Carole Franizzi

Valerie! A total sweetie - as always. An enormous bear hug to one of SL's nicest ladies! That would be...erm...un grande embrasse au tedde' a ma petite chip! Or something like that... Mwah!

Whatever force sucked you in today - I'm glad it did. Delighted to see your post. I'm going to send you a PM so check your messages, please.

Ah! Another 'old' name! Great to 'see' you too, Treasure.

Uhm. Lovely to see you too.

Hey Czari! Thanks for replying. Lovely to see old familiar names. Yes, sometimes SL itself seemed awfully empty and at those times the forums were more appealling to me too. However, I got a lot of amusement out of SL - least I could do was wish it many happy returns. You take care.

I came across an article about SL’s tenth birthday and just couldn’t resist making this post. Though no longer an SLer (and haven’t been for maybe a couple of years now), I did have a good old romp through this virtual world for several years on and off, initially as an ever-more glamorous and well-dressed young lady, and, when I got bored with her cartoonish perfection, as the elderly and much less elegant (but to me much more amusing) Carole who posted regularly in these forums. Life – my own real life, I mean – has morphed a fair bit since I first joined SL (actually, I’m not too sure when that was – maybe 2007? something like that, anyway), and over the last couple of years I’ve been very much focused on my non-digital reality, working hard at my job, and concentrating on other types of creative projects in my free-time. So no, I did not end up in jail, and I’m certainly not dead. And nor did I resuscitate one of my alts or make a new one/s. I just gave up. However, I have many fond memories of Carole’s capers, of nice/ generous/ fascinating/ weird people ‘met’ here, (plus some really nasty ones, truth be told) and of some gorgeous digital places and objects created by some amazingly talented people. All in all, I had a blast. My own contributions to this digital world were dramatically more modest, and, to be honest, consisted mostly in poking a bit of fun at some of the clichés which seemed to be at the foundation of SL ‘society’. There were times when I did more foruming than SLing, and in those periods I probably managed to annoy a good number of people with my pompous walls of text about ‘serious’ subjects, or my Brit-nit-wit posts which amused me endlessly, but probably set eyes rolling all over the place. Actually, this might be a good opportunity to apologise if I ever offended your sensitivities over your fairy-dom / Dom-dom / polygamous-latex-badger-dom lifestyle. If it’s any consolation to you, I took a lot of stick over being the old dame, Carole. Some people never could accept that anyone would voluntarily choose such an avatar (I used to regularly come across people who thought I’d been obliged by some mysterious Linden edict to have an avatar ‘just like me in real-life’ – though why only I should fall under this rule they were never able to explain to me). On the other hand, there may be nobody reading this who actually recognises me – in which case, it’s proof that both lives – first and second – are transitory affairs. Anyhow, warm greeting to any old-timers who might remember me, and to the newer SLers – have a blast. Happy Birthday SL Carole F.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Marigold Devin wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: It would cause a scandal and an investigation. But its actually not illegal. Bigger picture, Pussycat. A little paranoia is healthy. Complacency kills. And all that. A little yes. But too much no. Ageplay is a ToS violation, but its not actually illegal. That's an uncomfortable point... Until an investigation uncovers something involving real-life victims, its just scandal. There really isn't any ageplay left in SL. The the odd rare griefer pretending to it to get a reaction, and the even rarer idiot that logs into SL looking for it. Probably less than a handful of people a year, across the entire grid. The bigger picture is that 'witch-hunts' grab up more people not involved in doing anything and usually miss anyone actually up to something. Don't acuse, unless you have no uncertainty. It seems that LL don't share your point of view. The following statement from their ToS seems to indicate they are aware that in certain parts of the world, therefore for some users, images generated by age-play are illegal (like, I believe, in my country, for example). (iv) Post, display or transmit any material, object or text that encourages, represents, or facilitates sexual "age play," i.e., using child-like avatars in a sexualized manner. You may review our full Age Play Policy here; Incidents under sections (iii) and (iv) above are grounds for immediate termination. You understand and agree that we may report any and all such incidents -- and any and all of your corresponding personal information -- to any authorities we deem appropriate, whether or not it in and of itself violates the law of your (or any) jurisdiction. Jurisdiction varies from nation to nation - LL is apparently aware of that - and in some places, the images generated by pixel age-play constitute an offence, even if that's not true for your particular area of the world. I have to say that I found your statement about there being no age-play left in SL and that "practitioners" amount to no more than a handful in the entire grid, rather surprising. The number of little girlie avatars I personally see in adult sims would lead me to believe that you are most definitely mistaken. Of course, in order to quantify the phenomenon, you'd need to be in a position to have total access to all sims, private homes and spaces and, most importantly, access to the chatlogs of all SL users. When you talk confidently about this "handful", do you mean you personally overheard five couples indulging in age-play in local chat? What people do around the grid, in the privacy of their IMs and private spaces, is unknown to you and me surely? Might I suggest that no SL user can possibly be privy to precise statistics regarding this phenomenon. I'm also a little bewildered by your statement, "Until an investigation uncovers something involving real-life victims, its just scandal". I certainly don't agree that it should be deemed necessary to wait until a real-life child has had its life ruined by abuse before considering the phenomenon worthy of considering a serious issue. If that attitude were the norm in crime prevention, no measures would ever be taken until victims were generated, by which time, the damage would have been done. I'd also add that none of us, and this time LL itself is included in the "none", can ever know if an official investigation isn't actually underway within SL by a law enforcement body somewhere in the world. I was earlier accused of being incapable of reasoning because unable to see through emotional blinkers. Believe me, I'm well aware that pixels cannot be injured and that most (probably all) age-players are fully adult. It's not the potential damage caused to pixels or adult operators which is the crux of this matter. What remains the risk and, I assume, the main reason for banning age-play, is that such permissiveness would encourage real-life pedophiles to use the space to supply and obtain real-life pedo-porn material. Surely a just a little of Marigold's "healthy paranoia" (although I prefer to think of it in terms of sense of responsibility), if it helps prevent such a thing happening, truly is a good thing? Or are we all so emotionally involved in SL that the wellbeing of flesh and blood kids has to take a back-seat? Because it's not possible to know what other people are saying in IM, I'm not suggesting being trigger-happy over ARing - most of the time none of us will ever know if sexual age-play is being or is about to be acted out. I just think it's important not to dismiss the whole thing as annoying gossip. My point of view is that only LL is in a position to check on what's really going on and they should feel "pressurised" by users into maintaining vigilance. In all the many discussions held about this topic in the forums, I personally have never seen them intervene to clear up doubts as to what consititutes age-play and to explain to people why it can't be allowed.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Marigold Devin wrote: If a printed publication was found to contain images of pixel minors engaging in sexual situations with adults, that publication would be closed down instantly, and probably a police investigation take place into those responsible for publishing such images. Second Life may well be a virtual environment, but those pixel people you see on the screen are all worked by real people, and LL have to err on the side of caution. It would cause a scandal and an investigation. But its actually not illegal. If it were, plays like Romeo and Juliet would be illegal... There's a -BIG- difference between morality and law. The difference is between moralities and laws in different parts of the world. Whilst it's perfectly legal for children to be married off to adult men in some parts of the world, in other parts it's not. Virtual images of minors involved in virtual, cartoon nookie might not be illegal everywhere but they're illegal to possess in some parts of the globe. SL spans the globe and LL has simply introduced its own "laws" (ToS) to address this matter in a precautionary manner. If people in country X got locked up for having played SL, it wouldn't be great publicity, I assume. The historical context of Romeo and Juliet - a period in which people of their tender age did marry and have children - allows us to suspend our 21st century Western morality for the duration of the play, and acknowledging the fact that they consumate their union is no more offensive to anybody's morality than it would be to read "In 14th century Italy, girls were often married by the age of 14 - 15". However, as you know, there is no scene of intercourse in the play, which is the pivotal issue - it's representations of sex between minors, not acknowledgement that in certain periods in history and in certain geographical areas that such things exist, which are the point here. LL ToS states such things are not permitted - within SL, that is the law, whether some posters like it or not.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Solar Legion wrote: You - nor anyone else - has any right to dictate the apearance of others in any manner. You have no right to dictate what others engage in, in a virtual environment. A moment's thought would tell you that assertion is mistaken. LL most certainly have the right to regulate avatars' appearance in various ways (e.g. general rules about what is and isn't permitted in lands with various maturity ratings) and no one, as far as I know, has suggested SL club owners don't have the right to ask people to remove themselves because their avatar is, in the -- quite possibly mistaken -- view of the owner somehow inappropriate to the venue. People frequently suggest, and with good cause, that the right is sometimes used injudiciously, but it's unquestionable I have the right to ban you from my sim just because I don't like the look of your avatar. And certainly if I find your conduct objectionable, I can tell you to go and thus conduct yourself elsewhere. What you said. Add to that actual legislation regarding child and pseudo-child pornography (in the case of adult operators using child avatars in adult sims, near or participating in "adult" activity).

Solar Legion wrote: Hard time following what was said? Not my problem. Retake reading comp and get a handle on logic and thought analysis. Seeing as you are unlikely to do such, I'll be blunt: Any "insult" you take from my post is your own invention. My point is clear as day as well: PLENTY of people in real life look far younger than they really are, circumstance depending. Basing anything on appearance is quite foolish. Further, the attitude you convey in this thread is the exact same sort those opposed to violence in video games and on television convey each and every time they decry it. You - nor anyone else - has any right to dictate the apearance of others in any manner. You have no right to dictate what others engage in, in a virtual environment. I may find a lot of things morally reprehensible: I do not seek to ban or otherwise make illegal, such things where not a single, real individual is harmed at all. Those that do are the problem. End of story. I'm not here to "debate" with the likes of you either. That you responded in the manner you have is all the indication I need that you're not capable of any sort of thought untied to emotion. Second Life is filled with avatars, not real people. Your reactions prior were over the top and fit right in with the Internation Red Cross demanding that video games featuring war scenarios follow humanitarian laws and penalize players for commiting "war crimes". Have a fun time feeling sorry for the pixels on the screen. I find it astounding that you don't feel the urge to change your signature into something less self-damning. Your last reply to me could not be more crass and rude. And frankly, not worth the effort of addressing. ETA Oh, I can't resist. You basically hanged yourself. The fact is that real human beings ARE harmed. If YOU can step away from YOUR evident emotional involvement in defending the freedom of child avatars to go where they please and do what they wish, you might care to consider that any space, be it real or cyber, where tolerance to child pornography is real or perceived, actual flesh and blood pedophiles might be tempted to congregate in order to share pedo-pornographic materials, produced using real, flesh and blood children. We do count the protection of real children as something worth placing above our "rights" as video game players, don't we? If you cannot formulate a civil response, don't bother replying at all, as next time I really won't waste 3 minutes of my life answering you, although I admit to being curious to see if YOUR reading comprehension skills and YOUR capacities of logic analysis are able to deal with the concepts outlined.

Solar Legion wrote: Oh look, someone else who needs to get a clue and reevaluate their utterly over the top reactions. Here's one for you: I am barely over five feet tall in real life and - without my beard and mustache - do not look a day over 18 (I am nearly 30 by the by). I set about trying to make an avatar once which merged the fantasy of Second Life with reality .... and quickly gave up on it just as I gave up on remaining clean shaven in real life. If I am being asked for Identification in real life any time I go out to purchase my pipe tobacco OR pick up a nice bottle of Kaluah .... What the heck do you think would happen here in Second Life? I frankly find your attitude insulting and concerning ... It is the attitude of those who lobby against violence in video games .... All because someone might seek out the real thing (utter hogwash). Oh, I just love posts from people who insult you in order to get across their point that they find you insulting... Aside from telling me you think I don't have a clue, have sinned by over-reacting and am insulting, I have no idea whatsoever what the point of your post was. Knowing that you have a beard in real-life doesn't much add to this discussion, nor is it a counterpoint to my views. If you want to discuss my thoughts, it might be useful if you addressed them. (Just on the off-chance you were demanding to have an 18 year old looking avatar, then I have good news for you. You may. If, by any chance you want to look younger - you may - but you have to steer clear of adult activity as per the ToS (not as per my clueless, over-reactive, insulting points of view. The reason being, as I believe is obvious for anyone, it is not possible to demand proof of age inside SL like in RL.)

valerie Inshan wrote: *hugs Carole so tight I can feel her heartbeat* Ah, ma petite French fry! Hugs you back hard. N'oubliez pas que nous avons un rendez vous on the Rive Gauche so we can bitcher un peu about the people who pass! LOADS of hugs - French, British and International!

MargieG wrote: Hello - me again, the death and grief researcher. Interested in who of you out there would want a SL funeral in the sad event that you died anytime soon? (apologies if this sounds abrupt or callous). If you did want a funeral, would you want RL family and friends to be invited? Would you want a religion based service/location or something more secular? thanks, MargieG Hi Margie. I do understand your need to get right to the point and obtain whatever data it is you need for your research, but maybe I should point out that among SL clients you probably have - just like RL - a number of people who are not in the best of health. Just because this is a game (of sorts) doesn't mean that those who take part are "just playing". A certain number of people in here are here because their ill-health has stopped them from living a completely full life in the flesh-and-blood world. In a few cases, there are bound to be people with very serious conditions, some life-threatening. So your question - "if you died...?" could actually be...erm...a tad tactless. In your other thread, some people suggested you look in-world at the memorial sims and initiatives. These would probably be the best place to start, as if people are doing such things, they may well be in the right place psychologically to discuss their feelings with you. Asking this question here in the forums is no different from stopping random people in the street - chances are that sooner or later someone is going to answer you with "Well, actually, I am dying."

Phil Deakins wrote: As has been said a number of times, there is no way of knowing. To those who wrote that SL is an alternative life, etc., the OP wants to know about RL ages who 'play' things like SL, so what SL is all about doesn't matter. @Carole: Be careful when you say things like "Many (most?)" because some idiot SL forum users can insist that it actually mean "the majority", and argue about it tooth and nail, when all sensible native english speakers know exactly what it means. Kind thanks for the warning about using certain terms when posting on these forums. I should point out that I myself evidently fall into the category of "idiot SL forum users", as I did in fact mean "probably the majority" when I typed "many (most?)". In truth, I very carefully chose to say "many (most?)" and threw in a couple of hypothetical modals for good measure, since, although some posters do occasionally make direct reference to RL information, if one looks around, one can hardly fail to notice that we are using fake names, that none of us appear to be using RL photos as forum icons, that the content of posts is usually SL-related (thus connected to the alternative and not real life of the client) and that in the rare case of RL information being published here, there is, as all sensible SL clients know, no way of knowing if it is factual or simply another facet of the alternative identity the client has created. Are you suggesting that all posts should be composed in such a way to be 100% comprehensible to sensible native speakers, EFL speakers (of all levels???) and "idiot" (your word) posters of all native languages? I'm not sure I could accomplish that. I look forward to observing the syntactic and lexical content of your posts. Evidently I have a lot to learn. Although I suspect everybody who answered was aware that the OP meant RL age, thanks anyway for the clarification.

Litella wrote: If a club manager thinks im a threat to their club and LL might be called, then they shouldnt worry about it, im not a child AV and nor is my personality,. Dont worry ive checked out the LL policies and im not here to act like a child.... ......And to those calling me a troll and making out im acting inappropriately, thanx, its nice to know what kind of people are around here, go get bent you losers. And had written previously: Oh and you people who are always thinking about kids being abused..i suggest thinking about something else, its not a good look or healthy thinking. No offence, but since you checked out LL policies, you must be aware that people risk losing their accounts if they permit age-play, therefore your assurances not to sweat it are, to say the least, pointless. If you had been in SL longer you'd know that it's very difficult - almost impossible - to get such a decision reversed, and there have been enough reports of bans being implimented without much ado, to understand that in such cases, LL does not call all those present to give witness and make statements. In other words, your reassurances about being over-age would not be heard by those who make the decisions. Again, I repeat, people spend vast amounts of money in buying land and paying monthly tiers. People who have clubs are among those who invest enormous amounts of their time in-world. You may feel they (and I) are being unreasonable, but, frankly, I feel the unreasonable one is you, as your attitude is still very much "This is how I want my avatar to look and I want to go anywhere with her and people should run huge risks in order to keep me happy". The avatar you used (which may or may not correspond to the photo in your profile) was perceived by two separate club-owners as being under-age. Whether that was your intention or not is irrelevant, whether they were being over-cautious is irrelevant - what is relevant is for you to understand and accept that if you wish to go into adult clubs undisturbed you need to use a clearly adult avatar. I have two other avatars which are both petite and have never been challenged regarding their age because height is only one factor in determining age. You talk about a teen skin - since 18 is adult in most places, the term "teen" in reference to skins usually refers to a youthful looking, fresh-faced under 18 year old, a teen skin IS a non-adult one. Evidently that skin combined with the undeveloped body caused two people to believe you were underage. There are a number of free adult skins available which you could use when you want to go to adult areas. Changing skin (and shape) is much less of an inconvenience than constantly being asked to leave and much, much less than losing your entire account. This loser will happily go and get bent, preferring any day to be more concerned about child abuse and the attempts of some people to demonise awareness of the issues, than about the trauma of someone being asked to leave an SL club or two. You'll have to forgive me if I ignore your suggestion to forget about the issue.

No, I'm afraid nobody can give you that data. I'm assuming you've newly joined SL, perhaps with the sole purpose of carrying out this research (may we know what kind of research it is? acadaemic? market?) and are not yet aware that, strictly speaking, none of us know the age of other players with certainty. There's certainly no data-base of client info which other clients can access. I feel you might be missing one of the main points about SL - it's a place where you re-invent yourself and that might include age. Many (most?) people will cling to their adopted new identity in public, therefore what they might declare regarding age, gender, location, profession, etc., may well not correspond to facts. I for one, however, have no problem with admitting to being 21 in real-life, so unfortunately, I can't be any help to you in your research. With a bit of luck, some decrepit old over-forties will help you out.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote:There is a -LOT- of short avatar hate going around, but most of its on the forums. I see more "tall avatar hate" than "short avatar hate" on the Forums. I agree. I don't think I've never seen one single post complaining about other people's avatars looking short. All I've ever seen, regarding height, are entire threads against people who have overly (according to the posters) tall ones. The whole height issue as an excuse for trying to force one's child-like avatar into sex places is so damn weak. The differences between adult and child bodies are so numerous and complex and height is one single, not definitive factor. You want a child avatar? Smashing. Stay out of sex joints though. You want a short avatar? Fine. Just make sure other physical elements are inequivocally adult since the poor sods who pay tiers on clubs need to be sure you're not trying to push boundaries which might end up with them losing their accounts. Little hint from Auntie Carole - if you avoid the flat-chested, no-hipped shapes, the cutsie-pie outfits, hair-styles and AOs, ankles socks, lollipops, teddy'bears and, last but not least, the baby talk, you might find that people don't get miffed about you hanging around whilst they try to manouvre the hawtie onto the poseballs. You want to be like you are in RL and you just happen to be a 40 year old skinny, flat-chested woman who wears her hair in bunches and has a penchant for baby-janes and ra-ra skirts? You might have to express yourself on your own land, rather than expecting other people to risk their accounts in order to let you be you.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Qie Niangao wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote in part: @ the OP - if, after one single week in SL you have been challenged over your avatar so many times that you are already convinced that you are victim of some sort of unjustified hate-campaign, you might want to re-examine the look you have created for your avatar in relation to the places you evidently wish to take her. Yeah, there's something strange going on here. If it's not the fault of the avatar's appearance, then it's venues that one should avoid anyway. I'd add that it could be the avatar's appearance, quite unintentionally, and a situation that may reverse itself as one gains more experience in SL. It's pretty clear that the OP doesn't mean to look under-age, but it's still possible that she nonetheless looks under-age in the eyes of those more accustomed to the norm for SL representations of humans. People are paranoid about this, and underlying that paranoia there is legitimate reason to be nervous, given the consequences. I don't know about you, Qie, but I took a couple of days to even learn to walk straight. I waddled around for some time in my default avatar, looking like a bad cartoon. Hell, but I'm technologically-challenged. Kids today suss that sort of stuff in a jiffy. Far from impossible to imagine that some people sign up and have the whole thing figured out by dinner-time. Less easy to believe is that after 7 days you are a member of the Ban the Kiddie Avie Paranoia Campaign though. Paranoia is an irrational fear of that which does not exist. Avatars representing minors in inappropriate areas are far from unusual. The phenomenon in SL does exist - anybody who's spent a short time in an adult club will have seen it with their own eyes. Yes and no for new folks now. I've seen many of them on fully kitted out avatars right away, and many not. The default avatars are pretty kitted out now - and seem to even walk better, unless its just my imagination. - But that's not what I mean. C.F.: That's not what I meant either. I said that although it took me weeks to get a decent avatar together, I can hardly judge other people's progress based on my incapacity and on my slowness to learn techy things. What I can't understand and what I frankly do not believe is that the OP became aware of a phenomenon which other people took months and maybe years to become aware of. Nor do I believe that a 6ft adult woman avatar got booted from a high number of clubs in just one week. But what REALLY made my hackles rise was the post from the person who claims that those who object to child avatars being around adult sexual activity in SL are actually the ones who get kicks out of it....

Ima Rang wrote: Hmmm...Well, I am no expert :smileywink:...but I smell a troll. Litella (Lie Teller) and her adult demeana (demeanor) must have had one really busy week to have already worked up a forum rant...lol. I could have understood if she'd come here to rant "My 6ft tall, big-chested, adult-shaped and styled avatar keeps getting called a child avatar and booted from clubs. Are people in SL blind/mad/seeing things?" I don't care what photo she posts now - whatever avatar she was using to try to get into adult clubs and which got booted time and time again in ONE WEEK was obviously childish enough looking to worry a high number of club owners.

Qie Niangao wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote in part: @ the OP - if, after one single week in SL you have been challenged over your avatar so many times that you are already convinced that you are victim of some sort of unjustified hate-campaign, you might want to re-examine the look you have created for your avatar in relation to the places you evidently wish to take her. Yeah, there's something strange going on here. If it's not the fault of the avatar's appearance, then it's venues that one should avoid anyway. I'd add that it could be the avatar's appearance, quite unintentionally, and a situation that may reverse itself as one gains more experience in SL. It's pretty clear that the OP doesn't mean to look under-age, but it's still possible that she nonetheless looks under-age in the eyes of those more accustomed to the norm for SL representations of humans. People are paranoid about this, and underlying that paranoia there is legitimate reason to be nervous, given the consequences. That may have shifted the "anchor points" for perception of age cues in SL, which are pretty ambiguous anyway. I don't know about you, Qie, but I took a couple of days to even learn to walk straight. I waddled around for some time in my default avatar, looking like a bad cartoon. Hell, but I'm technologically-challenged. Kids today suss that sort of stuff in a jiffy. Far from impossible to imagine that some people sign up and have the whole thing figured out by dinner-time. Less easy to believe is that after 7 days you are a member of the Ban the Kiddie Avie Paranoia Campaign though. Paranoia is an irrational fear of that which does not exist. Avatars representing minors in inappropriate areas are far from unusual. The phenomenon in SL does exist - anybody who's spent a short time in an adult club will have seen it with their own eyes. When I get my avatar all tarted up in something sexy, I do not TP her into a kiddies playground or a teen music club - why, oh why does asking kids and teens to stay away from "inappropriate" areas (as per LL rules) provoke the label of "paranoia"??? It is not appropriate in any world, virtual or flesh-and-blood, to have people, or representations of people, who are under-age in sex clubs.Why the hell do they want to be there and why the hell are others so quick to beat back complaints using such ludicrous and offensive tactics??? Regarding the initial rant - I've something to add. The OP may feel herself justified in feeling hard done by (though I've already made my suggestion relative to changing either her look or the places she attempts to get into) - however, may I point out that whilst she may have been in SL for 7 days, some of the club and land owners of the places she feels she has a right to enter, may have been here for years and years and spent a ruddy fortune creating their little SL patrimony. What on earth are her expectations - that to satisfy her self'appropriated right to go wherever she wants, these people have to risk getting their account suspended and losing every penny spent so far???? I mean - seriously?????

wiked Anton wrote: as to people thinking about child abuse all the time, an old saying pops into my mine..." me thinkest thou doth protest too much..." the meaning being if someone is overly protesting about something, then perhaps the actual deed is on their mind (fanasizing about doing it?) I want to protest about the above comment. I am utterly stunned by the message it contains - that concerned parents, relatives, law enforcement officers, especially those who work in departments dedicated to child abuse and therefore have to deal with flesh-and-blood victims on a heart-breakingly regular basis and volunteer members of associations set up to campaign on behalf of defenceless children are all, according to your "wisdom", actually perverts and criminals themselves, because they "think about child abuse all the time".... Shocking. Disgusting. Profoundly wrong. People are obliged to keep the risk of child abuse in mind all the time BECAUSE THE PHENOMENON EXISTS.There are MILLIONS of victims on the planet as I type and it's just too bad that attempts to lower those numbers intefere with the fun and games of a handful of people playing with ambiguously aged avatars on a video game. I AM PROUD TO BE "PARANOID" ABOUT CHILD ABUSE. @ the OP - if, after one single week in SL you have been challenged over your avatar so many times that you are already convinced that you are victim of some sort of unjustified hate-campaign, you might want to re-examine the look you have created for your avatar in relation to the places you evidently wish to take her.

Phil Deakins wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: What's he on about? Well, he's some sort of performance artist. German. The name probably wouldn't mean much to me, frankly, as I'm not really up on contemporary performance art. Call me old-fashioned but I prefer Shakespeare myself. I didn't realise somebody had hijacked his thread. That's a shame. Some people just don't appreciate art. I didn't mean that someone hijacked his first thread. I meant that, in his first thread, he wanted people to write garbage in other people's threads that's nothing to do with the other threads. He specifically didn't want people writing the garbage in his first thread. Then he was going to go looking for the garbage posts and 'perform' in the other threads. In other words, he wanted people to use other threads for his craziness - hijack the other threads. Oh, but he didn't say "garbage". I'm sure he didn't. I remember him talking about humiliation, about masochism, I believe. I thought it was quite an interesting idea - playing with what has become the accepted register of human interaction on the Internet, where every expression of self is akin to locking oneself into public stocks and allowing the masses (acting as a unified group in the RL circumstances of a public humiliation/punishment, ergo, without individual identity) faceless and nameless, thanks to Internet anonymity, to assume the role of "punisher". Virtual interaction - so exceedingly modern, as a reintepretation of the methods of discipline in medieval societies, in which the community en masse is used as an instrument to chastise and humiliate those who dare to disregard the accepted norms. A voice which raises itself outside the chorus is silenced by tacit agreement by those who fall into line voluntarily to follow and enforce rules which, ironically, could in actual fact be disregarded and overthrown due to the sheer numbers of those masses, and yet who, time and time again, submit to the diktats of the "overlords" and ensure the continuation of the balance of power - minority over majority. He also mentioned Ionesco. I don't think we can disregard the significance of this reference in relation to a virtual society in which absurdity is omnipresent. I'd go further - had Ionesco had the opportunity to explore SL, I think he would have been overwhelmed by instances of banality and absurdity, especially in consideration of the fact that this realm, in theory, offers the utmost liberty of expression and creativity and yet so often bears witness to the fact that humanity will "turn the telescope around" and time after time, look at the magic which human life is through the wrong end. My sensation is that Knotter, rather than creating artforms within SL, was aiming at encouraging us to see SL and ourselves as the artform.

Phil Deakins wrote: What *is* he on about? The other thread was rightly deleted. Anyone who encourages people to write hijack other threads ought to be deleted too. What's he on about? Well, he's some sort of performance artist. German. The name probably wouldn't mean much to me, frankly, as I'm not really up on contemporary performance art. Call me old-fashioned but I prefer Shakespeare myself. I didn't realise somebody had hijacked his thread. That's a shame. Some people just don't appreciate art.

Knotter Blogfan wrote: I applaud the Lindens. They have made an excellent fool of me. They encourage me with messages to congratulation me and phumph! destroy the performance at a stroke before an audience has initiated. This is in my memory of the maestro John Cage who sells silence to his listeners. Is the performance in the mind of the maker or the attenders who arrive after it is over? I welcome the Lindens as my collaborators in selling a nonevent to the public. I go away now to plan my next performance. Knot Bravo! Bravo!!!! *applauds* This is part of the performance, right?

Freya Mokusei wrote: You have to understand that your idea of SL's direction is asynchronous with how others socialise around in and around SL. SL doesn't and can't exist in a vacuum. Resident-run projects such as 2ndHub, SLProfiles and AvatarsUnited have shown that there is definitely a market for 'avatar-centric social networks'. I thought AvatarsUnited got closed down. Am I getting confused with something else? A sort of avatar FB thingy?