I AGREE 100% with Russ's decision to limit member access to 13 years-old or older. Let me tell you, I know from experience what havic young people can cause. I ran the Arrakis BBS (hence my handle) for 5 years and had over 1200 members. I spent 90% of my time dealing with young teens. I have nothing agaist young teens, HOWEVER, experience has shown me that these kids had no respect for anything... no respect for other users, no respect for the system operator, and certainly no respect for the software they used.
It was after a trip to the sherriff's office and a threat from a woman lawyer (who was a member) that I decided the best solution was to CLOSE THE ARRAKIS BBS. Many people asked me how I could do such a thing? The truth of the matter is that I HAD to do it... and it was all because of young, abusive teenagers who kept hacking the other members and even threatening them. <sigh>
Originally posted by arrakisWell, the problems you describe haven't really been an issue in the forums here at RHP. The explanation Russ has provided for requiring user age verification is that it is necessary in order to comply with U.S. law. In the absence of such verification, the site (read: Russ et. al.) can be held partially liable for harm done to minors by predatory wackos.
I AGREE 100% with Russ's decision to limit member access to 13 years-old or older. Let me tell you, I know from experience what havic young people can cause. I ran the Arrakis BBS (hence my handle) for 5 years and had over 1200 members. I spent 90% of my time dealing with young teens. I have nothing agaist young teens, HOWEVER, experience has shown me that ...[text shortened]... f young, abusive teenagers who kept hacking the other members and even threatening them. <sigh>
Originally posted by bbarrRuss did have a big issue with teens under 13 or so starting the 'how old are you threads'.
Well, the problems you describe haven't really been an issue in the forums here at RHP. The explanation Russ has provided for requiring user age verification is that it is necessary in order to comply with U.S. law. In the absence of such verification, the site (read: Russ et. al.) can be held partially liable for harm done to minors by predatory wackos.
Russ asked the mods to keep an eye out, and PM these users about giving out their age.
He also asked some users to not give out age in their profile.... that was a bit of work to keep up.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitBut was the problem with "how old are you threads" that they somehow detracted from the forums, or was it that they gave potential predators exploitable information? Arrakis has claimed that banning those under 13 is justifiable in virtue of their tendency to disrupt forums. This doesn't seem like it was the case here. Although we've had our share of spam, the younger community was able to keep much of it contained to the designated "longest thread" thread, and out of the way of other users. I just want to reiterate that the reasons for the site modifications were legal ones; they weren't a comment on the conduct of existing users nor a general comment on youth as such.
Russ did have a big issue with teens under 13 or so starting the 'how old are you threads'.
Russ asked the mods to keep an eye out, and PM these users about giving out their age.
He also asked some users to not give out age in their profile.... that was a bit of work to keep up.
P-
Originally posted by bbarrI agree with what you've said, I was just adding what I knew about the topic. Arrakis' post seems off the mark to me as well.
But was the problem with "how old are you threads" that they somehow detracted from the forums, or was it that they gave potential predators exploitable information? Arrakis has claimed that banning those under 13 is justifiable in virtue of their tendency to disrupt forums. This doesn't seem like it was the case here. Although we've had our share of sp ...[text shortened]... they weren't a comment on the conduct of existing users nor a general comment on youth as such.
P-