Jump to content

Scylla Rhiadra

Resident
  • Posts

    19,693
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    178

Everything posted by Scylla Rhiadra

  1. I certainly can't demonstrate it with any statistical verification, but I've seen enough personally to convince me that there is some validity to the suggestion. The lack of transparency is understandable to some degree -- this is why I don't subscribe to Prok's view that we need the police blotter back. But hand-in-hand with other elements, such as a really terrible appeals process, it means in effect that the mechanisms of governance in SL, and the interpretation of the ToS, are opaque to say the least. Almost two years ago, Maddy ARed a group that had blatant and unmistakable Islamophobia (and misogyny) in its description: It literally says they are "anti-Muslim." The group still exists. I don't know how one squares that with the "intolerance" clause of the CS. On a more local level, when one receives a suspension here, on the forums, one gets a boiler-plate email that points to a general category of "violation," but no indication of even what post has violated it. There is an "appeals" process, but it's a bit difficult to appeal a suspension when one hasn't been told the basis for the disciplinary action in the first place. The "system" needs fixing.
  2. @Sabrina Nebula VERY kindly volunteered to model for me today! She was a brilliant subject. I was nervous as hell because I've never actually photographed a non-human subject before. (As a bonus, she let me friend her!) Thanks Zrina!
  3. This is all entirely true. But the issue with LL governance, at least in my experience, has been less a question of "latitude" or intelligent judgement in context, than just plain outright inconsistency. That, and the lack of any really reliable appeals system (or checks and balances) creates uncertainty and fear. Common law works on the basis of precedent. That really doesn't seem to apply here.
  4. It's been a while since I created a group, but you can test this yourself using the web search. The results if you choose only "General" will filter out most of the adult groups. Trying searching "Daddy" for instance.
  5. Actually, I haven't received one in . . . probably 5 years or so? I guess I'm no longer a "****able babe"? But I used to get them reasonably frequently. I highly doubt that most of the ones I got, which tended to be elephantine in proportion (and appearance) proved any such thing.
  6. I used to exchange them with friends, and for hoots we'd then "rank" them. (And most of them were indeed very rank.)
  7. Groups ARE rated. "Adult" groups are not visible in search unless you are logged in, and have chosen "Adult" as a search filter. That said, there is no shortage of groups that circumvent that.
  8. I don't think she is. What she is suggesting is that a reputation for being permissive about "cartoon" representations of kiddie porn is likely to attract people to the platform who are into . . . kiddie porn. And that in turn makes it more likely the platform will be used by at least some of these for the exchange of RL CSAM materials. Just as the presence of "cartoon" adult sex in SL leads, in some cases, to the exchange of RL "adult" porn, dick pics, etc. I think she has a point, actually.
  9. I think LL has liked "vagueness," because it allows them to make judgement calls in individual cases. And they tend to interpret their own ToS and CS in really pretty idiosyncratic ways: as I've noted here before, there's a TON of stuff in SL that is pretty obviously in violation of the CS if the latter is read even remotely literally. Again, it's about plausible deniability: "Yes, this sort of thing was happening, but it's in clear violation of our ToS! If only we'd KNOWN . . . !" ETA: LL responds to the crisis of the moment. SL5B was pretty much directly in the aftermath of the scandal that erupted, in initially in German media, about a*eplay in SL. They had clearly relaxed in 2009 when they instituted the new ratings system. Famously, there was a huge kerfuffle when a very prominent advocate for kiddie avatars showed up at the opening ceremonies for Zindra. LL apparently had no problem with that, but it was, at the very least, a really stupid move from a "visuals" perspective.
  10. I haven't seen the kind of trigger-happy response you describe here, but that's probably because I don't generally go to places where it's likely to be an issue (although I do go to adult rated clubs and other places). I agree that a more nuanced and precise way of defining all of this is important, if only because region and parcel owners tend to respond to the fuzziness of the guidelines with an excess of caution, and (from what I hear here, although I've not seen it myself) bounce people they fear are skirting the line. Remove that worry by producing a more precise definition of what constitutes a violation, and you've gone some way to making life less miserable for those who represent younger here. But that may -- and probably will -- also mean ToS bans on children (whatever they decide that means) in adult areas.
  11. One of the things LL may be considering is bringing their vocabulary, and perhaps elements of the ToS, better into line with other platforms, gaming or otherwise. It would certainly reduce confusion, but it would also make SL seem like less of a weird outlier. And that is likely to assist LL should they find themselves accused of permitting nasty stuff here. I think we may find, in fact, that they are going to add a lot more complication to our ratings system, and the restrictions associated with that. And if they do go that route, CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A SEPARATE WAY OF INDICATING EXTREME VIOLENCE? It's so frickin' stupid that we have the same nomenclature and rating for content that is, on the one hand, just people going at it, and on the other, someone being bloodily eviscerated in a torture device.
  12. I've had a very lengthy and informative DM from a good friend here who has provided some background to the term. Again, though, "usage" aside, I don't think that most residents, and certainly not me, consider "a**play," in the sense that you've used it above, a problem per se. It's just the particular vocabulary of this platform -- like calling "players" or "users" residents. And why, as I say, the term is censored by this software: in an SL context, it means CSAM -- a term that I don't think LL itself uses at all?
  13. Of course -- the key being "deliberately" or, perhaps, "knowingly." But that's a VERY big "if," Zaly. And it's more than even the original article alleged.
  14. SL does not "allow pedophilia to exist." It is in explicit violation of the ToS and CS. At issue is the fact that it has not been effective enough in removing it. That may or may not be an issue for Amazon, but it's not the same thing.
  15. I think that, while many people (and I'll actually include myself in their number) are "uncomfortable" (for want of a better term) around child avatars, most in Second Life don't actually object to them generally. But it's an apparently "easy" solution (which I don't think actually solves anything) to simply get rid of them entirely, so some are advocating for that. I don't think that's going to happen. And I don't think it should. But there will undoubtedly be new restrictions placed upon their use.
  16. I think that most people here understand what we're talking about -- what you call sexual underage play -- but are just using a*eplay as the common shorthand for it. The problem is not so much that people are not getting that this is about representations of sexual abuse, but rather that some people believe that the best or maybe only way to combat it is to get rid of child avatars entirely. That, and I think that some people just generally dislike child avatars, and find them "creepy."
  17. Fair enough; I have misunderstood what you meant by the term, as Naomi suggested. (I'll note, though, that the forum software apparently believes that a*eplay specifically refers to something sexual, as it censors the term: *****.) And I'll agree that, personally, I have no objections to nonsexual a*eplay, and, again, that discussions about things like avatar height, breast size, etc., are not really relevant to the real issues.
  18. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, Naomi? Unless this is about terminology? No, representing a child in and of itself is not illegal. But "a*eplay" generally means not merely roleplaying a child, but doing so in a sexual context. That's certainly what I meant by it -- and what the term has generally meant in this thread, I think. But if she meant by it merely representing as a child, then, yes, I have misunderstood her.
  19. Yes it is, in the US, as Rowan notes, quoting the actual law: I will agree, however, that the conversation about how people look is counterproductive and misses the point.
×
×
  • Create New...