Taramafor

I prefer the life of no rules. No one ever "has" to do anything. The only rules I follow are my own that I place on myself. I be there for people regardless of how much nope logic they give me if they let me be around them. Never tell others they "have" to do anything. Never judge. Never blame. People do bad/stupid things for a reason. Perhaps one I even gave them. ... Ended up a pet that way. Having it be ok to be mistrusted at first and for there to be distance. Now we're close as ever. Marvellous.

First of all EVERYONE has problems. Mentally unstable people are actually common in general. It's not just SL related. I've had my own problems in the past. It can be a big problem indeed. It can be managed in time, however. Even overcome entirely, no matter how bad things are. In my case with no professional help (which of course can help, I just didn't want help in that one area. Unbiased, logical opinions are important regardless). Though of course at the time it might feel like something that lasts forever. Which it does not as long as you don't remain wallowing in self pity and actually try to do something about it (Yes, I know this is easier said then done). It's also because I've had my own problems that I'm good at helping others with them. Due to the experience. The mistake a lot of people make is that they think they can "escape" online. But that's just not true. People are still people online. Don't misunderstand me when I say this. I'm simply saying that there's a difference between playing soccer with someone IRL and inviting them into your RL home. Just as there's a difference between hanging out at a sim on SL and living in someones SL home. It's about "being there". To be close or not. Online is NOT an excuse to lose sight of what affects people. If you focus on only the fun stuff I ask if you're here for me in hard times. Which is why I'm there for people on SL when I care about them. It's just simple logic. Yes fear can get the best of people. Yes that sucks. No that doesn't mean making a thread and complaining about it is going to make those people overcome such fears, nor will it help with their problems. If anything I suspect threads like this, that give the impression of "odd", make such things worse. Due to "Being seen as a freak" logic. The good thing about this is that it leaves plenty of opportunity to be there for people so they can be there for you in turn. Not because you feel bad about each other, but because you take a liking to each other and have each others backs. Which can lead to wonderful opportunities. Even as far as ending up IRL together. I suspect the OP only fears the worst of things though and chose to fixate on the worst of things. Which is EXACTLY the kind of thing that leads to mental illness in the first place. Just saying.

SL is actually like RL. Care about me and I'll care about you. Be there in my bad times and I'll be there in yours. I got this summed up in one simple phrase. "If you can't accept me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best". It doesn't mean I go out of my way to be bad (though I am a brat). Only that I'm human and have flaws like everyone else. I won't hide behind a happy mask either. I am as I am. Accept both sides of me, good and bad alike. I have an uncanny ability to zone in on peoples fears and make them feel braver and not need to wear masks to spare my feelings too (which actually hurts me, not help me. Wear it for yourself if you must but be honest about the reasons for it). Became a pet that way. It's wonderful.

This is why I don't take sides or play favorites. Someone nearly fell out with me for being a none voter. But they know I got good reason for it. Hurt people I care about by doing that in the past. Never again. Voting alone doesn't get results. The people have the power, not just the big cheeses. What affects one side affects the other. Both positively AND negatively. I'm not joking here, people will get depressed and worse when they're on the losing side. Argue "It's their own responsibility" all you like but that's no excuse to ignore ones own actions (and inactions) affecting others. Minority matters as much as majority as well. Voting just doesn't take that into consideration. By making people take sides it completely contradicts that. The only winning solution for me is to find a way for everyone to benefit (it is not unrealistic. Not even trying to do it doesn't make it happen either. effort produces results). I also don't care about strangers I don't know. There's no "majority rules" here. Everyone is different. Everyone will have different perception/beliefs and so on. Both strangers and close company both. Each and every one is important and never something to vote against. It's a simple case of what works on an individual level. Just because I don't care about a stranger doesn't mean they might not end up as someone I care about. What if I end up with a child that's very, VERY different and not at all like me? Would I have to approve of them just to fit in? I remember gay rights being a voted on thing. Screw that, I'd rather teach "if it works for you, it works for you". If someone else is into "kink here" it works for them. Accepting what works for others gets them to more easily accept what works for others and myself. That's what I'd teach a kid. Not to take a side. As long as people care more about "most others that are strangers" more then "Close company that matters" the system will always be flawed. Yes everyone matters but loyalty over empathy. Maybe that's just my way though. Now I want to be clear what I mean here when I say "loyalty over empathy". It doesn't mean "build a wall". Hell no. It simply means "This stranger has shown they're here". And that easily applies in ow own borders as much as outside of them. Think just Mexico is at fault? Tch. I know someone that was a gun dealer. We are NOT innocent. The whole world is as guilty of bad as much as the next part of it is. There's a lot of good too, fortunately. But it's not a case of "This is the best/worst place". It's a case of "This is what happened at this place, regardless of the border/country". We don't choose where to be born either. Nor can most easily move away if there's a conflict of interest. Immigrants aren't the problem, it's people in our OWN borders not wanting to be like everyone else. Regardless of their heritage. And say the vote won in the end all you like but if nothing else the results clearly state how much difference of interests there is in the UK. I'm aware of things in the US, this is simply an example. The two cases seem to be as conflicted as each other from what I can gather. Have I voted? No. Does it make change happen for strangers? No. but has it cost me any close/loved ones? No. But will I speak up and argue for someone to be themselves if someone is giving them **bleep**? (be it as they are or what they believe in) Damn right I would, I'd claw their bloody eyes out. Technically I'd calmly explain acceptence of difference itself but you get the idea. THAT is the attitude we need. For the PEOPLE to start waking up and make things happen with how they treat others. Voting can help with that and voting can even hinder that but it is in our ACTIONS not a tally that change happens. People might be voting but are they making actions?

Ok, got it. There's no way to set myself as owner by name but vanilla setting makes me owner. Which means I can make others owners, right? Like if I'm already an owner to someone else as well I mean. Btw, is there a way I can set an owner when they're offline? There's probably a typing command for it. Not sure if they need to be on or not for it to work or if I need to be close to them. Also thanks for the help so far. Much appreciated.

Problem. Can't set myself as owner on OC collar six. Even an owner can't do it. Made one of my owners an "offical" owner where the collar is concerned. They couldn't do it either. My name simply doesn't show up for the collar. This owner then cleared her name and I put her back on trusted (didn't even have to ask her too. Nice of her). But yea, I can't seem to set myself as owner. Nor can others do it for me. And considering the current events I'd rather one of the owners wern't made one officialy by the other. It would be like going "I gave permission so you can go on a date with someone else". So... now what do I do?

Wait, I can DO that? Then just add others? AWESOME!!!

Edit: Collar is "OpenCollar Six", btw. Only restriction is transfer. Basically it comes down to this. 1: Wanting multiple owners on OC collar. WITHOUT another owner having to do it themselves. It should be MY choice and the choice of who wants to be an owner alone when it comes to me and my collar. It's MY consent or lack thereof and it's never a choice of even an owner (for I would not do "approved" with them either in general or otherwise). I make "trusted" people aware of this. Scratch that, I make EVERYONE I get to know aware of this, in general and otherwise. They agree with it and don't have a problem with it (as long as they're not super mono and avoid me for it. It happens sometimes). Trusted people should be owners but aren't because of approval reasons. Frankly it hits a nerve. I'm sure "Here, be poly and not mono" would hit a nerve with others too. It's not the fact that the collar is doing this be default, it's the fact that I can't go into the collar menu and make a simple change with a tick of a box (I can't, right?). As a result it feels like I don't have an easy option in the matter. But there is scripts that I can change, which I will need help with to do. So basically I'm asking for help with that. 2: I want to give trusted people full owner rights without having to drag in another owner for "approval" to be an owner or to change certain settings for them. (eg: MY choice in the matter). As far as I'm aware this isn't possible. I tried, It needed another owner to "approve". Unacceptable for me because my choice/no one having to approve either way with me for poly reasons/not having to approve reasons (it works both ways). I also have a very bad past of being in the middle of people not approving of each other when I care for them all in general and it affected my mental health and I went insane and broke (I even stopped feeling at one point). Happy to say that that ended well eventually (somehow) and things ended good but I'm NOT going to risk going through that again. What's more I won't risk putting others through it either, like I once did with someone myself (I didn't like someone and they could have been there for someone I care for but weren't and can't be now because car crash). I bring this up because it's a good reason why "owner approval" (approval of others in general for that matter) is unacceptable for me and why I can't assign owners unless it's my choice alone and not "another 3rd persons choice that has to approve first". I make this known to everyone I get to know (both in general and when it comes to owners). Some people avoid me for it, others do not. But it's me and how I am. And I won't risk putting others through what I once have. Multiple collars is also not an option for that means having to deny others being on the each collar. eg: That "one" thing, even if it's the same and alike. I only got one neck, I need to know it won't be an issue IRL and that I won't have to switch collars every time I'm around someone else (RL possabilities are there down the line btw. Yay, go me). Trusted people can't access settings. Trusted people can change my bell and titler but not my label (for some reason). Maybe I overlooked something on the collar menu and I'm honestly hoping I did but I checked and can't see an option for "label" or "other owners needing to approve" or even "settings with trusted people" for example. The option on that account isn't there with easy access from what I can see. Did I miss something? Did I overlook a simple tick box? 3: As a result I now have to edit scripts to change this (unless I overlooked something in the collar menu). If only for the owner approval thing. Just knowing that's on my collar now is starting to make me feel uncomfortable. But my knowledge with that is only basic. Where in the scripts might I be able to change, say, "subs choice alone with making other owners" for example? Which line in a script would I look for and how would I change it? I would also like to know how I can give trusted people full owner rights as well. Even just knowing which scripts to look into and what to control F/search for would be a big help. Is there a guide for things like this with changing OC scripts and the like? Most I've done scripting wise is changing what a clickie tail does and what the menu options are called. 4: May be considering other "poly friendly" collars with nice poses and menu settings like with OC collar (Once had an MD. Didn't like the poses as much. Kinda hard to beat OC "booty"). If they even exist. If 1 or/and 2 is resolved then scratch that. Or don't and suggest some anyway. Could be nice to have the option there. There might be some misunderstandings with this topic due to how "out of the norm" it is. I ask that people don't assume the worst of things due to lack of knowledge in the matter. It's a simple case of "Not having to approve". Which works both ways. It's also a case of trusted people not having certain access and not being able to tick a box for it like with settings and label. Note to mods: I'm not sure if this is in the right section or not. Feel free to move it to somewhere more fitting if needed.

Please refer to my previously post, which you most likely did not see during typing of your post. I didn't explain as well as I could have before but hopefully I have corrected that. Also, please save the sarcasm. It only encourages drama. I won't respond to posts that continue to go down that path (though if a later post by the same person is in more serious tones I will more likely address it). I shall add that LL is the law in SL even if the LL has to follow the law. I am referring to private sims. A restaurant is a privately owned business. Does it get away with turning away people of a different colour? How often has that been "allowed" before people spoke up and it is no longer the case? Think on it.

You're missing the point. Next you'll be telling me that it's a choice to believe in a deity or not. That's not a choice, it's an uncontrolled perception. It's how you see and believe. I have no faith but I believe in things. I have a perception. Cross for one and collar for the other. For a lot of furries it might be suit. It's much more complicated then that of course, but I'm attempting to explain the basics without giving you the furry version of the bible here (which is many things. And many other things can also be varied and mean a lot personally to people). Now do you understand? Of course there's a difference between the two, but what you and others fail to comprehend is that I'm stating that there are also similarities. Is that really a difficult concept to grasp? I ended up posting in another thread about the topic at hand. The thread group in general relating to BDSM and SL. Here's the re-writting. Hopefully it's more applicable to everyone outside of RP. I would like to talk about the mistreatment of anyone that is different. For many on SL that will be furry, or even vampire or my little pony. I once saw some MLP "in action". Not my thing at all. I was in the same sim. I simply maintained some distance and mingled with my own crowed at the point in time. Afterwards we mingled altogether and played cards against humanity and had fun. This is an example of everyone getting along. If I don't like someone or even if I wanted to "stick with my own kind" I could simply just move away and do just that *in the sim itself*. So can someone please explain to me how furries are banned from certain BDSM sims? Pause for a moment. It's not about the people there. It's not just about the sim owner being a **bleep** banning people for no good reason (and in this case, hey, maybe the people already in the sim are ok), it's about the environment. An environment that could be made use of. And it's also about "Hey, this is a black person on a private park open to white people, let's ban him". It's about not just furries or humans (I am saddened to say some furry places ban humans and even heard of anti human furries) but about how this kind of behaviour is even allowed at all. Seriously, how? I'm honestly baffled. Let's cover RP first. All that changes in a furry is that they have fur/scales/whatever, a tail and claws (and pointier teeth probably). Other then that? Nothing that different. And they don't even have to use them in RP. Can still be in a wild west sim in a cowboy outfit and draw a gun. Is "pure human RP" worth discrimination? Is "pure furry RP"? Is "white only RP sim"? If it was as simple as "Hey, it's up to the sim owner" then what's with the child rule? What's with the law? What is in place to define what is morally right and wrong, which is always subjective? I say to each their own. Be a **bleep** all you like but banning from a none RP BDSM sim for simply existing? That's just too much for me to bear. LL lets this happen. I will not let it slide. What's the excuse (from the sim owners)? "Because it's not kink". 1: That is both true and false. Who decides what's kinky or not for who? Personally claws and sharp teeth turn me on. Tails too. And hey, there's all the other kinky BDSM stuff I can use. Is that really so hard to understand? 2: Is "human" kinky in and of itself? Do humans get banned for being "not kink"? Am I the only one seeing a problem with this? Tags with "human/furry only" or "welcome all" or blank for all. Over peoples heads. Problem solved, no one gets left out. Everyone gets a group and not. Where is the difficulty? CARP does it easily. It WORKS. I'd like to know how many people would be willing to voice out against Linden Labs about this. If enough people make it known that being shunned for being different *with no good reason* (and being furry/human/whatever else in a none RP sim is sure as hell no good reason in my mind. RP sims are at least understandable to a degree) is an issue then perhaps they'll place a SL rule to never let that happen. Humans don't deserve to be banned anymore then furries. It's one thing to keep people outside a private home but another to shun people from a sim altogether that is open to the public. "Furry" is like "collar". And "collar" is like "cross" to religious people. In the first two I am biased. In the third I am atheist. It's all self identity and mistreatment because of it. Which I'm pretty sure is against the law. I don't care about the law in general (what's legal can be wrong and what's illegal can be right) but I am curious about this nonetheless. Online is a place people can be themselves, no less so then IRL. Something some people fail to grasp. For some it's even more then RL (comfort zones/environments), though personally I treat both equally. People are people. Identities are identities. Does not banning furries or humans or whatever else result in breaking the discrimination law, They very law that states the following? In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit. "Furry" is certainty a group if nothing else. One that exists IRL to boot, and it's a hell of a lot more then suits, events and avatars (none suiter here). It's how some people are, what they personally believe and view. But hey, banned for not removing your very identity. For not taking off an avatar. It's like going "You can never be sub/dom here, you have to take off that collar which is like a wedding ring for your owner". Or "You have to take off that cross that is the very essence of your faith". It might not be physical, but it still matters. Doesn't matter what none RP sim, doesn't matter the identity. How you are is how you are. Do you go "Let's not make the decimation law because it doesn't matter" or do you make it be know that all matter? A none attempt is a guaranteed failure. An attempt, even if failed, still carries a chance of getting results. Results for furries, results for humans, results for vampires and my little ponies and whatever else have you. Results for everyone. On the one hand the sims are "private". On the other I think to myself "black person banned from private park open to white people". And even BDSM itself was once a shunned thing that was unwelcome to many. I'm curious about the legality, but I'm more curious about the morality. And about how LL still allows this continued mistreatment over and over and over, both with furries and with humans alike. At the very least I think there needs to be a rule in place that allows all people in none RP sims at all times, unless it's a very private residence and someones home. Surely that's fair for everyone. Didn't mean to get quite so carried away there. ended up putting it in a SL forum post and adding somewhat. Anyway, that's my stance on discrimination on the net and SL. Hopefully I haven't made an ass of myself like I did in my original SL forum post (which I'm currently attempting to clear up). This one was much more thought out. Please disregard my previous posts and use this post. I will address any and all concerns (and remind everyone I have said RP is at least understandable to a degree). Please have a better reason then "Because LL rules" if you're going to counter debate.

Furry is more then just a suit or an online avatar you... forget it. I'm no longer wasting my time on you. Transgender. Furry. Gay yet religious. It all ends up the same. People getting turned on by their own families or having to hide in rooms. Something I have gladly been spared and never had to suffer through. But I still feel bad for anyone that has. So yes, in many ways they are alike. I guess the concept of "self identity" is lost on you. Should have saved my breath. Whatever.

While there's suits IRL, when it comes to internet people can believe that they are as they are, regardless of their "online skin". I thought that was obvious. Not everyone goes "RL is more important". I consider both net and RL equally important myself. Since internet people are, you know, people. I'm assuming this is where your confusion lies. That said there are also RL people that can take suit wearing personally, so I'll also say "nor should they" in this case as well. And even people that believe they are animals in spirit (think native Americans. I don't tie into this area). It all ties into self identity.

Thanks for the well written response, Tari (and some others). At least someone here is taking things seriously. Now onto the actual debate itself. There is a large, large difference between a child and a furry. The two don't even compare in terms of reasons why they're banned. That's an age thing. specifically in terms of 18+ environments. Vampires are at least somewhat understandable due to turning into bats, drinking blood, etc. These things can indeed break immersion. I don't have much to say on the subject of clothes except that if it's an adult only area then people are going to get nude. Which by no means translates to public "activities". With that out of the way can you kindly explain to me how a furry in and of itself breaks immersion? I have a cowboy outfit. I have a pistol. I draw and shoot. Other then the fact that I wouldn't be human and have a tail and claws where is the breaking of immersion in terms of abilities and actions? Being in character doesn't just mean mean "Oh look, everything has to be perfectly in line with history". It also means "Ok, people are going to get outside the box at times and there needs to be room to roleplay that out so everyone is treated fairly". A furry in and of itself does nothing to break immersion and can fit in perfectly well in any and all environments, safe for "human only" ones (would it be right to have a purely white person RP sim? I assume you'll say yes but I view it as no in my own perception). Even if a location itself leans heavily toward one species or another there's zero reason to outright disallow outside the box roleplay, which I argue tends to enhance roleplay, though that's somewhat moot. My point is there is zero logical reasoning beyond "Because a different color of skin/a few extra abilities". And I state this for anyone that would get mistreated due to simply being different, regardless of "skin color" or what they're into (did you even read my BDSM being kept hidden from the public eye in my previous post? Guess you'd say it's not wrong to ban them from places too if someone refused to remove a collar. I personally view it as wrong to ban someone from anywhere for collar reasons, IRL or otherwise (equivalent of a wedding ring, much like a cross, suit, any other really personal item/clothing/memento. etc)). So please don't make this about me. I'm making this about furries on a whole as well as anyone else that gets treated differently for simply "being there" without a good reason (while I don't judge underage or other taboo RP I can at least understand that, though maintain the stance of to each their own). And unlike vampires, a purely mythological species, furries have become something of a self identity for the most part, even IRL and without having to "suit up" (so it is much like religion TYVM. It's a self identity), baring a few cases in the case of vampires where people take it to extremes, which also matters even if it's a very minor minority (I'm not saying they are real vampires IRL of course. Simply that they really get into it). My point is furries are at this point in time a widely recognised "species" for all intensive purposes, on and off the net alike. Much like black people, who once were slaves for being different themselves. Was it seen as wrong back then? No. Is it now? Yes. Is right and wrong subjective? Damn right it is. I'll look down at anyone treating black people (or Japanese or martian) differently even if every opinion matters. But I won't shun them myself for being different or having a different perception. As for fitting in you're making a lot of assumptions. Hi, sub. Hi, none plot heavy BDSM dream that bans furries without even a reason. And you tell me to just go "Ok, I'll deal with this and I'm not welcome just beause"? Nope, not happening. If I see any BDSM place doing this I point the finger of mistreatment because hey, BDSM is a good part of who I am too (so in that light, yes, it's a lot like religion. Lifestyle, just like furry). There's other places, sure, but what about getting to know people in this place? (note: I'm poly and by no means play favorites in terms of people, environments or whatever else. Every person and place matters). The residents may or may not be accepting of me, but until I can even GET IN THERE how can I possibly know if it's the residents on a whole or just a few bad apples? Regardless it's still an environment that could be used by furries. Regardless of what the people already there are like it can still be made use of by furries, with other furries. Your RP example holds little merit when the sim itself is not focused on purely RP (I guess such sims are more persona/ooc?). And again, in the case of when it even is a RP sim, it can still be made use of. Why, I can even think of a perfectly good compramise where both furries and humans win out, regardless of how they see each other. A simple sim rule of "Wear this human/furry only tag to make it know you want to only roleplay with your own kind". And everyone else can mingle. Is there any downside to that at all beyond "Not wanted here because different"? Personally bloodsucking isn't my thing and I heard of a bad case of something or other in the past, but I don't go judging vampires and going "Don't do that around me because I don't like it". Personality trumps out over all. I'm not into tentacels either but wouldn't avoid someone because they have them. People often claim to look past difference yet look what happens when they see something they don't like themselves in someone else. That is NEVER right or fair and it's always wrong, in my personal opinion. Just that little thing today and tomorrow families turning backs on you for being into whatever. The law exists to guide morality, so you tell me if a currently none existing rule of "Up to sim owners, we don't care enough make a SL wide rule" is fair or not. I refer not to just this case and example but on a whole. "It's a rule" is not an excuse in and of itself. What is the reason and how might it be unfair? Rules change when fact, logic and opinions are presented. This is what I'm doing at this point in time. By public I mean where there's a sufficient number of people to be considered as such. And where the public in general is welcome. And it's still against the law. You do know what discrimination is, right? I'll outline the key points. In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit. Which contradicts with a lot really. But I imagine there's other laws to bypass such cases. Such as with children. Linden Labs rules are not laws, they're rules. Big difference. There's a difference and I'm curious as to the legality of the whole affair. Sims, while private, are still used by the public (and therefor very much social). It's not exactly the same as a house, even if it is technically private. So it all gets a little murky. If it was that simple then there wouldn't even be a child avatar rule. The very reason that is in place is because of the law. Because the internet follows the law as well (certain taboo things aside that are overlooked, presumably in the interest of preventing shunning of difference, which are probably legal anyway because "it's not real"). Law aside my only interest in in everyone being treated fairly and not being shunned from an environment for simply existing. Before even any RP occurs one can walk around and take in the sights. Observe the environment and people. Furries that simply can't change into a human skin (because they don't "believe" in being human themselves and and nor should they change who and what they are) simply don't get a chance at that. Here's a fun little question. Would it be right and fair for a black person to be banned from a private park that is open to the public? Personally I say no, damn what laws may be in place or not. SL sims are like private parks open to the public, baring home only ones where private means exactly that (at your virtual home in other words). I would like to not use the law at all to be honest, but it is in place and so I must. But that does not mean I view "law" as "right" by its existence. What's legal can be wrong too. Case by case. individual by individual. Got to keep it all in mind. All that said I decided to change the topic to "Discrimination and how it affects life and the Internet". I'd like to continue to discuss not just furries but every and any "differently treated" person. In the interest of fair play I'm going to inquire how humans might have suffered among furries. I myself have known someone that knows others that is "anti human". I am understanding on both sides but I also understand that being shunned only leads to being shunned back in turn (again, religion example. It never ends well. Personally I'm atheist). If that pattern does not end then there will only be a forever "shunness". is that what we want? Is it worth "a bit of pure, historical only, RP with no wiggle room for others"? That is the question I shall present. I'd much prefer "roleplay that can adapt to change and circumstance yet still remain very much in lore despite this" myself. As for that "adult areas" quote, all I got to say is that I once saw MLP in action. Not my thing at all. But hey, their thing. I got my own group here and can interact with them a little more away. Played CAH with them after. Heck, I even know of one place that only allows furries and ban human avatars. I'm italicizing since I can't find quote. I'm actually saddened to hear this. I've seen most furry places be accepting of humans.

I'd like to talk about the treatment of furries, humans and whatever other species/group is on Second Life. Specifically I'd like to talk about how they get mistreated and unfairly banned for simply existing. And yes, up to sim owners and blah blah blah, but that attitude won't get fair treatment for all. Only by attempting to get a rule established by Linden Labs can we hope to have Second Life accept all species. There is no logical reason for furries to be banned by, say, BDSM sims or even RP sims (and there are sims like this). Don't like furries? Move on to the next human in sight. Don't have to interact with someone for being there. Going "You're not welcome here becuase you're you" on the other hand is just plain wrong. There is ZERO LOGICAL REASONING for furries to be banned from anywhere. What's more it's discrimination, plain and simple. Even if anthros aren't a IRL species (Though many certaintly consider it "internet real") this is at least the equivalent of banning someone for being into something. Like religion. It's absurd to the extreme and I'm not just going to turn a blind eye to this. There are public sims doing this where furries could be. And even though an owner and a few bigots might have a gripe with furries there, in the end just because someone's in a sim doesn't mean you have to walk up to them and engage with them. And I'm sure many in furry banned sims would be fine with furries on a whole (if not then it's whatever. Can still enjoy the environment). Making it against the rules to ban furries is ultimately a win win scenario, unless you're a judgemental bigot that looks down on others for being as they are. Well? Do you look down on something that is different? BDSM itself was once seen in such a light. Yet here we are in that light, most of us (and I think and hope all of us concerning public places. I'd give furries flak too if they ban humans) accepting humans perfectly because we're not that low. And I'm not going to let up on this topic. I'll go as far as taking it to court if I have too. Descrimination is against the law. It's illigal. Period. Since I'm sure simialar topics have been brought up before I thought I'd play the "Hey, at least do it for your own necks" card this time. How this has been ignored is beyond me. Does Linden Labs just not care? I'm honestly asking myself that and I wish I wasn't.