Theresa Tennyson

Theresa Tennyson whispers, "With boys, that isn't as effective as you seem to think."

Theresa Tennyson muses, "Does that person's hippie personality ever get into fights with her business personality? Because that would be something to see..."

"There are a high number of profanity violations occurring each quarter. The proprietors of the English language are apparently allowing the users to violate profanity rules by not taking appropriate procedures to prevent violations - for instance, they could remove problematic letters from the alphabet." The basic structure of Second Life makes "preventing" things very difficult. For instance, with the Play That Must Not Be Named, all these regulations concerning "child avatars" are up against the fact that "childness" isn't an identifiable trait in the codebase at all, and "adult (sexytimes definition)" is arbitrary and assigned by users.

Because everyone knows our avatars are actually very inaccurate representations of potatoes.

A lot of times I modify objects to take advantage of things that didn't exist as part of Second Life when that particular object was made - for instance, adjusting physics types on older objects to reduce their land impact. Advice: Stay out of Vegas...

Or not do with their property, for that matter...

Is this line of text moral? How about this one? Or this? Words can come to mean different things than what their origins are, which is why definitions are more useful than etymologies: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justification

This is what the original post said: It's talking about justifying behavior by giving reasons for doing something. There's no "morality" implied. The last paragraph comes close, but "lame" and "nasty" don't quite make it all the way there. Injecting "morality" into the discussion is not helpful and turns the heat of the discussion up necessarily. So, if we are talking about reasons for doing something, we can look at them and see if those reasons are effective and/or proportional to what's being attempted without making a moral judgement. We avoid the whole "rights" discussion which can quickly become a hot mess when we're talking about imaginary objects painted onto computer screens with pixels.

Let's say you own a factory that makes widgets. You're in an out-of-the-way place so you decide to put in a cafeteria for your workers. That means you need to buy kitchen equipment and food, and hire cooks and managers to run it. All in all, the cafeteria operation is losing money because the audience isn't that big and small operations are inefficient, and nobody working there is making a single blessed widget for you to sell, which is your real business. If you could get outside people to come to eat at the cafeteria, there's more of a chance it'll become a profit center than a liability, but you'd need to push the food thing even harder than you're already doing, meaning spending more money up front on the cafeteria and the staff will still not be making your widgets. But, if you sold the cafeteria to an outside restaurant company it could be run more efficiently because that company already has the knowhow, staff and suppliers. That's basically what happened here.

Two people so far. As far as "not complaining," we're not having much luck at all.

And they've been doing it for over twenty years. (On both sides.)

If that was going to happen it could have happened already. Second Life is/was still dependent on credit card companies for money coming in and Paypal, etc. for money going out.

Let's look at this another way... It sounds like you have a specific plan to do something. Tell us what it is and we can give you information on how to find land that will work to do that. You're acting as if the auction is the only way to get Mainland, which you might think from reading the Second Life website, but most Mainland that changes hands is bought from private owners or it's abandoned land that's purchased directly from Linden Lab.

L$ 4,104,304 (1 L$/ pixel)

Theresa Tennyson mutters, "What Second Life really needs is an automatic knickers-untwister."

It's a "guns don't kill, people do" thing...

Note it says "activity" and not "objects."

Aaaaaannnndddd we're right back to where we started IF there's such a thing as "adult"-RATED furniture (which there isn't but we're pretending) THEN it's not allowed in M-RATED regions ALREADY SO that won't change whether or not child avatars can enter M--RATED regions.

Yes, this is my understanding as well. So why did you post that that child avatars will be banned from huge amounts of M-rated regions when Linden Lab said that they won't be allowed near adult-RATED regions and content? Objects aren't adult-RATED. There is no way of doing that.

No, it doesn't. It has ratings on marketplace listings, which are arbitrarily set by the seller and aren't part of the actual items sold.

Which is exactly the same as it is now, so the only change I've actually seen that's based on words from an official source is that child avatars can't go to adult-rated places. The overheated hufflepuffle about child avatars being banned from vast swathes of moderate-rated land either would apply now or wouldn't apply afterwards. And what exactly is a "sex bed"? Is a bed that has sexual animations that an avatar can't use due to permissions or access still a "sex bed?"

Looking at how the maturity ratings are written, "content" is more of a general description of what is on the land rather than talking about specific objects. Objects don't have any sort of "maturity rating" at all.

That's because the type of "adult content" you're describing isn't considered adult-RATED as it's not advertised and/or not publicly accessible.

If it's "adult-RATED" it shouldn't be on M-RATED regions at all. I'm making the RATED bold and in red because it's apparently very hard for some people to see.