Scylla Rhiadra

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: I'd also like to see depictions of consensual sex moved back into "M," so someone seeking a "vanilla" experience (i.e., one not involving instruments of torture, degredation, or murder and the like) isn't exposed to representations of violence. But as we North Americans seem to be far more horrified by sexuality than by violence (much of which is still permitted in "M" areas), I guess that isn't going to happen.  I'd prefer the addition of a 'V' rating for violent. A for 'teh sexxors' and V for the whips and chains. - Though I guess then we'd be arguing over where the BDSM folks fall... I'd probably be ok with this suggestion. Except that "V" might have to be a separate kind of rating, or you'd have BDSM dungeons next to combat sims. And we all know how much soldiers hate sex.

Del, personally I agree with you entirely about sexual hang ups. I don't particularly "want" to run across people going at it all over the place, but neither would it much bother me. That's why I suggested that representations of consensual sexual practices be permitted again in "M" areas. So, assuming that happened . . . would you then take issue with those who get turned off by violence? Is it equally "silly" to be nauseated or disturbed by animations depicting gutting, garroting, throat-slitting, or rape? Should we all just take a deep breath and realize that these too are just part of the "human experience"? And I'll say it again, because I don't think you really answered it: what is wrong about giving people choices? No one here is talking about banning different forms of sexuality -- sex is no more "ghettoized" in Zindra than "prudery" (to use a loaded term) is being "ghettoized" in PG areas. It seems to me a bit arrogant to decide that because you -- and I -- are cool about sexuality, others must be "educated" through forced exposure into a similar attitude. Real tolerance, surely, is providing a place where everyone can feel "safe" and at home.

Well, LL would have loved to keep this whole issue in the domain of the marketplace, and certainly their laughingly-termed "consultation" process involved only a select handful of tame merchants, educators, and . . . well, who knows? The names were never publicized. It was a small, select "elite" crowd. But what became very clear early on is that the impact of this went far beyond stores and Xstreet listings. Art galleries in Mature land were ARed for "nudity," and there was a lot of very real anxiety about what sorts of behaviours were permitted where. An awful lot of what was addressed at office hours at that time focused on the merchants, because they had the loudest voices, and the biggest "stake," but read the forums from that time, and you'll get a broader picture. I'm afraid that, while I agree that there are immense difficulties in clearly categorizing content, I have to disagree with Del that categories should simply be abandoned. The world isn't easy divisible between those who are "disnifeyed" and those who don't mind tripping over blood-stained St. Andrews Crosses: there are lots of shades in between, and any reasonable society has to make some effort to accommodate that -- just as in RL. The difficulty of categorizing hasn't prevented my RL government from effectively preventing strip clubs from opening up next door to me, nor are there really immense problems with keeping people from having sex on their front lawns where I live. What is needed is a recognizable system that is transparent, fair, and non-arbitrary. Additionally, there is something rather dismissive and contemptuous about the "let them have their own grid" attitude that entirely belittles the real contributions that people who prefer PG actually make to SL. We are all stronger and more interesting for diversity. I don't want to hang with JUST the PG crowd, or JUST the Adult crowd, and I want SL to reflect the variety of both.

Sassy Romano wrote: Scylla Rhiadra wrote: @sassy: There are a great many people who are neither teens nor prudes who would like experiences that fall between "G" and "Adult." As in RL, I don't want much to hang out in a community run by the Moral Majority, but I also don't necessarily want to be living next door to a BDSM dungeon.  When we just had two classifcations, where did you live? I'm not seeking confrontation, just asking. They added "adult" after several years, how was it before then? After adding adult, M tended towards confusion. A is the new M. M is the new G for adults and G is the teen grid. That's how I see it anyway. Well, I "lived" and explored mostly in Mature, which generally served my needs. But I frequently found myself annoyed at exploring what I thought was a "medieval" sim, only to stumble across BDSM or Gorean dungeons. Or watching a porn palace, with easily observable large-format RL photos, moving in next door to my favourite hangout. I'd agree that the current system fosters confusion: hence my criticism of it, above. But the principle of giving people more choice in the kinds of experience they have in SL is a good one. How could providing choice not be?

The original wiki page and resident discussions with Blondin obviously contained too much clarity. Those responsible for governance, whether political or corporate, will almost always prefer fuzziness and vagueness over clarity, as the former allows them more lattitude and freedom of action. I'd certainly like to see an awful lot more clarity in the description of "M," which seems largely to be defined negatively -- i.e., it is not "A" or "G." (I still think that "Adult" is a pretty hilarious misnomer to describe the sorts of things that characteristically go on in "Adult" areas . . . :matte-motes-oh-rly:) I'd also like to see depictions of consensual sex moved back into "M," so someone seeking a "vanilla" experience (i.e., one not involving instruments of torture, degredation, or murder and the like) isn't exposed to representations of violence. But as we North Americans seem to be far more horrified by sexuality than by violence (much of which is still permitted in "M" areas), I guess that isn't going to happen. @sassy: There are a great many people who are neither teens nor prudes who would like experiences that fall between "G" and "Adult." As in RL, I don't want much to hang out in a community run by the Moral Majority, but I also don't necessarily want to be living next door to a BDSM dungeon. 

Del, with the greatest respect . . . how about applying a bit of sensitivity on this subject when addressing someone who says she's been raped in real life?

Mayalily wrote: I just activated my adult account and now I'm not so sure what I am going to encounter. Am I safe from these rape sims? And, are the rapists put in jail to simulate what is going to happen to them in RL? ETA: Is there a way to block these rape sims and the rapists involved in this kind of thing? I don't even want them near me period. Hi Mayalily I can actually provide you with far more information on these places than you are likely to want -- and I'll send you a PM about them later, when I have more time. In the meantime, I'll just quickly answer a few of your questions 1) There is no simple way to "block" sims that feature rape RP or other representations of sexual violence, short of unchecking the "Adult" option on Search and in your viewer, One of the problems with the way in which the Adult category was defined by LL is that no distinction is made between representations of consensual sexual activity, and those that depict sexual violence, so you can, in both theory and practice, trip across rape pose balls and associated content just about anywhere that is designated "Adult." Fortunately, most places that specialize in this sort of thing will actually use "rape" or "forced sex" in their keywords and descriptions, so just make sure you read this before you go to any "Adult" site. Most places that specialize in this kind of thing will also issue you with a warning when you first arrive. Other places, however, may simply have a few "rape" pose balls lying around. Otherwise, you are always going to be "safe" from them, in the sense that any kind of RP involving the simulation of sexual violence has to be consensual to be permissible in SL. In other words, if someone "tricks" you somehow into a sexual situation (through animations, scripts, or even just IM) with which you are uncomfortable, you can lodge an AR against them. Properly speaking, if it isn't consensual, it is "griefing," and against the ToS. There are no other kinds of consequences from going to a rape sim or similar, other than being inadvertently exposed to distasteful content and, unfortunately, often distasteful people. You will always be able to TP away once you have determined that it is such a place. 2) Many places that specialize in rape RP also specialize in depicting the kind of environment where (in their very narrow view) "rape" is most likely to occur: i.e., run-down urban areas, college/university campuses, or post-apocalyptic environments. One of the key problems with rape RP is that it almost never, that I've ever seen, depicts consequences -- for the victim, or the rapist. What is more, with some exceptions (and there are some), rape is generally role played in a way that suggests that it is "frightening" to the victim at first . . . and then gradually becomes more pleasurable. In other words, the RP often does a very good job of representing common "rape myths," such as the idea that women really "want it," or find rape "sexy" and "arousing." I've known of one or two role players who RP rape more "realistically," but this tends to be rare as only the most disturbed individuals would likely to find the utter terror and psychological damage that rape actually inflicts "fun" or a turn on. So, if there are "jails" for rapists, you can be sure that they are actually rape sims themselves, and not reflecting the consequences of actual rape. This is the thing: rape RP, along with snuff (which involves torturing and killing your victim) and vore (which involves killing and eating your victim) ARE NOT PROHIBITED by the SL ToS. So awareness and avoidance are all you can really do. Please do not allow the existence of such places, horrible though you may find them, to cramp your own expression of your sexuality, or anything else that you enjoy doing in SL. In practice, such places are not that hard to avoid.

Incidentally, Griffin . . . I think we may gain some insight into Love's dislike of the ToS and ARIng from some of the groups listed in his public profile. I direct your attention to the first of his listed groups in particular. https://my.secondlife.com/love.leonoase/groups (Please note that this is material that is available on the web, through SL's own web site, to anyone with a SL account. I am not "disclosing" any information that Love has not himself chosen to leave publicly visible, or that LL has not chosen to leave available and visible on the web.) ETA: Oh yes, and definitely NSFW. I might suggest you have a barf bag available as well.

I suppose that rather depends on how one defines "griefing." We did not harrass individuals there; the only ones we engaged at all with, in fact, were those who chose to address us, and our engagement was limited to public chat (which has been published somewhere or another, btw). We didn't interfere in any way with the operations of the sim; in fact, as the owner told me, we added to their traffic numbers. And that's fine: we weren't there to shut the place down. We were there to ask questions. The point, I guess, is that we didn't break the ToS ourselves. In such cases, a sim owner has the option of applying his own sanctions, through ejections and bans. And that is exactly what happened -- after close to an hour of us being there. The owner didn't feel strongly enough to keep those bans in place -- I've been back many times since, and was, as I said, even invited by the owner to return. And, if I recall somewhere -- maybe even in the comments to one of those two articles -- he refused to classify it as a "griefing" himself. So, is it "griefing" merely if you are doing something the sim owner doesn't like? Maybe, or maybe not. But, even if it's not against the ToS, the sim owner has tools in place to deal with it.

Actually, now I think about it . . . when the JLU wiki was hacked and published a year or so ago, it was revealed that they had had some discussion over whether I was or was not a "griefer" for leading that protest. Their conclusion, as I recall, was that what we had done was "technically" griefing (although I'm not clear what we did that could be said to violate the ToS), but that it was "well-intentioned" and not worth pursuing.

Well, unless one is going to be accused of sexual age play or being underage, the threat of a false AR should hardly bother one very much. Even in the former instances, LL does investigate before acting on ARs, and there is really very little to fear (most of the time) unless one has said or done something stupid or ill-considered. And one CAN get nailed for filing false ARs. Someone who gratuituously threatens to file an AR is likely to be stupid, annoying, and drama-prone, but he or she doesn't constitute a real threat, nor need it reflect poorly on the system itself, which the vast majority of the time is capable of sorting out the legitimate from the specious. As for the protests -- I am fairly active in feminist groups in-world. One of our mandates is to both critique and generate discussion about depictions of violence against women in Second Life; accordingly, about a year and a half ago (and as part of the international "16 Days against Gender Violence"), we held a protest -- really, a kind of information picket -- at the rape sim Hard Alley. We had, at various times over the course of about an hour there, between 30 to 40 participants, I think. It was a very interesting, and ultimately worthwhile endeavour. We weren't there to "grief" (we have a pretty rigorous written code of conduct for protesters): we basically carried signs, shouted slogans, and engaged in discussion and/or debate with anyone there willing to do so. So far as I know, no ARs were filed against any of us, and although we were eventually ejected, we weren't permanently banned. (In fact, the sim owner has invited me back.) Particularly gratifying was the fact that a few of the people we engaged with at the sim actually followed us when we left, and continued discussions on our own sim. It was all very civilized, really . . . http://alphavilleherald.com/2009/11/hard-alley-protestors-issue-press-release.html http://alphavilleherald.com/2009/11/a-view-from-the-back-the-hard-alley-protest.html

So, how big a problem is this "harassment by AR" thing, really? I've been pretty active in Second Life now very nearly 3 years. I've owned a home, and for 2 1/2 years I've been a small business owner. I've written extensively in a number of SL forums and blogs, and run several of my own. I think it's probably fair to say that I am reasonably outspoken, and my views frequently contentious. I've created in-world exhibits that critiqued certain popular forms of RP and behaviours, and I've led in-world protests at sims that featured these. i've spent a fair amount of time at places in SL that might be described as . . . dodgy. And I've been banned from a number of places, some of which I've never even visited . . . . . . but I have never, to my recollection, been threatened with an AR. Now, it's entirely possible I've had hundreds filed against me, but I have not once, ever, been warned or disciplined by LL. To me, that seems to suggest that the system works pretty well. Or, I dunno, maybe it's just my naturally sunny disposition and adorable smile? :matte-motes-wink-tongue: So, while I am not going to deny that people have been subject to this kind of harassment, I really have to wonder how common it is. And what one has to do, where one has to go, or whom one must consort with to be subject to this? Which does bring us back to Griffin's question: what kinds of behaviour was the OP being threatened over?

Lia Abbot wrote: /me rolls my eyes. Help? This lot? /me gets out my oven cleaner and rolls up my sleeves. /me grins at Lia . . . and passes her a scrubby.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Anyway, I believe the OPs original intent, was to point at the way the system can be abused. Certainly there are times when it's completely appropriate to AR someone, but there are some people that use the system to get back at people they don't like for some reason or who use the threat of an AR to bully people into doing what they want. Surely you're not advocating this behavior... baseless ARs can clog the system making it all the more difficult for the oh so smart Lindens to get to the real problems. The original OP is not new to this discussion: this is an issue that he brought up, on a number of occasions, in the old pre-Lithium GD forum, where he made it abundantly clear that it is not merely abuses of the AR system, but virtually any use of it, that he objected to. If the point of the OP here is that people are abusing the threat of AR to harass people, he hasn't expressed that very clearly. It is, in any case, a rather unnecessary point: is there anyone here likely to argue that using the threat of an abuse report to intimidate or harass is a good thing? As it is, the OP seems to me to be clearly opposed to any use of the AR: "In a virtual world, where you can easily mute and TP away from people (or ban them if it's your own land), what in the world is the need to issue a "report" to Linden Labs?" The OP also speaks of "playing the AR card," language that deliberately parallels criticisms of those who "play" the "race card," or the "gender card," It is in practice coded language that implies that any consideration of race, gender, sexuality, or, in this case, the AR system is somehow "illegitimate" and "unfair." If the OP believes that there are legitimate uses of the AR, he has had plenty of opportunity, and been asked many times, to make that clear. He has not merely not done so: he has consciously and transparently ducked the question everytime it was asked. Setekh is essentially correct. The AR system in SL is, of course, imperfect, and like any system, it can be subject to abuse. The reason that I like the general principle that it embodies, problems (most notably, a lack of transparency) notwithstanding, is that it is effectively "policed" by the community as a whole. LL doesn't search the grid for violations: it lets residents determine for themselves whether something violates the ToS. In practice, of course, this means that individual residents can try to exploit it, but it also means that we get some say in the interpretation of those fuzzy guidelines. This seems to me better than relying upon top-down pro-active enforcement by LL itself. At the same time, LL does investigate and judge individual cases. There are unquestionably bad decisions and inconsistencies, but on the whole I think that LL does a good job of this. In practice, this means that harassing and abusive ARs seldom have any impact on the intended victim at all: in fact, they may not even know they have been filed. The exception, and one that LL clearly should address, are those ARs that involve particularly sensitive issues, such as underage residents or sexual age play: I agree that LL is a bit trigger-happy when it comes to those. To the OP, who is clearly unhappy with any kind of infringement of his "right" to be an abuser, jerk, or whatever, I would suggest he apply a variant of his own advice to those unhappy with what they witness in Second Life. Ban, Mute, TP away . . . and Uninstall Perhaps he can find another virtual sandbox that doesn't care about whether its customers are subject to abuse or not.

*facepalms* You know, you'd think that with all of this attention from two guys and one chick, at least one of them would have offered to clean the oven for me.

Well, I don't want to seem to be haranguing or harassing you, Love. Cuz, see, that would be against the ToS, and you could AR me for it! :matte-motes-big-grin: You seem to have a problem giving me a straight answer to my questions. That's cool, I suppose, if you need time to think about it. If you DO get a chance at some point, I'd really like to hear which of these violations of the ToS is giving you such a hard time. (It's not ALL of them, is it?) Which of these do you think shouldn't be subject to the ToS, and ARable. Which of these do you think is "ok"? 1) Sexual Age Play 2) Racist behaviour and language 3) Deliberate fraud 4) Nonconsensual abusive language and behaviour Hey. It wasn't one or more of these that led to someone threatening to AR you, was it?

Geez, Love. Your failure to respond is getting me a little worried. All four of the things I've listed are pretty explicitly against the ToS -- that thing that you agreed to when you joined SL -- and have resulted in disciplinary action from LL in the past. Given that you explicitly agreed to the ToS, these should really be pretty easy to answer, I'd have thought. I mean, all of them are violations of the ToS, and so definitely the legitimate subject of ARs . . . in LL's view anyway. Is it that you are having some problem agreeing that these are abuses now? And what about Griffin's question, btw? What exactly have people been threatening you about? Just don't want to make the mistake of jumping to conclusions about what you mean, Love.

In addition to what Venus says above, I'd like to point out that I haven't really had anything to say about what I think you are like, or what you "mean." I've merely asked you some questions, in the hope that I'll understand you better. Here they are again, btw. Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable? 1) Sexual Age Play? Yes or no? 2) Racism, either in language or through role play? Yes or no? 3) Deliberate fraud? Yes or no? 4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour? Yes or no? Is there anything that you DO think is ARable? 

Love Leonoase wrote: I think my OP was pretty clear, and NO, you did not ask me what I meant, you concocted this wild notion of what you THINK I meant (in addition to making other presumptions about me). Perhaps you can issue an AR report based on your mind-reading abilities about me, and what I am apparently thinking? Just a suggestion. Well, the fact that Griffin, I, and other people here have had to ask you to be more specific would suggest that your OP is not, in fact, very clear. However, if it was so clear that you've already expressed what you mean -- and we're just too darned stupid to get it -- I'm sure you'll have no objections to answering my questions. Or Griffin's. I mean, it's not like you have anything to hide, right? So, here they are once again, to save you the trouble of flipping back. Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable? 1) Sexual Age Play? Yes or no? 2) Racism, either in language or through role play? Yes or no? 3) Deliberate fraud? Yes or no? 4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour? Yes or no? Is there anything that you DO think is ARable? Just want to avoid that horrible "mind reading" thing Love. Please help me and elaborate on your meaning? Thanks! :matte-motes-smile:

Love Leonoase wrote: So you are actually spending your time, right now, talking about that you are offended, because someone suggested "maturity", and to the point that you have even concocted these wild notions of what I supposedly REALLY MEANT, instead of simply being the case where a suggestion was made that people should actually just act like adults, and simply hit the MUTE button or walk (or teleport) away, if they are really "offended" by another person, in Second Life - I rest my case. Actually, I've asked you very directly 'what you mean." And, surprise surprise, you have once again dodged the questions. Let me put them to you again: Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable? 1) Sexual Age Play? Yes or no? 2) Racism, either in language or through role play? Yes or no? 3) Deliberate fraud? Yes or no? 4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour? Yes or no?  See? Just answer these directly, and I'll have no need to mind-read. Or, again, you could answer Griffin's question.

ACK!!!! No you don't. Except for the hunky bare-chested thing, of course. And I've actually spoken to Dres in-world. And he didn't call me out on his blog. And, and, and . . . Dres posted right after my first post on this thread, so I think that's why. *facepalms in shame and humiliation, and wonders if she should just shut up now*

LOL. Sorry Griffin. That'll teach me not to double-check.

Love Leonoase wrote: And what exactly is "harmless consensual goofiness"? That's pretty subjective, I think. After all, is it "consensual" to say HELLO to somebody? No, so we need people who think that they are fit to make judgments and determinations about other adults to go around filing nanny reports in an effort to save the SL world. I think that my post, while it takes something of an indirect route to the heart of your OP, is entirely to the point, Love. And I think you know it, or you wouldn't have "wasted" as much time responding to it as you did. So let's get all "subjective" here, shall we? For instance, you seem to find "offensive" the notion that anyone should question your absolute right to do whatever you want to in Second Life. I, on the other hand, find offensive the abuse of the language, and the use of waffle-words like "maturity" to conceal the kinds of behaviours that you think you should be allowed to indulge yourself in, no consequences, no questions asked. (Because those questions, even if asked by a member of the shadow LL G-Team, would be just "subjective," right?) So, "subjectively" speaking, Love, is there anything that you DO think is a legitimate target of an AR? Let's try some concrete examples. I'd put in yes-and-no checkboxes, but this software . . . Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable? 1) Sexual Age Play? Yes or no? 2) Racism, either in language or through role play? Yes or no? 3) Deliberate fraud? Yes or no? 4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour? Yes or no? I think these are all reasonably straight-forward. Please provide a direct answer. Or, you could just answer Griffin's question directly -- you know, the one you keep dodging. The one about the kinds of behaviour for which you have received this kind of threat?

Just a bit of an aside . . . I'm always amused by the way in which we use language to obscure rather than communicate, or to hide rather than reveal. Take for instance that adorable little euphemism, "Adult." It would seem to imply that all activities and content so designated are somehow too sophisticated, too complicated, too "mature" for those under a certain age. I find this particularly ironic, as the vast majority of those things, in RL or SL, that we designate as "Adult" actually require remarkably little in the way of cerebral activity. Google for "Adult" rated materials online, and tell me that they require an IQ level even approaching triple digits, or a maturity level superior to that of the average 14 year old boy. As for SL . . .jumping on a poseball and pretending that you are going to be disciplined by Naughty Nurse Nancy is . . . sophisticated? Mature? "Adult"? i find the use of the word "Mature" in this thread somewhat similar. What "mature" seems to mean here, mostly, is a willingness to completely overlook anything that anyone else is doing, while fervently hoping that no one will hold one responsible for the "Adult" (please see above) things that one is indulging oneself with. How "mature" are we? Well, so mature that we cling desperately to our anonymity because we would die of shame if our activities were ever associated with the "RL" us. None of this is to suggest that people should be ARed, or even threatened with an AR, for harmless consensual goofiness. Really, it's just an observation on our use of obfuscation in language, and our rather pompous over-regard for the inviolability of our god-given right to behave like hormone-crazed teens. :matte-motes-smile:

Qie Niangao wrote: There is, however, a whiff of that repulsive indulgence in this thread. Not that it needs to be expunged or anything, but one hopes it remains as quaintly irrelevant and out-of-place as it is now. Thanks Qie. While it was not my intent to start any drama here, I agree with your comment, and wish, in hindsight, that I hadn't posted it. I don't delete my own posts, but I will accept the admonishment. The last thing I want, truly, is to infect these forums with the kind of personal bashing we had in the past, and this post may have the unintended consequence of doing that.