and is new? Is this really about EU laws? The novel crisis in the US concerns sites like PronHub and RL age verification imposed by a few states.

ANYONE is "open to being AR'd on simple suspicion alone". LL don't want to ban customers if they don't have to. SL is a business. I really don't think anyone is interested in "Is she 17 or 19?" edge cases, because they don't present any public relations hazard. We all know this is about child avis.

Good point. I'll edit my post.

Not if you ask them (the females, as evidenced in this thread)! Don't you believe them?

Not really, does the bear even know how to use a gun? Even if it does, the knife is still worse. As Alan Rickman's infamous Sheriff of Nottigham one said. "It'll hurt more." Second one, the first thing I thought of when I read the words lifelong celibrate were priest. Err no, I don't want to be anywhere near a priest as a little boy. The man wants to give me candy? Okay, think that one is self explanatory. Last one, both are really, really bad, but I'd wager I'd still be safer with the bear compared to the sort of man who wants to go out into the woods and dress up as a bear.

Hogwash, without a picture of something "bad" or a chat log, any AR is just "he said/she said". Governance doesn't automatically act on AR's without evidence. A teen avatar in itself is about as suspicious as Kaiser Soze in "The Usual Suspects" (played by Kevin Spacey). Or as sus as Kevin Spacey IRL. YMMV.

While I cannot be certain about every individual's activities, from my extensive involvement with the kid community in Second Life for 15 years, I did not personally encounter anyone acting against the Terms of Service. During that time, I spent a lot of time roleplaying on family-friendly sims, attended various roleplay schools and events geared for the community. While you raise a fair point that it's difficult to know for certain, based on my long involvement in this community, my observation has been that individuals engaging in activities violating the Terms of Service generally do not actively participate in the G-rated kid community spaces and events. From what I've witnessed, those engaging in such inappropriate behavior tend to operate in separate, distinct environments from the typical spaces frequented by the majority of child roleplayers. However, you're correct that without monitoring every individual, there is no way to state this categorically.

You personally have "no clue" what Linden Lab thinks. They may agree with the proposition that the majority of child avatars are compliant but feel that the issues caused by the minority are enough of a problem to change the procedures. In other words, you criticized a statement made without support by making your own statement with no support, meaning that all your criticisms also apply to yourself.

Umm… just in case you're not (seen to be) joking: I meant the way the mesh deforms when the shape sliders are adjusted.

If "child" avatars were prepubescent only, there might be a point but a Child avatar for the purpose of the ToS is any that have a look that is between 1-18. That is pretty much 50% of the female avatar population of the grid. And with 50% of the females gone, how many of the males you think will bother returning?

This made me realize the Lab is in a tough situation. One relevant ratio is a step removed from the share of child avatars who are compliant, and that ratio means everything to how the Lab's actions are perceived: What share of the child avatars known by most users are compliant? It is absolutely true that I have no idea of compliance rates across the total SL population of child avatars. Of all the people I know in SL, I'm aware of only two of them being child avatars. Pretty sure they're the two most well-known child avatars in SL (brother and sister, most readers of this thread will know them too—many in real life—and trust them implicitly to comply with any Lab rules). Point is, these well known, high-contribution residents skew the perceived distribution of child avatar compliance. Obviously they're not the only "good ones" but you know what? The "bad" ones hide! You have to go out of your way to encounter them. I gather it's not difficult, the right search terms will find where they hang out, but (one hopes) most SL users don't go looking for them. I've been in SL for many years and have never once been aware of meeting a bad child avatar but there could be lots of them and I'd never know about it. It's an organic sampling bias. But there's another bias we're all acutely aware of, a different ratio that's very important to the Lab: as far at the media knows, every child avatar in SL is evil incarnate. That's an organic sampling bias too ("if it bleeds it leads"), now helped along by a disgruntled "journalist" hack collective with a revealing nom de plume. The Lab is forced to address the situation as perceived through that biased sample, for the sake of their business and our platform.

Moderate 36x64 meter parcel across the river from some historic Linden regions http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Kirkby/135/86/22 What you see on the land must remain, the prims do not count towards your rented amount of 900 WinkyLand.com

I think you are all missing the most important question: Does the bear have a duck on its head?