Dogboat Taurog

Void Singer wrote: age play is banned because it's an illegal behavior, it was actually banned before the announcement, because... oh guess what... it's ILLEGAL... the announcement was just to shut up a US statesperson trying to ride the paranoia train into office (seriously, look up the events of the time)...but it's still a behavior. a land rating is NOT a behavior, it's a filter that says you must be verifired to use this land, it does not state what the land must be used for only what it can be used for, and who can use it. If I wanted I could buy a piece of adult land and install disnieyfied theme park on it, and ban anyone over 5 feet tall or wearing white... my land, my rules... and if someone didn't like it they can go somewhere else. "age play is banned because it's an illegal behavior, it was actually banned before the announcement, because... oh guess what... it's ILLEGAL... the announcement was just to shut up a US statesperson trying to ride the paranoia train into office (seriously, look up the events of the time)...but it's still a behavior." proof please. i know all about land ratings TY, but why should a child avatar be on adult rated land where anything goes? for what reason? what possible justification? i feel you are obfusticating the issue.

Phil Deakins wrote: Melvin Starbrook wrote: I think LL should start making a 3.x viewer... A viewer that looks and works like a 1.x viewer and with the new things on the grid (mesh). I think 2.x is an dead end.. Its there for over a year (almost 2 years) and still not many people are using it because they dont like it... most people love 1.x.. wondering what you think Melvin Wondering what I think? I think that LL will never dare lose face over the V2. They created a poll, in which 95% of people were aginst it but they ignored the people. Knowing that population turns over continually, and that the V2 is the only one offered to new users, they'll press on with it regardless, knowing that there will come a time when it's used by the majority of people. Then they'll claim it as a popular success because most people use it. The bottom line is that LL isn't the slightest interested in what their customers think or want. V2 will become the defacto Viewer by force only. it is slow, clunky and almost feature free by phoenix standards. apart from this proposed Mesh, i cant see any reason for using V2 and i dont think Mesh will be the success many naive people think it will be. as far as im concerned V2 is a slow ugly resource hog. tried them all including kirstens and i hate them all.

if you know the TOS i'm sure you are doing more good than harm by threatening those who transgress it.

Void Singer wrote: except you aren't protecting anything except your own reactionary values based on exaggerated word play and not actual actions or behavior. good luck with that... heavens know you'll need lots of it. LL banned ageplay, you know why, or were they over-reacting based on exaggerated word play and not actual actions or behavior? i'd like LL to go a step further and begin with a ban on child avs in adult designated land. why not? they want to be kids they should be in G rated land, right?

you might want to go back and think about what i said, but its obviously pointless trying to reason with you when you start talking nonsense about chemistry and cakes. in the meantime i will do what i can to protect real children from the perverts in SL, you can do as you wish.

Void Singer wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: i think you are the naive one here, my position is my position and you cant argue with it. you can only at best disagree and that is your prerogative. eta some people dont like the idea of child avatars in adult land, i think its understandable. i dont want to go to a music club on adult land to see child avatars. ill make a deal with you, i wont hang around playgrounds, and child avatars can stay away from adult land. hows that? of course I can argue against it, it's really simple, I state a contrary position... that is the nature of how disagreement works. some people don't like lots of things, and they are welcome not to engage in them. so I'll make you a better deal... if you don't like how a parcel of land is managed, don't go there. vote with your wallet, and your presence, and only support what agrees with your personal tastes, even if you must create it yourself to do it. But going around and trying to inflict your preferences on everyone else and expecting them to cater to your whims isn't going to win you much agreement nor get you what you are after; Not while the other parties aren't doing anything illegal. lol you dont understand do you? you can argue YOUR position thats how it works, however you cant argue mine. and i do vote with my wallet. i will never go to G land again as i said before. meanwhile theres always that little caveat eh? Not while the other parties aren't doing anything illegal... its the only reason that child avs can get banned and the rule was made specifically for child avs. no smoke without fire eh?

Dresden Ceriano wrote: You're right, English is a strange language though... the same could be said for argument. Just saying. ...Dres English is a fine language, American English is strange.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: As much as you've been complaining about things in SL lately, it seems like some could get the impression that you are the one that's unhappy. Now who's being the troll? ...Dres perhaps we should all take a break eh?

Storm Clarence wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: Storm Clarence wrote: @Dres I enjoy you and your posts. As Pep once wrote to me: cool off, 'we' see it for it's worth. It's Dogboat! don't tempt me boy. Boy? But, but I thought you despised child avatars. it was meant to be a humourous reference to that film footage you posted. perhaps you didn't watch it. shrugs.

Void Singer wrote: as has been stated a million times in a million places, child avatars may occupy any type of land there is as long as their account can access it, period. there ARE however limitations in that they can't be engaged or involved in any activities that can ONLY be engaged in on moderate or adult lands. but Dogboats position is naive at best, adult (or even moderate) land rating is not the same as adult or moderate content or activities.... the land owner has the right to set the standards for behavior and content as low as they like, or as high as the land rating allows, along with any special limitation they feel like. Land Rating != Content != Activities unfortunately for the OP, that also means if the land owner doesn't like you, your avatar, the viewer you use, or just feels like being and ass, they can ban you for any reason they see fit, or often none at all if their reasons might run afoul of community standards. when you find places like that feel free to avoid them like the jerks they are and tell all your friends about it too. i think you are the naive one here, my position is my position and you cant argue with it. you can only at best disagree and that is your prerogative. eta some people dont like the idea of child avatars in adult land, i think its understandable. i dont want to go to a music club on adult land to see child avatars. ill make a deal with you, i wont hang around playgrounds, and child avatars can stay away from adult land. hows that?

Storm Clarence wrote: @Dres I enjoy you and your posts. As Pep once wrote to me: cool off, 'we' see it for it's worth. It's Dogboat! don't tempt me boy.

Gabby Handrick wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: Gabby Handrick wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: which is one of the reasons child avatars should be banned, or at least banned from Adult or Moderate land, you want to act like a child? do so in the appropriate setting. Who in the heck are you to make a judgement like that? It is up to Linden Research to decide what is appropriate and where, not you. Of course it has been made clear that child avatars are not allowed to participate in age play, this is certainly as it should be but beyond that why can't people just let others enjoy SecondLife the way they like? You have no right to impose your "so called morality" on anyone else, if you don't like what someone does (and it is not against TOS) then just remove yourself from the situation and find somewhere else to spend your time. i am Dogboat Taurog and i have as much right to state my opinion as you do. its my world also. child avatars, lolitas and japanese fan teens all have the same thing in common in SL and its creepy. You specifically said "you want to act like a child? do so in the appropriate setting." This is not an opinion, it is a directive, you are telling the poster how they should live their SecondLife. Perhaps you don't understand English enough to know the difference? If you believe the TOS should be changed that is something we can have an honest debate about (or you can bring it up with Linden Research), but telling people they must behave in a certain way goes beyond opinion and borders on harrassment in my opinion. yep i give up you are right i am wrong kthanxbye.

Penny Patton wrote: Peggy Paperdoll wrote: "Properly sized" as to what standard? SL or RL? My bet, in the context of a RP sim in SL, it's to the SL standard. Properly sized would mean realistic human standard. Dogboat Taurog wrote: Penny Patton wrote: Peggy Paperdoll wrote: Perhaps it's where you hang out or who you hang out with..........or maybe it's your attitude. I don't know, but since I'm shorter than you and I've never had a problem (never been AR'd or even questioned) I'm taking this thread as some attempt at drama or that you are not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Like I said in my previous post, it's not nearly as bad these days as it was a few years ago, but you still occaissionally run into overreacting idiots, harassing any avatar under 6'8". You mostly see it in adult sims, but I've also seen it in moderate sims. Just yesterday I was in an RP sim where someone was complaining about a "child avatar". Turns out it was because the avatar was only 5'5", otherwise nothing childlike about them. Even more annoying, the sim this occured in actually promotes properly sized avatars, so 5'5" is the ideal height for an adult, female avatar. the guys are normally 7 foot tall the women 6 foot 6, (average in sl for adults) its an amazon world. rooms are generally 5 metres high and the furniture is scaled to suit. 5'5" is a 10 year old in Amazonia. In SL land is a finite size and prims are limited to 10m to a side. So, land is "larger" relative to a 5'5" avatar than it is to a 6'6" avatar. Moreso compared to the 7-9' tall avatars that make up the bulk of SL's population. Giant avatars combined with poor camera placement lead people to upscale environmentsz to double size or larger, which effectively makes a sim 1/4 it's size compared to one where everything is done to proper scale. To put it simply, larger avatars pay more for less. agreed, and you have a valid point. an interesting idea was put forward years ago, if people were bred to be half the size then the world wouldnt be overcrowded and there would be food for everyone.

Penny Patton wrote: Peggy Paperdoll wrote: Perhaps it's where you hang out or who you hang out with..........or maybe it's your attitude. I don't know, but since I'm shorter than you and I've never had a problem (never been AR'd or even questioned) I'm taking this thread as some attempt at drama or that you are not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Like I said in my previous post, it's not nearly as bad these days as it was a few years ago, but you still occaissionally run into overreacting idiots, harassing any avatar under 6'8". You mostly see it in adult sims, but I've also seen it in moderate sims. Just yesterday I was in an RP sim where someone was complaining about a "child avatar". Turns out it was because the avatar was only 5'5", otherwise nothing childlike about them. Even more annoying, the sim this occured in actually promotes properly sized avatars, so 5'5" is the ideal height for an adult, female avatar. the guys are normally 7 foot tall the women 6 foot 6, (average in sl for adults) its an amazon world. rooms are generally 5 metres high and the furniture is scaled to suit. 5'5" is a 10 year old in Amazonia.

Gabby Handrick wrote: Peggy Paperdoll wrote: Dogboat has exactly the same right as the original poster of this thread to his "judgement". We've all been judged to be hypocrites because we may not agree with her. What's fair is fair. LL has made a judgement on child avatars..........it's clearly outlined and stated in the ToS if you care to read it (I know I have and I'm pretty sure Dogboat has too......but I'm not sure you have). Dogboat has a different opinion (and I even have a different opinion than both Dogboat and LL). He hasn't made a judgement..............he stated an opinion that is contrary to your (I guess). Every one have every right to their opinion. However, in the post I referred to Dogboat went beyond opinion and said specifically that child avatars should only visit pg land, this is up to Linden Research to decide, not Dogboat. He has no right to harrass others that are enjoying their SecondLife within the TOS. That is what prompted me to post, not the fact that he had an opinion. There are definitely avi's that I find "creepy" too in sl, but I don't go out of my way to judge and harrass them, I either bite my tongue or go somewhere else. Are you somehow different from me in that my replys are judgements while yours are opinions?

Gabby Handrick wrote: Dogboat Taurog wrote: which is one of the reasons child avatars should be banned, or at least banned from Adult or Moderate land, you want to act like a child? do so in the appropriate setting. Who in the heck are you to make a judgement like that? It is up to Linden Research to decide what is appropriate and where, not you. Of course it has been made clear that child avatars are not allowed to participate in age play, this is certainly as it should be but beyond that why can't people just let others enjoy SecondLife the way they like? You have no right to impose your "so called morality" on anyone else, if you don't like what someone does (and it is not against TOS) then just remove yourself from the situation and find somewhere else to spend your time. i am Dogboat Taurog and i have as much right to state my opinion as you do. its my world also. child avatars, lolitas and japanese fan teens all have the same thing in common in SL and its creepy.

Serafuku wrote: ... With the exception that child avatars are ALREADY banned in adult and some moderate zones. And I'm not sure if you understand the point actually, it's about avatars that aren't kids, neither they look very much like it but are still judged as a child avis. It's somehow about the meta of SL that makes slutty, almost nude avatars in SL mature, while if you are trying to maintain an amount of decency and a normal avatar that you are condemned as kid avi despite even with the height. Child avatars are allowed anywhere in SL provided they have adult verification (at the moment anyway.) if you look like a child you should be treated like a child. fair?

which is one of the reasons child avatars should be banned, or at least banned from Adult or Moderate land, you want to act like a child? do so in the appropriate setting.

meh. the GD is a soap opera.

:matte-motes-crying: thats SL, eat it up.

how far do you go though? star of david and gas chambers? in germany i believe its against the law to wear swastikas.

laura74young wrote: My stupid ex boyfriend created my profile on SecondLife and Datemyride. He is contacting other people (some are our mutual friends) pretending it's me. How do I fight that? punch his lights out.

i can only view SL in 2 dimensions, and i strongly suspect that every one else does.

welcome back Moxie :smileyhappy: Long time no see :matte-motes-evil-invert:

Void Singer wrote: lol way to go down with the ship cap'n not really, im just fed up with petty people with nothing better to do than grief others and try to justify it as a hypothesis.