Home

Advertisement

Customize

Linden Lab

« previous entry | next entry »
Sat, 31 May 2008 | 14:20
Emo: angry angry

Okay, so, this morning I was informed of LL's decision to restrict BDSM and child communities from SL5B. This is really hypocritical, since their blog post about the event is titled "Calling All Cultures to the Second Life 5th Birthday Celebration". But if you exclude some, then you aren't really calling for all of them, are you? I know some people on SL who enjoy BDSM, and guess what - they aren't just sex-and-bondage-slap-the-submissive .... people .... most of them are actually quite nice, and certainly BDSM isn't their only thing.

But, if you're going to exclude certain communities/groups simply because like one person feels uncomfortable from their presence, why not go all-out and restrict EVERY group that makes like one or two people uncomfortable. Restrict the atheists, restrict the various churches, restrict furs, restrict non-furs .... in fact, just cancel SL5B, because EVERY group makes someone uncomfortable.

So, in restricting 90% of the SL communities, LL has pretty much killed SL5B, since there's really only going to be just the other two community types - Religious, and Furry.

LL needs to change the title of that blog post to "Calling Some Cultures (Excluding Most) to the Second Life 5th Birthday Gathering".

UPDATE: There's a JIRA to fix LL's bullshittery. PLEASE VOTE ON THIS! We need as many as we can get. Also, read some of the comments, a lot of really good points are being made.

Extras:
Welcome to LL, M.
Calling All Cultures ... ORLY?
Kids are just 'Second Class'
Children Not Welcome as SL5B
Important Mail
SL Forum - No Kid Avatars, Please
LL's PR Disaster

Additional Thoughts:
This starts here, with the child avs. Next thing they'll do is restrict either furries or transgendered from SL6B (next year). They will keep doing this until they have killed off all "socially abnormal" groups.

Fang | Rawr at meh | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Comments {7}

caitlynclawtooth

From: [info]caitclawtooth
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:44 (UTC)
Fang
The interesting thing is the historical parrallels.

The TG louge was formed why? You guessed it. Because the TRC felt that a new person "might" be offended at the sight of kids or people into BDSM! Which is why both groups came together to form it, we had a shared reason why we were on the outs with the rest of the trans community.

Rawr at person | Thread

TRC policy on child avatars

From: [info]janimyriam
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 05:42 (UTC)
Fang

Hi Kara. Your understanding of the reasoning behind the TRC's decision to disallow child avatars is not quite correct. The Transgender Resource Center encourages frank and open discussion of topics related to gender identity and sexual function as it relates to being transgendered. The consensus of our volunteer community at the time of your departure was that child avatars in this context are inappropriate, especially considering the fact that those individuals the child avatars represent are all adults and no RL children are being excluded from participating in our discussions. I understand that you disagree with this position but it doesn't help your case, or reflect well upon you, to consistently mischaracterize our position.

We consider ourselves to be partners with the TGL in serving as broad a segment of Second Life's transgender population as possible.

I personally support child avatars within appropriate contexts in SL and feel that SL5B should be an event appropriate for children.

Kind Regards,
Jani Myriam
Founder and Directory, Transgender Resource Center

Rawr at person | Claw Up | Thread

Re: TRC policy on child avatars

Jessica Hawkwell

From: [info]ladyserenakitty
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:07 (UTC)
Fang
That's interesting, I've only been told its because some people might find them offensive ..... the same as the reason the TGL was formed, and I've been told this by your volunteers. How is transgender discussion inappropriate when all involved are adults? The way I see it, the avatar doesn't matter during discussion, as its nothing but pixels. Who actually looks at anything but the chat window during serious discussions?

Rawr at person | Claw Up | Thread

Re: TRC policy on child avatars

From: [info]janimyriam
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:44 (UTC)
Fang

I can't speak on behalf of all the volunteers as to their reasons for endorsing the current policy but I know that the reason I've expressed here is well represented among them and is the basis for my support of the policy. If the avatar really doesn't matter, as you suggest, and is nothing but pixels then is seems there would be no problem re: child avatars at the TRC since folks wouldn't mind changing their avatars to accommodate our policy. It seems clear to me, however, that the reason why Second Life is so compelling to many of its residents, and to so many transgendered individuals in particular, is because we identify very strongly with our avatars and see them as expressions of our true selves. I believe that this is also the case for many of those who present as child avatars which is why they are so passionate in defense of their community, a sentiment which I greatly respect. It is precisely this strong sense of identity in both communities, however, that also leads me to consider child avatars in the presence of adult discussions to be inappropriate. In the end, I believe that there are positive behavioral health implications associated with being able to re-experience one's childhood within the context of Second Life and I join with others in defending their right to be represented at SL5B. Even so, I do think child avatars are inappropriate in some settings in Second Life as in our first lives. -Jani

Rawr at person | Claw Up | Thread

Advertisement

Customize