-Blank.png.d0f1f7282dc1d7d4ad914cc38d54f2a8.png){kind=spacer}
Scylla Rhiadra
-
Posts
20,463 -
Joined
-
Days Won
187
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Scylla Rhiadra
-
-
43 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:
All that needs to be said has been said.
Yes, quite possibly. Although I think some fresh thinking about the issue of child avis and nudity on Moderate regions would be nice.
44 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:an email should be set up for their feedback, which TBH should have been set up before they announced the changes.
This is an excellent idea -- although I can see it being abused. But let LL sort out the chaff.
45 minutes ago, Kathlen Onyx said:THEN LL needs to clarify exactly what they mean with the TOS and SHOW people what the modesty panel needs to be and how it needs to be applied. I.E. body, skin, whatever.
It's now Tuesday evening and no one is the wiser about this modesty panel which really IS the only thing causing an issue right now.
Yes, that's the most outstanding issue right now. There might be more reason to comment when we see what LL comes up with.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, CaerolleClaudel said:
I don't really do Twitter, but I have seen a lot of TikToks by women on this question, and I don't know about a flustercuck, but they all make a really, really good case for the bear.
Yeah, it started on TikTok, and then appeared on Twitter, where it generated a LOT of heat . . . because, Twitter.
And most women there opted for the bear as well.
-
1
-
-
LL has made it absolutely clear they have no intention of banning child avatars. That is literally not up for debate.
In fact, as annoying and maybe onerous as some of these new changes are, they actually signal that LL wants to accommodate that community as best it can, while responding to concerns -- real or imagined, present or future -- about the ways in which child avatars can be abused by the few who employ them for AP.
Child avatars and the kinds of non-sexual RP that are the focus of the vast majority of those representing as children are every bit as valid as anything else people do in SL. It's not more "silly" than 90% of what people get up to here.
Don't like child avis? Fine. Ban 'em, derender 'em, mute them here if you like. Whatever.
But wasting time and space on THIS thread just for the joy and pleasure of crapping on them is not merely pointless and counter-productive: it's obnoxious and hurtful. Frankly, some of you are sounding like school ground bullies yourselves now.
And it's an abuse of a space that LL and the mods here are providing us, and actually protecting, for real discussion about how everyone's freedoms in SL can be safely protected.
Let it do what it's supposed to do.
-
12
-
7
-
1
-
-
I see we've reached the "Why are SL kids?" stage of the discussion.
-
3
-
3
-
-
3 hours ago, Codex Alpha said:
Sad.
Yes, it is, isn't it?
-
Almost four pages speculatively re-litigating a case about which we know next to nothing has to be the surest sign I've seen yet that this thread has outlived its usefulness.
-
6
-
2
-
-
Just now, Persephone Emerald said:
Kid avatars should get a Dinkie or tiny avatar. They can play just like kids, but are less likely to get propositioned or ARed by dirty old men.
I don't think those are quite the same thing . . .
"I'm sorry, you can't be an astronaut in SL. But it's lots of fun being a fireman! They get cool costumes too!"
-
1
-
1
-
-
This question was a major flustercuck when it first appeared on Twitter.
Should be fun to see what happens with it here.
-
3
-
-
Just now, Arielle Popstar said:
When one has been in SL multiple years, it would really be a re-educate thing but in any case, it is an inconsequential quibble whichever one uses.
It's a euphemism either way.
Slapping someone's wrist and telling them they're "wrong" without explaining effectively and fully why, or what "right" is, is not "education."
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Aya Sweetheart said:
They said they may reeducate first
Please tell me that's not the actual language they used!
-
1
-
3
-
-
7 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:
Even I, with no legal background whatsoever, could have worded that one single line in the ToS and the reply in the FAQ so there was no room for interpretation. Why didn't they do that?
Definitely. And that of course is the reason that we are discussing this here, in the hope that LL takes the hint.
But they could produce a document the size of the OED, and it would still have room for splitting hairs and misinterpretation. All we can do ultimately is reduce the likelihood of that.
-
3
-
-
2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:
On the other hand, I tend to take LL's word for it when they say that Governance does their "due diligence". So, do we really know the whole story? It gets complicated really fast if you don't!
We don't, Jordyn doesn't, and, given how really opaque LL's disciplinary procedures sometimes are, it's even possible that the person in question doesn't.
I try not to judge unless I have at least a reasonable assemblage of the facts available. Obviously, everyone has to accept Governance's judgement on such things, as they have absolute power (and, yes, more access to information than any of us), but I'm quite sure they've made, and will continue to make, decisions with which we might disagree, even if we had access to what they know. I think it's totally fine for Jordyn to believe that this was an unjust decision. It's entirely possible that, even if we knew all, we might agree as well. And in the meantime she's displaying faith in someone she's come to know and trust.
And all of this is relevant because of the "subjective" element that is perforce present in these new rules (and in the old ones too). To some degree we have to have faith that Governance will be "reasonable" in their determinations of this case or that, but guaranteed they will get it wrong sometimes. We have trials by jury in RL, and despite the elaborate checks and balances and systems in place for those, they still get it wrong . . . a lot.
-
6
-
-
Just now, Love Zhaoying said:
If your Domme friend is someone we know, then please tell her "hi"!
She is, and I will. 🙂
-
1
-
1
-
-
People who think that language is clear and simple presumably aren't aware that half of the religious wars fought in the past 2000 years have been over the interpretation of a couple of words here and there in some very old books.
-
8
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Anna Salyx said:
Leashing in and of itself is not "sexual activity."
This would be my guess as well. D/s in particular need not be sexual in nature.
My Domme friend in SL tends to feel that it is inappropriate to engage in D/s play of any sort in a non-D/s setting, but that has more to do with how D/s can be misinterpreted by those who are not "in the know" than with the belief that it is inappropriately, publicly "sexual." (Her own flavour of D/s actually is mostly non-sexual in any case.)
I think this is a potential additional "wrinkle" we can put aside.
-
2
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Quartz Mole said:
I think that the discussion of the Boystown stand at the Welcome Hub has gone as far as it usefully can for this thread (and I'm not sure it's ever been on topic for it).
If anyone feels they need to discuss the matter further, please start a new thread about it elsewhere and I'll make sure the Moles in charge of the Welcome Hub get to see it. But please don't take it any further in this thread.
Apologies Quartz. I didn't see this before replying.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:
The fact that you had to use the word 'sex' automatically takes things into that realm. This is why someone might think it would be quite weird to promote 'adult' issues in a G rated area. But I guess it's okay if it's LGBTQ topics.
My point, if you'd bother to parse the above, is that sexual activity -- i.e., sex in the sense of the "having sex" -- is NOT a necessary part of the definitions that together comprise the identities associated with the LGBTQ+ community.
Having a same "sex" attraction, which arguably is, relates not to the ACT of having sex, but to biological sex or gender. In other words, to an identity, not an activity. When you fill out a questionaire and it asks you to indicate your sex or gender, do you think it's asking you if you engage in sex???
The person obsessed with sexuality in this conversation isn't me, it's you.
-
8
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:
If they are leashed, that is really sexual activity in public and isnt allowed on an M sim.
This is actually an interesting question.
Is it?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:
There is no compromise to work at, I'm afraid. These forums are not a parliament.
The new TOS is out there already and people have to agree with them at log in.
So I guess it is simply frustration on all sides.You're right Sid that we aren't legislators. We're not going to be able to "overturn" the new rules -- nor do most people want to.
But we can make suggestions and point out issues. There has already been one revision of the FAQ that was sponsored by questions and comments in that thread, and we've been promised, again because of things said there, some sort of clarification on what the "modesty layer" should look like, and what it is supposed to be comprised of. We've had Tommy Linden and others popping in occasionally to note that they are paying attention -- and the evidence is there that they are.
As i said above, I think that this thread is, in some ways, this forum at its best, and most useful. Yeah, there's a lot of garbage of course, but there is also some serious and useful discussion that is making an impact -- or as much of one as we should ever expect to be able to make.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, Solar Legion said:
That thread? It is a metastasizing cancer that is difficult to keep up with and from the outset was destined to be a dumping ground for the board toxicity ...
As far as compromise goes ... Good luck with that.
Actually, I disagree Solar. Although, as I say, it's starting to feel a little meaner in tone, it's been, overall, really surprisingly civil. What's more, it has led to discussion that has had a visible impact on, for instance, the FAQ.
In some ways, its the sort of thing this place could be used for, even if it too seldom is.
As for compromise . . . I think LL wants a workable one, and I'm hopeful some of the suggestions will assist them in achieving it.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Quartz Mole said:
Dyna and I are still here. We're not saying much because we have other stuff to do on weekdays but we're certainly still trying to follow the thread.
We feel your pain. Honestly, we do.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:
This was Quartz all weekend.
-
3
-
1
-
12
-
-
20 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:
About 200 pages back the adult avatars where puzzled why we were fighting for the right to run naked on moderate land. When we were doing no such thing.
Very true. The issue here, that some don't seem to get, is that naked non-child avatars on Moderate pose a threat to child avatars.
21 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:Now they are griping because we don't want them running naked on moderate land.
And this is where, I think, you don't "get it."
You and others are understandably upset that rule changes are restricting your right to freely move through SL and engage in the kind of behaviours that you prefer, namely, RPing as children.
Those who don't RP as children are understandably upset about the suggestion that they should give up their ability to move freely through a very large swathe of SL (mainly mainland) engaging in a kind of behaviour that they enjoy, namely being naked.
You've also suggested that we should just get rid of "Moderate," which *I* would fight hard against, because it would divide SL into two completely incompatible and likely uncommunicative extremes: one where everything is Happy Valley and Norman Rockwell, and another where extreme sex and violence are permitted, with no in-between state currently represented by Moderate. It would be like having a choice between having to live in a Disney princess castle, and a sex club.
If you want people to give consideration to your defence of your freedoms and choices, you need to acknowledge and concede those of others as well.
That's why we need a workable compromise here.
-
8
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:
Peeve: I was taking part in a fast, whirlwind debate (as you know, I type fast), and someone accused me of being "out of character" and possibly having "Parvo". I didn't let it hurt my feelings, I get trashed a lot just for being myself! 🙂
I don't even mean personal attacks, although, yeah, there have been a few of those.
I mean less tolerance for other opinions, and for working out a compromise.
-
2
-
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Oh my Gawd! - Totally unOfficial Pet Peeve Thread.
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
Sooooo . . .
What do we talk about now?????