Scylla Rhiadra

What about something as simple as a "Like" button, as just about every other forum in the world has? It needn't be tied into "ranks" at all, and so wouldn't be gamed. It would just be a way to show appreciation for a post that one agreed with or thought particularly worthwhile. But I don't suppose Lithium has the capacity for that.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: I think it behooves each of us to judge others as individuals, and not jump to conclusions based upon politics, religion, and nationality. The qualities of good and evil span the globe, and all groups contain people that fall within those two realms, and many that straddle the fence between. QFT

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Yes. Sadly, acts of killing are routinely perpetrated by those who embrace religion. (I'm an atheist and a libertarian...and self- identify as such. Strangely, people routinely condemn atheists and libertarians although neither group is known for acts of violence) Well, if Prok were here . . . (if you say his name three times, does he appear?) . . . he would undoubtedly remind us all that the Soviets, and all manner of Communists, were atheists, but reasonably handy at the employment of terror too. And he'd be right. I think that there can be a political or ideological "fundamentalism" too, which is every bit as dangerous.

Linda Brynner wrote: I have just one word: Anguish... What else is relevant without falling into stereotyping at the moment... :smileysad: "Anguish" does indeed seem the most appropriate word, Linda. Talking about the "who" and the "why" is vital, of course . . . but one hopes that it doesn't intrude upon the mourning.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Unfortunately, Norway a country with a small population, has had numerous terrorist incidents over the years. (population of around 4.9 million) Here is the Global Terrorism Database's statistics maintained by the University of Maryland: http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=1&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&country=151&charttype=line&chart=overtime&ob=GTDID&od=desc&expanded=yes#results-table( That data is separate from crime statistics. Sadly, this terrorist act in Norway was done by someone who is a self-professed "Christian"...which underscores how identifying people's values, actions, compassion, and ethics through group-labels often yields wrong conclusions. I think that one of the things that this will do is alert Norwegians to the prevalence and dangers posed by the far right there. From what I've been reading, it's been growing as a force there even as it has been waning somewhat in other Scandanavian countries. Much of Europe right now is struggling with xenophobia and a sometimes militant anti-Muslim backlash that is, in part, a legacy of our tendency to associate terrorism with Islam. You are, of course, absolutely right: terrorism is not the sole property of any given religion, creed, ideology, or culture. It's a "way of doing things" that was being practiced long before there was an al-Qaeda.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: I feel a bit guilty because when I read the grave news yesterday, my first thought was "this must be another terror attack by radical Muslims". As it turns out there was another fundamentalist ideology at work. And probably a great deal of insanity to boot, but that always seems to be the case when it comes to extremism. I don't think you need to feel guilty -- I suspect that this was a first reaction for many of us, and it certainly was the knee-jerk response of much of the media. We have been conditioned for 10 years or more by the rhetoric of "the war against terror" to associate terrorism first and sometimes only with Islamic fundamentalism. There's an interesting article -- overstated, but suggestive and thoughtful -- by Glenn Greenwald on this, which Coyote on SCII directed me to: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/23/nyt/index.html It does seem true that it is nearly always one form of fundamentalism or another that is the source of this sort of thing.

Well, in times like this one needs, as you say, a leader who can articulate the feelings of the nation, but also channel them in positive ways. I am very heartened by what I have heard coming from Norwegian leaders, and from the people. Shock, immense sadness, and anger . . but also a determination not to let this destroy the kind of tolerant society that they have built. And that's pretty cool.

I think so too, Ceka. His restraint is particularly admirable given that it was clearly HIS government, HIS party, and probably his own person who were being targeted. This wasn't like 9/11, an indiscrimate attack on civilians. It deliberately targeted the Norwegian Labour Party.

As i recall, there were similar sentiments mouthed by Bush, yes, but also a great deal more bellicose posturing. Norway isn't the USA. I don't mean that as a criticism of America, a nation for which I have the greatest respect, but their traditions and political culture are very different. America is also very open, in its different way, and if it is true that 9/11 changed that, it is also true that there has been no shortage of American voices condemning the movement to a more closed society. Tragedies can bring out the best -- and the worst -- in people, and in nations.

bee, I'd be immensely proud if I were Norwegian today: your country has shown its strength and determination to survive this, and to refuse the temptation to become a more closed society as a result. @Ceka -- and that's why I agree that the PM's statements are so wonderful. Saying "our answer to violence is even more democracy, more humanity" is . . . a pretty wonderful response to a tragedy that could well -- and understandably -- have sponsored a very different reaction.

I just want to express my shock over yesterday's events in Norway, and my solidarity with those in Second Life who are Norwegian, or have been otherwise impacted by this horror. We all mourn with you. I'd like to think that everyone in Second Life is a Norwegian today. "I have a message to whoever attacked us. It's a message from all of Norway. You will not destroy us. You will not destroy our democracy, and our ideals for a better world.... No one will bomb us into silence.... We must never stop standing up for our values. We must show that our open society will pass this test as well, and that our answer to violence is even more democracy, more humanity, but not more naiveté."Norwegian Prime MInister Jens Stoltenberg

Well, as I said somewhere above in relation to Jig's case, I'm pretty sure that she was not "advertising" her gallery: it really was just a large part of her personal residence -- in a skybox at that point, I think -- that happened to be given over to displaying art. So I'd say that it would not fall into the "commercial" category. I think LL will always try to deal with merchants, in preference to more general consultations with the SL "public," because merchants are considered important stakeholders who contribute to SL's well-being, and because they represent a smaller and more easily define segment of the SL population. It's also an approach that is entirely in accord with LL's largely laissez-faire approach to the SL economy.

Who knew Jim Morrison was so clever? Of course there aren't hard and fast definitions for sexuality and violence; there never will be. There aren't universally agreed-upon standards and definitions for just about anything, including the definition of life itself. All rules, laws, and social standards, in RL and SL, are always going to be somewhat arbitrary: at best, they can reflect the "dominant" view of any given culture and attempt to apply a generalized and reasonably tolerant solution that will leave as many people comfortable as is possible. This is true of nearly everything to do with governance in RL and SL; it's always about accommodation and compromise. Take the instance of the law. Even a simple crime like robbery may not be black-and-white: that's why we have juries deliberating over and weighing the evidence. Your suggestion seems to be that, because we can't resolve shades of grey to black and white, we should simply leave everything unregulated. How might you apply this same principle to other forms of governance? What constitutes griefing or harassment in SL? Well, there is no absolutely definitive way of determining that: at some point, someone has to make a judgement about each individual case. Does that mean we should simply allow griefing and harassment? The fact that there is little agreement in detail on such things as sex and violence isn't a reason to ignore the views of everyone who does have a view on them: it's a more pressing reason to accommodate those different perspectives as best we can. There are lots of ways to do that, of which a ratings system is but one -- but it's an important one, because it is backed by the threat of sanctions.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: You'll probably remember, back on the RA forum, when Jig's private residence on a Mature sim, which doubled as an art gallery (but which was not advertised) was ARed for "nudity." I've heard of other instances of the same. As I recall, Jig ran into problems precisely because her private residence was also an art gallery (and thus open to the public and not really private) and because the images were photographs of RL models. She thought she was OK because they were images of works by bona fide artists, which had been displayed in RL galleries, but someone at LL didn't agree. This, by the way, is one reason I'm unhappy about any attempt to extend the rating system -- experience shows us that we can't rely on individual Lindens exercising what you and I would regard as common sense in reaching decisions in such matters, any more than we can rely on the automatic word filters in the Marketplace so doing. Well, two points with relation to Jig. There were at least some assurances that "artistic merit" or something like that would be taken into account when applying the mature classification. And I'm pretty certain that Jig didn't "advertise" her gallery -- it was "open," but in no real sense a "public" gallery. And that, as Ceka's comments below imply, should have safeguarded it from an AR, just as a set of sex pose balls in a private residence should be safe. You'll get no argument from me that LL's classification system is poorly defined, and even more poorly policed. But that could be an argument for improving the system, rather than scrapping it.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Or, another possibility? Keep the public pronouncements vague, but make the internal company guidelines more detailed and rigid? Nothing like a tightly-controlled hidden agenda, and a highly flexible set of rules for public conduct, to keep 'em guessing. /me passes some Scylla some extra tinfoil for the new hat. Personally I'm of the belief that the root of most conspiracies is incompetence rather than anything actually going on. Yeah, I'm not really suggesting that LL are that clever. I think incompetence does explain a great deal more. But I'm also pretty certain that LL likes "vague," or at least has in the past. They really don't like to be nailed down on definitions.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: A couple of people have said here that large companies as well as governments like a lack of clarity and to be able to play fast and loose with policy. I'd wager the exact opposite. Vaguery means some of your employees act inconsistent with the company mission / image. Likewise in governments - vagueness leads to having to sort out and waste time on, more court cases - so courts spend a lot of time trying to reduce the vagueness of incompetent legislatures (since at least in the USA, there is no educational requirement to be a legislator, they spin out a lot of vague, useless, and sometimes downright incorrect with higher law crap). The recent posting of the knowledge base's writing guidelines shows an opposite spin from LLs - a detailed document designed to -reduce- vagueness. Which makes you wonder if the left hand knows what the right hand is doing around here... Or, another possibility? Keep the public pronouncements vague, but make the internal company guidelines more detailed and rigid? Nothing like a tightly-controlled hidden agenda, and a highly flexible set of rules for public conduct, to keep 'em guessing.

Ceka Cianci wrote: it is very confusing if we look at it from a private residents point of view..because all three definitions are telling those that wish to open a business or have a business or something that is for public use..look here to see where you fit in.. and if you are not sure..you better check to make sure you are not operating like one of these or you will get a rating of one of these or moved if we find out you are and are doing it in the wrong place heheheh .. in other words private residents and their private homes don't fall under the ratings defenitions. nothing has changed from what it was before for private residents.. we could never be nude or have sex on General lands..it's always been disney.. You'll probably remember, back on the RA forum, when Jig's private residence on a Mature sim, which doubled as an art gallery (but which was not advertised) was ARed for "nudity." I've heard of other instances of the same. What is most worrisome, I think, about the way in which they've retired the wiki entry, and mothballed the discussions with Blondin, is that it was there that the important information about how the ratings changes would affect private citizens were worked out, and made public. If one were ARed for having sex in one's own residence in a mature sim, or indeed even in engaging in BDSM, one could point (however futilely, perhaps) to Blondin's public assurance that, as you say, the ratings system was primarily about the marketplace and advertising, and that they did not, in M regions anyway, apply to private content and behaviours that were kept behind closed doors. So, I think that the changes that Pussycat has noted are worrisome. I don't know that they represent a "real" change in LL policy towards private behaviours and content, but I do think that they return us, at least potentially, to the uncertainty that we were facing in the run-up to the introduction of Zindra and AO.

Deltango Vale wrote: "Sex" and "Violence" -- and "bad language," which is also part of LL's rating system -- have been determined by LL, and by our culture" ---------------------------------- Whose culture? Who do you mean by 'our'? In Vietnam, 90% of the population is Buddhist, 95% is ethnically Vietnamese, 100% speak Vietnamese. In the league tables of cultural coherence and homogeneity, Vietnam, population 80 million, ranks one of the highest countries on Earth. The social norms are clearly defined and understood by everyone who lives there. Second life is a virtual world with residents from 200 countries and 1000 cultures. It is heterogeneous, pluralistic. Moreover, it is a voluntary world, meaning one has to actually make an effort to live here. None of us was born in SL. None of us suddenly woke up in SL against our will. There is no 'our' here other than we came to SL voluntarily. Having said that, there are tens of thousands of self-selecting communities in SL. There are tens of thousands of 'ours' here. Applying some kind of universal social rating system is purely arbitrary. You have no problem with nudity and sexuality. You don't think SL should be partitioned based on sexual preferences. Yet you do have a problem with violence. Meanwhile there are plenty of people in SL who have no problem with violence, but a big problem with sexuality. Can you not see the infinite tangled web that forces us all to be tolerant of others whether we like it or not? Someone once said that the two great themes of all literature were sex and death. I'd have absolutely no problem -- without even venturing out into the RL media, where these issues are continually debated -- finding for you dozens, no, wait, hundreds or maybe even thousands, of people in SL who are concerned one way or another, and for one reason or another, about representations of sexuality and/or violence. Some of them post right here in this forum. How many people do you think you could find who are equally concerned about big houses and little houses? About displaying public affection? How would those numbers compare with those who feel uncomfortable with one or both of sex and violence? There are elements of your cultural relativism which I find quite attractive, actually -- but it is simply silly to argue that sex and violence are not the two biggest red flags in SL, or indeed in just about any RL culture you want to name. Other cultural differences and flashpoints pale in comparison. I think you may have missed the point of my discussion of my own attitudes towards sex and violence. I did not in fact say that I didn't think that SL should not be partitioned on the basis of sexuality; quite the opposite in fact. I said that, while my PERSONAL preference was for open sexuality, I respected the rights of those who wouldn't want to be exposed to what I, personally, find ok. That's why, despite being unoffended by open sexuality, I still support the maintenance of a rating system that takes into account attitudes towards sexuality. People have every right to be offended by things that don't offend me, and they have the right to have that sensibility taken into account. Finally, and maybe most importantly, I think you are labouring under the misapprehension that your own attitudes -- that both sex and violence should be unrestricted in their representation within SL -- are "value neutral." You present this perspective as though it represented some sort of reasonable compromise: "Well, we can't accommodate everyone's values, so we won't even try." In point of fact, what you are accommodating is YOUR particular set of values, at the expense of everyone who feels differently. There is no such thing as a "neutral" set of values: yours, laissez-faire though they may be, represent a particular slant, a particular perspective, and a particular attitude that would impose itself on other people every bit as much as any other set of values. It's like suggesting that free market capitalism is somehow more "natural" and "neutral" because it does away with government intervention; in fact, of course, it has its own rules, and is every bit as much ideologically-driven as any other economic system. So what you are really saying is, "Well, we can't accommodate everyone's values, so you'd better just abide by mine." Just about the only advantage that your proposed solution has is that it requires Linden Lab and ourselves to do nothing . . . except of course when we find ourselves having to hold our noses and TP out in a hurry when we find ourselves unwilling exposed to something that we find nasty and offensive.

Oh Ceka . . . I am truly sorry. :-( I'm not here consistently . . . I sort of pop by and post when I've got a few minutes to spare, so I miss stuff. I nearly missed Del's post too. Please accept my apologies.

Deltango Vale wrote: Scylla, you personally don't like certain things, but other people have different sets of likes and dislikes. What you consider normal may be offensive to others. What you consider offensive may be normal to others. You happen to be sympathetic to orange. Perhaps Dogboat is a green. Maybe Carol is a blue. Prok might be a violet. Is it really so difficult to stand back from the spectrum and see how each color believes it alone is unique while being but one subset of the whole? You analogy is an interesting one, Del, and I think it highlights why we DO need different places for different sensibilities, rather than the opposite. As for the categories of sex and violence, I didn't make those up. The former, frankly, doesn't bother me at all. "Sex" and "Violence" -- and "bad language," which is also part of LL's rating system -- have been determined by LL, and by our culture, to be key things that people can sometimes find "offensive." I'm not arguing here for my vision of what should be "acceptable." If my personal predilections were the criteria, SL would have only one classification: it would allow for very liberal sexuality, and no extreme violence. Far from saying that everyone should abide by my personal preferences, I'm arguing that we need, to the best of our abilities, to be sensitive to those things that the most people find the most offensive. And again, it has been determined by societies, governments, and software corporations that those things are "sex" and "violence."

Um . . . you haven't actually read the OP for this thread, have you Ceka? Pussycat isn't desperately seeking an answer to where to find the best hair, or how to unpack that box she just bought: she raised an issue regarding changes to the ratings system. She did so to generate discussion. There isn't a single question mark in her OP. In any case, if short and sweet answers are what an OP wants, he or she would be better to post next door, at that place called, surprisingly . . . "SL Answers." This place, on the other hand, is called "General Discussion." We have discussions here. And by "agenda," you don't perhaps mean "opinion," do you?

Yikes, this is starting to get epic. Gavin Hird wrote: I woven response to some of your comments into the text below. In blue .Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Thanks, Gavin, for the very comprehensive reply. Gavin Hird wrote:I'm not going to generalize my response to be representative for the land owners in Zindra, so let me give my own take on some of the questions you asked. I am seeing these issues through the lens of a Scandinavian person, and let's face it, Scandinavia and Europe has very different views on sex, nudity and violence than the CA (legal) centric view SecondLife's maturity rating is based on. This makes SecondLife overly restrictive and less attractive to an European audience (about 380 million people in the union.) I would agree, generally, that you are probably correct about this, although I'd point out that the UK is at least as uptight as North America about these things. I certainly buy that Continental Europeans are more open about sexuality; it is really true that they are also more tolerant of violence? Less tolerant for violence in general, but this may vary quite a bit per country. The thing to keep in mind here is that large sections of Europe were up till recently under quite opressive regimes and that will color their views. i'm sure you're right. In terms of sexuality, certainly, my own attitudes -- and that of most urban Canadians, anyway -- is probably more European than American. Women can be topless in public, for instance, in Ontario. The demography of SecondLife is a majority of 40+ people. There are relatively few teens and young people in here. Per date there is not supposed to be any children. Hence, the need to protect children is virtually non-existant. Also the majority of SL residents have seen a nipple before and are aware of most kinks, so they can effectively avoid them. They usually have the sense to pull out of a situation they find uncomfortable. I don't think that this is about "protecting" children . . . or indeed "protecting" anyone. It's about giving people the tools they need to ensure that they are only exposed to materials with which they are not uncomfortable. Yes, people usually have the sense to pull out when they see something that upsets them -- but that doesn't mean that they haven't already been upset. We need tools that ensure that people don't have to actually see that bloodstained Dolcett butcher's block in order to know to avoid it. They should have a way of knowing in advance that they ought to avoid places that contain content that will disturb them. Two ways to handle this; a) the obvious is to filter out content that you find objectionable in search, meaning the risk of teleporting to it is significantly reduced. b) the second is to give visial clues in the viewer when you enter areas that has been zoned for adult or violent content. Works for me. I think the latter is pretty important, and I'd still like to see a warning come up mid-TP if that was feasible, allowing someone to cancel. I do'nt believe in gettofication (Zindra), but I believe in sensible zoning of land like we manage to do in the real world. It would be natural that a city like Bay City had a district that was more adult than the city center and the residential areas for instance. I generally agree . . . I don't know that separate continents are really necessary, and as a general rule, I don't like ghettoizing or segregating the different cultures of SL more than in necessary to ensure a comfortable experience for everyone. My only concerns about zoning are a) that there has to be some easy way of making it clear to people when they are moving from one class of zone to another, so that they don't "discover" that they've wandered into adult after they already been exposed to things they don't want to see, and b) you need to find some way of making sure that the content from one zone is not visible in a neighbouring parcel that is more restrictively zoned. There's no point in being in a "G" rated zone if the 10m x 5m porn pic next door is looming over you. This is where sensible zoning comes in. The viewer does not allow a bigger draw distance than 512 meters, or across 2 full sims. By buffering two full sims between a G region and an area designated adult or violent you would not be able to cam from G to these areas. I feel it makes more business sense to have a G only continent for those who want pure play if I can use that word. Again, sounds good. I don't object to a G only continent anymore than I do to Zindra; it's half a dozen of one and six of another as far as I'm concerned. I have advocated an adult tab in the profiles where people can stash away their adult things and share them with other people who have interest in it. An excellent idea. I concur entirely. What would work best is if one could set one's preferences so that the "Adult" tab wasn't even available if one so chose. Technically available, but not visible to anyone, including the profile owner, unless they preferred so. Ok. I believe 2 maturity ratings for land will do. G and M. M meaning 18+ access only. Here, again, I disagree. Sex and violence are not the same thing, and one can be offended by one and not the other. And I really dislike the implicit message LL sends about the nature of sexuality by its conflation of these two. They are not the same thing, and I believe the adult community kinda balks on this because they believe it will make it more complicated for them to sell or experience what you can call consensual sexualized violence. At the other end of the scale is pure combat roleplay, fighting, wrestling and such. The thing is that the borders here are blurring – particularly when it comes to role play. Currently we already have combat sims, sims with push and damage enabled and so on. A good example might be a prison roleplay that can contain elements spanning the full range. Again sensible zoning would apply. I think that "sensible" is indeed the key word here. Shooting zombies or mud wrestling is not the same as the simulation of torture. All of this would require some actual effort on the part of LL to implement, but it is possible to be produce some sensible distinctions -- and put in place an appeals process to deal with anomalies -- if there is a will to do so.

Innula Zenovka wrote: How are you suggesting these categories be defined? I'm worried it's going to be more trouble than it's worth because I suspect that anyone providing any sort of BDSM content would need to flag their place as "V" just to avoid any danger of ARs, which would make the categorisation pretty meaningless in that I'd think any sane person wandering round Zindra who happened upon a BDSM establishment would probably feel rather let-down if there weren't whips and chains featuring in the proceedings somewhere. They wouldn't need warning about it. Yeah, I well remember the handwringing and worries that merchants experienced about split markets and so forth when Zindra and AO was first proposed. I will readily grant that it poses some difficulties, and possibly hardships. I remain pretty certain, however, that just because the current classification system kind of sucks doesn't mean that we can't design one that works better, and that doesn't create the kinds of problems that you suggest here. It might well mean making some fine distinctions between things like whips or ball gags on the one hand, and snuff or rape animations on the other. Again, we manage this in RL: a sword, whip, collar, or something similar wouldn't be classified as "Adult" in RL, while an instrument of torture might. For that matter, personally, I don't have problems with a mature rating for a store that stocks -- but does not allow the USE of -- some reasonably "violent" tools. I wouldn't bother putting a store that sells a St. Andrew's Cross in "Adult," for instance. In the final analysis, however, I do continue to think that a ratings system is still very much "worth the bother." Innula Zenovka wrote: As to your point about, Has it, for instance, not occurred to you that for some people images of extreme violence or sexual violence might be triggering? There may be all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with mere "squeamishness" that might dictate why people don't want to be exposed to simulations and images of sexuality and/or violence: religious, moral, personal . . . who are you to say that they should just "suck it up"? what, in your experience, on earth do people expect to find in somewhere that advertises itself as a BDSM club or shop and what are they doing there in the first place if they find it distressing? Agreed: something that is that clearly labelled, employing a well known term like BDSM (although I have met people who aren't familiar with even that) isn't the issue. Someone who wanders into "Betty's Bondage Delights" is probably not doing it by "accident." But there is no shortage of other places on Zindra or even the private estates, that are not so clearly labelled. There are lots of sex clubs, for instance, that have BDSM animations available, but that provide no indication that they are "BDSM clubs" -- probably in most cases because they don't think of themselves as BDSM clubs.

BettyBoop String wrote: Further, to make an automatic assumption that BDSM is about violence, shows little comprehension and is about as valid is saying anyone that doesn't have kinky sex must go to church every Sunday. I do love this kind of reductive attack on my arguments. Who said that BDSM is "about" violence? I didn't. I don't think that it is "about violence." But I do think that it (as opposed to D/s) generally employs forms of violence, ranging from restraints to cutting. Let's breakdown the words signified by the term, shall we? B = Bondage D = Domination S = Submission or Sadism M = Masochism. At least two of those terms explicitly involve forms of violence. When I am speaking about forms of domination and submission that don't necessarily involve forms of violence, I employ the term "D/s" instead. I have all sorts of ideological objections to D/s myself, but I don't think that it necessarily involves violence, and I didn't discuss it in my posts because we are talking about . . . violence. And please don't cavil that it "isn't violence if it's consensual." If violence isn't PC enough for you, please feel free to suggest an alternate term that still signifies the use of forcible restraint and/or the inflicting of pain (however "pleasurable" and welcome that pain may be). So far as I'm concerned, however, this is semantics: you can call it what you want, but hitting someone with a whip, whether he or she is begging for it or not, is still violence.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: 2) One doesn't need to blindly teleport around to bump into violent stuff. I rarely do this, in fact: I wander, physically walking (or sometimes scootering, where possible). Are you suggesting that those who don't wish to be exposed to violent materials should avoid roaming Zindra for fear of running across something they find objectionable? And again I'll ask, because I still have not received an answer: Why is providing people with choice, and with the information necessary to make an informed choice, not a good thing????? I'd also like to know, frankly, why you and other landowners on Zindra really object to classification. Do you feel it stigmatizes or ghettoizes you? What's really behind this opposition to classification. Please don't tell me that it's "too difficult": ratings for movies, video games, zoning laws in RL, and a host of other examples suggest that it's actually quite possible to produce workable ratings. I don't know how it works in Canada, but here in the UK the only information available to me about a movie is the broad rating classification; unless do a bit of research I look it up in imdb or read a review, I've got no way of knowing why it's gained an 18 certificate, for example. I object to further complicating classifications in SL because, in my experience, they're more trouble than they're worth. I'd almost certainly have to flag my shops and sim as V, I guess, because we've got BDSM toys about, and some people may well think that whips and chains fall into the V category, though I don't really think of our shops or my sim as violent places. Nevertheless, I'd thus flag them so I didn't have worry about some busybody ARing me because I hadn't, even though I take the view that anyone seeing that we sell BDSM toys might reasonably expect whips and chains to enter into the proceedings at some point, and then have to waste time chasing off people who want to get more violent than I'm happy with. In general, though, my advice to anyone roaming round Zindra who happens to encounter material with which they are uncomfortable is to do what I do when I find myself in similar circumstances: May I humbly submit that the reason that you find classifications "more trouble than they're worth" is because a) exposure to sex and/or violence happens not to bother you, personally, and b) because it personally inconveniences you, as a business owner. Not everyone shares your feelings or priorities in this regard. And frankly, it's not very helpful to suggest that people just "toughen up" and "put on their big girl panties." Personally, I've been wearing big girl panties for some time, thank you very much: there isn't a heck of a lot in the way of representations of sex and violence in SL that I haven't seen . . . or tried. But it seems to me rather arrogant to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't be able to "handle." Has it, for instance, not occurred to you that for some people images of extreme violence or sexual violence might be triggering? There may be all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with mere "squeamishness" that might dictate why people don't want to be exposed to simulations and images of sexuality and/or violence: religious, moral, personal . . . who are you to say that they should just "suck it up"?