Comments on: No Touching Before Verification http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification gonzo phenomenology of virtual worlds, by dandellion Kimban Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:18:21 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Age Verficiation - Did you? | VintFalken.com http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-5616 Age Verficiation - Did you? | VintFalken.com Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:56:40 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-5616 [...] be high, as I’ve never been stopped from entering a sim or parcel by banlines - which don’t work all to well - for not having ‘age verification details on file’. But could be I don’t [...] [...] be high, as I’ve never been stopped from entering a sim or parcel by banlines – which don’t work all to well – for not having ‘age verification details on file’. But could be I don’t [...]

]]> By: dandellion http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-3433 dandellion Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:04:33 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-3433 Those people should be shot and judges that gave those verdicts should be spanked. Working against evolution is a crime against humanity! Those people should be shot and judges that gave those verdicts should be spanked. Working against evolution is a crime against humanity!

]]> By: Dalien Talbot http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-3431 Dalien Talbot Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:57:53 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-3431 Well, the general line was that someone boiled their butt off by coffee in the fastfood, and then sued the fastfood that they did not warn the coffee is very hot. :) So I think now they write "Caution! hot contents!" Another result of that kind of practice is one of my all-time favourites "Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear" Well, the general line was that someone boiled their butt off by coffee in the fastfood, and then sued the fastfood that they did not warn the coffee is very hot. :) So I think now they write “Caution! hot contents!”
Another result of that kind of practice is one of my all-time favourites “Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear”

]]> By: dandellion http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-3428 dandellion Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:49:49 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-3428 No. Bring it on. No. Bring it on.

]]> By: Dalien Talbot http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-3427 Dalien Talbot Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:45:22 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-3427 I think potentially the number of loopholes is limited only by the imagination of participants and the thickness of the wallets :-) (remember the fast food and the "coffee too hot" story? :) I think potentially the number of loopholes is limited only by the imagination of participants and the thickness of the wallets :-) (remember the fast food and the “coffee too hot” story? :)

]]> By: dandellion http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-3425 dandellion Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:33:54 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-3425 Yes, point is is covering LL legally. I am interested in how long will it take for somebody to sue them because minor is not responsible for lying on the website. If I can lie, if Nadine can verify with Tupac's driving license found via Google... then why just don't make a checkbox with "I am over 18 and I am allowed to see dirty stuff of second life"? And if it is just "limiting liability for any law-enforcement action or litigation regarding any permission to minors" then why I do have to listen Robin's (in that case) bullshitting about TRUST? How about being honest once as a good step towards trust? Yes, point is is covering LL legally. I am interested in how long will it take for somebody to sue them because minor is not responsible for lying on the website.
If I can lie, if Nadine can verify with Tupac’s driving license found via Google… then why just don’t make a checkbox with “I am over 18 and I am allowed to see dirty stuff of second life”? And if it is just “limiting liability for any law-enforcement action or litigation regarding any permission to minors” then why I do have to listen Robin’s (in that case) bullshitting about TRUST? How about being honest once as a good step towards trust?

]]> By: Dalien Talbot http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-3424 Dalien Talbot Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:16:36 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-3424 "The point of this entire exercise is to limit liability for any law-enforcement action or litigation regarding any permission to minors." Q.E.D. SOX compliance. "check" :-) The real point has been long time lost behind the meters of paperwork... But c'est la vie, in all its beautiness... “The point of this entire exercise is to limit liability for any law-enforcement action or litigation regarding any permission to minors.”

Q.E.D. SOX compliance. “check” :-) The real point has been long time lost behind the meters of paperwork… But c’est la vie, in all its beautiness…

]]> By: Nadine Nozaki http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-3391 Nadine Nozaki Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:22:05 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-3391 The point with age verifications is that if you lie enough much it actually gives you legal protection. Apparently the legal system over there (and here soon, if not already) is so broken that i can't ba saved. (<a href="http://thewintermarket.blogspot.com/2007/12/im-age-verified.html">Manual trackback to you</a>, as blogger don't believe in standards.) To call this an good-faith attempt is like putting a warning sticker on ecstasy and leaving it on the street. It don't down, the comany behind the verifications is a scam and they have been told warned about that several times, they was HOPING in there own initial test on 80% getting right. It's proven that the system don't sport out dead people, that is takes fake info added to other data miners and add to the verification data base. The point with age verifications is that if you lie enough much it actually gives you legal protection. Apparently the legal system over there (and here soon, if not already) is so broken that i can’t ba saved. (Manual trackback to you, as blogger don’t believe in standards.)

To call this an good-faith attempt is like putting a warning sticker on ecstasy and leaving it on the street. It don’t down, the comany behind the verifications is a scam and they have been told warned about that several times, they was HOPING in there own initial test on 80% getting right. It’s proven that the system don’t sport out dead people, that is takes fake info added to other data miners and add to the verification data base.

]]> By: Prokofy Neva http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-3387 Prokofy Neva Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:48:57 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-3387 Whether or not you can see into a parcel isn't the point. You're being too literalist and snickering. Most people aren't going to put clubs with adult content on a 16 m2, duh. The point of this entire exercise is to limit liability for any law-enforcement action or litigation regarding any permission to minors. If you can show that you used at least some system to age-verify and keep out minors, that goes a long way toward your credibility and accountability. The point is not to see what you can break in this less-than-perfect system; the point is to have *any* system and make a good-faith attempt to make adults accountable. Whether or not you can see into a parcel isn’t the point. You’re being too literalist and snickering. Most people aren’t going to put clubs with adult content on a 16 m2, duh.

The point of this entire exercise is to limit liability for any law-enforcement action or litigation regarding any permission to minors.

If you can show that you used at least some system to age-verify and keep out minors, that goes a long way toward your credibility and accountability.

The point is not to see what you can break in this less-than-perfect system; the point is to have *any* system and make a good-faith attempt to make adults accountable.

]]> By: dandellion http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification/comment-page-1#comment-3386 dandellion Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:51:00 +0000 http://metaverse.acidzen.org/2007/no-touching-before-verification#comment-3386 Yes, peepshow is the right metaphor... especially with those 16m parcels... matbe we should start another biz, ad-farms are boring anyway and nobody watche them... let's start with peep-farms! Avatar in the poseball the ground and rotating ad over her/his head. Yes, peepshow is the right metaphor… especially with those 16m parcels… matbe we should start another biz, ad-farms are boring anyway and nobody watche them… let’s start with peep-farms! Avatar in the poseball the ground and rotating ad over her/his head.

]]>