@Admiral
I think that's understandable. But I also think that when we're looking at policy on a broad scope (by which I mean a societal level, not a MU* level--whether or not there are MU* games that allow that sort of behavior is utterly irrelevant), and when the desired result is reducing the harm done to children, what we do and do not find palatable must by necessity take a backseat to logic, reason, and statistical evidence.
Generally speaking. There are still hard lines (as I've said elsewhere, I'd still walk away from Omelas).
No matter how it's cut, it's not pretty. It's not something the community at large supports. While YES the immediate physical damages are less when you're an iPedophile, the truth remains that by arguing its right to exist you are providing a don't-ask-don't-tell zone where sexual abuse of minors could literally be taking place on your game. I think it's fucked up that more people aren't on board for trying to keep that out of the hobby.
Well, as I said, I don't support it in MU*s because of the high probability of minors accessing those games. But as to your other questions, especially:
...providing an outlet for a predator who is on the National Sex Offender Registry for sexually abusing a minor?
The idea of ageplay disgusts me, but the idea of "providing an outlet" for a registered sex offender? Nah. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. If "providing an outlet" means he's less likely to harm children, I'd advocate for volunteers to go out and do it.
The problem is that, as far as I'm aware, it's still a very big "if." Our hyperpunitive mindset when it comes to pedophiles makes it difficult to find methods of harm prevention.