The "Death" of Child Avies

[Kit Coyote]

I know this is an Ambrea wide rule change and there is little point protesting it, but I felt we out to have a thread to discuss, vent, and generally hob nob about it over tea and biscuits. Please keep it friendly since after all there is really little the Admins can do about it and I'm sure our Admins resisted it for poor Kathia's sake (smiles).

My one underage Avie I'm currently playing is about to turn 18 so he is not problem though I had enjoyed playing the rebellious teen so much I was going to propose a new more permanent teen alt LOL.

Since Jhulae is pregnant again (somebody needs to send Kit to the vet and get him fixed) how is this going to affect that RP? We going to say no more pregnancies or have the Fae stealing the children and hauling them off to Faerie to grow up overnight?

[Kit Coyote]

I don't think of it as a case of civil rights, LL is a private company and can do what they will but if their attitudes are what are being interpreted here they would be better served by just banning all child avatars from all mature sims. I think it is a matter of principle. The sim owners are IMHO succumbing to rampant paranoia and are over reacting badly and thus we are all suffering. I think this is a mistake, not because its safer but because they are giving into fear and intimidation. Not from LL, though LL has contributed to it but from the prudish atmosphere of a few who know nothing about SL and want to control others using the justification from children for their actions.

The one example provided of what could happen boils down to an apples and oranges comparison and could still happen anyway even with the ban. The quotes provided directly from the Lindens and the TOS are being greatly exaggerated to imply things they do not say or at least expand them beyond the scope of the intention. Are we to believe what the Lindens say in their documentation and quotes or are we to give in to rumor and panic?

I've already seen what this type of hysteria can do in one sim which ended up banning children. I hate to see it happening again here with even less justification than rumor and fear.

[Nezumi Yamayoshi]

http://foo.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2007/09/dutch-prosecuto.html, this is a report from the Herald. but it your sim dose as you like. I am doing some information digging. I am done I just wanted to share my vews. I still feel your rules before were good ones. two avis fighting to me is less violent then some cartoon and herry potter movies I seen

[Nezumi Yamayoshi]

well to some people fi your shorter than the norm 7 for men and 6 foot for wman and busty your considered a child avi no mater how much of a woman figure you have or muscular for a man. you may know who is an adult avi or not on your sim but some one that dose not will see a short person as one your banning. are you going to band feral's to? we are primitive animalistic and semi childish in our own speech at times ?

[Kit Coyote]

You are making a point I have tried to touch on too. We play in a very large faerie based fantasy world with a large variety of character types. Several of those character types, particularly among the fae and wildlings may appear child like in their presentation. If you are banning children because you are concerned about the hysteria over child avatars then you will have to ban these characters as well.

Most folks pushing for 'digital' child protection are concerned about the appearance not the actual 'age' of an avatar. That is because there are no real children involved here (or at least there is not supposed to be but that is a different subject) we are all adults engaged in telling and acting out a fantasy story. What the hubbub is about is people who want to indulge sexual and sadistic fantasies that involve children in their fantasy story. To them and the folks who (with a little validity) want to stop them, its all about the imagery not an arbitrary 'age' assigned to the image. This is why the idea presented of having a young looking/acting avatar and just calling it 18 will not save you from the problem.

The thing is if you rationally step back and look at the issue the people who indulge in such things are going to be rather obvious when all is said and done. That type is not welcome in Karamoon and they will not fit in here. There are better places for them to go and engage in that with similar minded individuals.

The problem here is the folks who simply can't look at this thing rationally. There are some who get caught up in the crusade/jihad to stamp out any such activity who turn even the most simple misunderstanding into a witch hunt and do far more harm to others than they prevent. And there are others who overreact to the intimidation and hysteria caused by the first group and try to ban everything to do with children. In the end we all suffer for it.

[Byron Kayo]

well put Kit,, thank you

[Kara_Root]

Hi guys... Have stayed out of this, but I'll try come in and see if I can add anything. Not information-wise, but in proceeding.

As for bias: I was one of the people consulted for the new rules, and I recommended restricting child avatars to safezones or banning them altogether.

Regarding Kit's arguments: I agree completely that the TOS is interpreted too strongly by most involved. What you say about the content of the TOS, about forced fantasy sims in contrast to ours (although we do use some of the search terms at times!) etc. is a much more balanced perspective. Trust us, Korwyn, you ARE interpreting more into the wording than is actually there...

I am also German, so I know about our laws against child pornography. There's nothing that prohibits a kid witnessing a sword fight, or hearing swearwords, and our prosecutors will likely have made sure Linden Labs knows what's in them, too ;) We don't have case law here. In broad terms, if it isn't written, it's not law - so there's also less room for interpretation than in the US or the UK.

However...

Step back a little from this thread, guys. Calm down a little and read it through a third persons eyes. It becomes clear that while the facts are broadly as the more moderated posts state, there is a lot of confusion around what kid avatars may or may not do. We've seen some of that confusion when someone attacked Byron for simply "threatening" a kid.

The fact is that people who don't know how to interpret the TOS or entertain the silly notion that a kid is not to witness even swearing (or public punishment or eating yoghurt or whatever - EVERYTHING can be a fetish..) not only take lots of time off the admins. There's lots of people that can't distinguish IC from OOC properly and here, they can cause real damage.

Do you actually believe Linden Labs only employs rational people that don't have bad days? ;)

Finally, as the priest's post has shown, a number of people who dare not post here for fear of a flame war have voiced that they feel inhibited in their RP exactly for that reason: Not because the TOS forbids it, but because there ARE players - mostly Americans with strangely misguided ideas about child protection, or inability to distinguish between OOC and IC - that will come down on them like an avalanche for even talking straight at a kid (e. g. Byron's "threat" as the most public case).

It all adds up to our sim owners, who spend a lot of money to provide infrastructure for us, feeling very uncomfortable about allowing children. I haven't been present for the discussion, but I gather they don't want the trouble, and don't want the danger. That's, as Korwyn would now doubt point out, the current decision.

I don't like when sim owners point out that they pay tier as if players couldn't choose to play elsewhere tomorrow. Those people tend to have empty sims.

But in this case... at the end of the day... would YOU, Aine and Kit, put your money where your mouth is?
Are you willing to put forth 3.000 USD on to an account that will act as insurance for sim owners in Ambrea that allow kids?
I think if you can finde a modality for that... you can reopen talks ;-)

[Kit Coyote]

Believe me Sam I understand about folks who can't separate IC/OOC when it comes to child characters, it was IMHO a major part of the problem in the other sim I mentioned that wound up banning all children based on what I felt was a very simple misunderstanding. And I fully appreciate the investment the owners make in the sims. I honestly wish I could afford to invest a significant amount into the sim, though I do try to be involved where I can. I personally thought the subscription part of the BNJ system was a wonderful idea. Perhaps someday when the kids have moved on (grins).

All of which is why I'm not going to flat out condemn the owners for their decision. I simply think they are making a mistake and I am making my best case as to why. Partly because my character is a 'Defender of Children' and they and the other players who benefit from them needed a voice here. Partly because of the principle I was also trying to make that it is just wrong to give into fear and hysteria over this if that is the main reason for doing this.

[Enelar]

See this is my fear. I have two characters who are not nice. Neither would be above threatening a child or using a child as bait. It's happened before in RPs where I've played a villian-sort or a character not receptive to kids and I've gotten OOC labeled as a child hater and abuser. The OOC/IC line blurred because it was a child character and in a Sim like Karamoon, a child can possibly get stuck in adult situations. No, not adult as in sex, but adult as in torture, kidnapping, violence, threats, war, death and a lot of other things. The storyline itself - of the Keep and evil things crawling the lands, don't lend to a child safe environment or a place one would want to raise a family.

I'm sorry. I support child AVs. I understand non-sexual ageplay but I can understand why this decision was made.

[Kimi Stewart]

I kept my mouth Shut when it happen as To be honest I had though one of the people involved was a Admin of the the karamoon sims. But After the one Child AV Player Blew up in RC about not being in the Tavern i am doing to say this.

A while Back I was on my Garou, and had gone to the Tavern and Low and Behold a child in the Tavern Talking to the adults. One at the time I though was a Admin so I said nothing.

Now According to the Rules she has no reason to be in Said Tavern at all but was allowed in there even with others around.

So Tell me HOW do we keep child Avs out of places like the Taverns or even FOE if they are allowed in there by the leaders because they are Family? uhummm?

[Kit Coyote]

Well my first thought is why would you want to keep a child out of the tavern. In a medeval role play sim, the tavern is not just a bar, its the communal gathering place. Children should be there and any TOS unapproved activity like perhaps a brothel run out of the tavern should be located in back rooms or ideally like is done in Karamoon in invisible rooms (skyboxes accessed by teleport) not the common room which would be considered a public space no different than the square outside.

But that is aside from the question itself. I know Seismic managed to raise a family while being part of the FOE with little difficulty. He mainly did it by taking up a family residence in another sim and this seems a perfectly practical idea. If the FOE want to start having a lot of family play, maybe they should consider building some family housing outside the walls hehe.

All child players should know what the off limit areas are and if in the heat of play they forget, a simple reminder should be sufficent. Whether they are family or an admin shouldn't really matter.

[Kit Coyote]

Ya know part of what really fires me up on this subject is it one of those things where the persons least responsible and often innocent are the ones that almost always get punished for it. Kathia being the example. I'd applaud the sim owner who is forced to ban children to protect themselves in one of these situations turn to those who started it all by threatening to bring in the Lindens in on something that could have been easily and calmly worked out and say "Oh and by the way you are trouble maker and I don't want you in my sim either."

[Nezumi Yamayoshi]

I am not condemn the owners either. just stating the ban may cause mor problems than it solves. I am a Small avi my self and get called little one often. My avi is 19. after the ban gose in affect and some one hears that and goes ruining off o an admin to complain. saying I am a child avi that wounded or bandaged since i think umm...I am 50% of the time cause of my adventurers in the amber caves. *coughs* Me and Katie do not like the ban but we understand it we have mains That are adults and will play them and play our younger ones else where till they are grown. our mains are not 6 foot tall super busty woman that most see as grown, Kellie being a Phoenix will be grown in December and Thats with out the fairy world :P But post if my avis are based of aisan hight 4'11 -5.5 in sl people in panic cause of looking to fare in to the policy makes it hard on us who wish to be just short and not like the norm for grown woman in sl,

Stateing we are baning child avis do to fear of losing our sim or do not see any rp benefit out of them. expecily those that worked so hard to show not all child avis are out to cause trouble for the sim, really made us feel bad and down thinking it was our fault.

*hugs the sim owners* I know They are doing what best for them and every one. Just really erks me to no end That those that strech the rules to the limits and caused trouble on the sim ruined it for us that are innocent.

Now if you would of said we are baning them temperaraly do to people but not all That plained child avis pushed the ruls to the limits causing uncomfy pursuer on us and till Sl changes their policy. would of been nicer to hear