Sadly, they're right--this is more romantic than the actual movie dialogue.
So...I figure since I started the last post pointing at one soul, I should continue, and moreover, correct some earlier vehement ranting.
Plus, people have been getting worried about my emotional well-being, and not just Dale. Other people. People who are dating me. So.
From his response to the last post:
"On the child AV issue, I haven't missed anything. I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. I didn't actually see any child AVs while I was in Zindra, but it wouldn't have appalled me if I had."
And maybe I'm making too much of it. SL children, in many ways, seem to want the ability to be a child while keeping unprecedented freedoms we do not, as a rule, grant to children (real or not). They want to be appreciated for having adult minds, while at the same time coddled and deferred to as the children they seem to be. It's not the best mentality.
"I don't think anyone's suggested that it's forbidden to 'talk about' sex or violence or drugs on non-Adult land, have they? That would be just insane."
Actually, as currently understood, we've all been misinterpreting what the PG rating actually means. From the official definition page in the Knowledge Base:
"What are 'PG' Regions, groups, events, and classifieds?
"There are some landowners and Residents who desire a Second Life experience distinct from the activity that occurs in Mature and Adult Regions. Region owners who wish to host this sort of Second Life experience can (but need not) designate their Regions as PG. A Region may be designated PG if it does not advertise or make available content or activity that's sexually explicit, violent or depicts nudity. Likewise, sexually-oriented objects such as 'sex beds' or poseballs may not be located or sold in PG regions.
"As we've also often said, PG regions are areas where you'd feel free to say and do things that you'd be comfortable saying and doing in front of your grandmother, or a grade school class. Institutions such as universities, conference organizers, and real world businesses, for instance, may wish to designate their Regions as PG. Likewise their users (and others) may wish to employ Second Life's PG search setting to deliver further targeted search results."
From the official Knowledge base land definitions page:
"What is the difference between PG and Mature land?
"Private Region/Estate/Island owners can indicate their land to be either PG or Mature from the Region tab of the Region/Estate window, using the Maturity dropdown list. This option is not available to Region owners on the mainland.
"The PG and Mature ratings mirror those used by many countries' movie and television industries to denote the age-appropriateness of behavior, language and creations within a given area of Second Life.
"PG Areas are designated to be free from sexually explicit language or behavior, swearing and other forms of aggressive language, violent behavior and/or imagery, including horror. Gambling for Linden Dollars is also prohibited."
So. Essentially, what all this boils down to is:
* no swearing
* no sexual references
* no sex
* no drug references
* no drug use (likely even virtual drugs, but in previous definition sets, they haven't included Seclimine, for instance, which is a known virtual drug in SL)
* no nudity
* no violence
* no aggressive language (AKA, threatening others, saying you could "just kill" someone, et cetera)
* no actual aggression (AKA, no punch-in-the-face animations, and likely that means emotes too)
This has, apparently, always been the working definition of PG; it's just many places don't treat PG as the tremendously restricting definition it really is. To answer your question, then: yes, the Lindens have suggested that on PG land, you cannot swear, discuss violence or drugs, or use aggressive language or display aggressive intent. That's been on the books since they defined PG as a term.
"I don't think that's how the Lindens think of the point of the exercise, but yes: if you want a space where you don't have to deal with any of those things (including child AVs), put your space on Adult land, put up a sign saying "No Child AVs please", and if any show up you can instantly eject and ban them. I'll be right there nodding at your right to do it. No one's stopping you from doing it."
Well, but we can do that anyway; no one's taking away the right to eject and ban on your personal land under any definition of the word. No one's ever said that because you are on Adult-rated land, you have to allow everyone who is also verified to play in your rented spaces. And I didn't mean to imply such if I did.
"I'm just objecting to your wanting to say to me, that since I might want to have an edgy violent sexually themed show in my gallery some day, I therefore cannot allow anyone in a child AV to come to the pretty-flowers art show that I'm having there this week. It's none o' your business."
See, and this may be part of where I'm taking it all too seriously (I do agree with your point there, by the way, and for everyone who's IMed me with concern; yes, it got away from me a tad, I'm fine, relax, I'm not building a tower just to move it to some campus and start shooting avatars. It's okay.): on an individual basis, show by show, I can easily see one show being safe for all audiences, one show being mature, one show being rated clearly for the adults in the room who don't mind sex or violence.
But SL, as with many developments of Western culture, has on occasion the same all-or-nothing attitude that I do: we can't simply rate per piece, per show, per performance. We have to have the category, the label, and that label must apply to everything.
I tried to make this point on the forums, that mixed-use businesses were going to suffer the most under this policy; people agreed with me, but nothing changed. People aren't only one thing, ever; we're always a mix of everything we're exposed to, that's just who we are.
"On the other hand I do understand your worry that if we let child AVs get anywhere close to the nasty stuff, there might be an irrational backlash from the world that would hurt the SL we love. It is a worry, and a valid one."
It is. It worries me a lot. It should worry them.
Dreaming unrealistic moment: it would have been so much better if they'd just made a PG continent, and had public art, college campuses, and industrial parks, gardens, flowers, trees, wonderful builds with beautiful ideas....it seems somewhere along the way the two ideas got combined: the (really, it's not a HIDEOUS build, it really isn't) current build ON the adult land. And to me, it just doesn't work.
(Note: every picture leads to a different big picture. I was somewhat in a mood when I took these.)
(And it's still odd to note that the adult continent Infohub bans everything the adult continent's supposed to be for...but it is a pretty structure, and the spray from the sea is nice.)
Would I have liked the build if it hadn't been in Zindra? Maybe. Likely. It does have innovative touches--as I said, I adore the structure of Arapaima, though I think they went a bit overboard in the symbolism of red and blue spotlights the same shade as average poseballs along the rotunda, followed by rainbow windsocks ringing the sea platform...thus metaphorically at least "accepting everyone"...but in all honesty, I think anything in Zindra would have set me off. At that point, people in Zindra being people set me off. I wasn't seeing them as sharing gentle humor; I was seeing them as mocking everyone who'd fought so hard against this, and I viciously yearned for their suffering. The lass who danced in oil wasn't being playful; to me she possessed the intelligence of linoleum and was likely male anyway.
I admit this, looking back on it: I was incensed at the sheer concept, and ready and willing to hate everything I saw and interacted with, wholly and with no reservations.
I'm getting over this, now. And I made a friend last night, who is on a profoundly different ethical spectrum than I am, and that was a good thing. And it is a well-done build, an interesting build, I can grant that.
But you're right, I let everything overwhelm me, and that's not good; not for me, not for those around me.
"I share that worry enough that I think child AVs probably should be prohibited from places on adult land where there are actually adult things going on (even though there are in fact no actual children involved). I'm just not willing to go as far as you are, and prohibit them from places on adult land where there *aren't* adult things going on (and where the landowner doesn't mind having them there)."
And I get that, I do, but...look, as it stands now, SL children can go into strip clubs, can go into brothels, can walk into erotic-art galleries...and by and large owners of those places and that land boot them as fast as they're discovered. Because adult mind in child body or not, there are some things that are just universally inappropriate...or should be.
Or see it this way: whichever side of the ageplay divide you come down on, the Lindens have made one thing brutally clear: anyone engaging in anything resembling ageplay--and getting caught--will be banned. Period, end of sentence, likely no appeal. It's not a three-strikes-you're-out policy. It's once-and-DEAD.
And forget about the survival of the typist behind the screen--in world, when someone dies on the grid, there is that sense of loss. And I've been friends with two people who actually died, in both worlds, and at least one of those is still someone, in the silence of certain nights, I grieve over losing.
So, whether we are adherents of ageplay or not, it deeply scares us that we might be accused of it. Therefore, seeing the kiddie with the teddy wandering around Zindra...that's not just a weird avatar for that land to us. That is potential avatar death in a very small package.
At SL5B, if you don't remember (and if you don't, Vint Falken did an excellent rundown of the blogs containing entries mentioning it), Caledon's section of the display was jeopardized because the edict came down from on high: no children could be depicted in any way with adults in pictures. Period. End of sentence.
There was no hint of ageplay in the least. There was no nudity. These were fully dressed people.
Moreover, the picture in question that was (temporarily, granted) banned at the display? Featured an adult who happened to be shorter than average.
You know, someone my size in world, usually. Who happened to be a doll.
So there's insanity that happens on all sides of this issue. Virtual children on SL make many adults act all crazy.
"And it's not because I don't get it. :) It's just because I disagree with you."
And I'm fine with that normally, I really am; no one has to agree with me all the time, and there are more than a few times where I'm dead wrong. It's just this issue drove me a wee bit around the bend.
"In general I think you're right, and that you're good people.
We just differ on the details..."
And I'm glad you think that, Dale. No sarcasm, no tongue in cheek, I'm honestly glad you can say that.
I'll do my best not to make it personal in future.
Gad, I really need to get back to the music posts...