Originally posted by padfootLie.
People, men, women and most of all - kids. - if there are any of you left...
What does rhp mean to you? is it a site for grown up talk? is it a site for tea party chat? is it a grandmaster 'exclusivo' chess site??
or is it a site for ALL - old and young - to get together - LIKE EQUALS - whatever their status?
I joined this site a couple of years ago, ...[text shortened]... u me, so will all the other kids who DID get excluded...
anyway - say 'no' to age limit...
Damn. I hate, seriously hate, to be the person to bring reality into the scheme of things, but...if you are younger than 13...lie.
All you are asked is: 'Are you 13 years or older?'
You don't have to prove your age through credit cards (which you can't do below the age of 18 if I'm correct anyway), the site gets a 'guaranteed standard certificate of youth protection (which probably means they're no longer liable) and anybody can still play chess....as long as you aren't completely honest.
Think of it like this: You are built up out of molecules, each of these molecules has always existed, albeit in different forms...you are therefor infinitive of age....
No thanks necessairy.
Everyone who is posting objecting to this on the basis of its being forums related, STOP.
It has little to do with forums. That may have been the impetus, but that wasn't the reason.
Read RolandYoung's and No1marauder's posts in 'Age Verification.' It's about being able to protect himself and the site; it's not the public exchange that is a concern -- protecting kids from seeing obscenities and such -- it's the private exchange through PMs and game messaging that pose the greatest risk to minors.
Nemesio
I must admit that I recieved a shock when I logged in today. My age is enough that I just clicked yes and went to my games and made my daily moves. Then I got to thinking what this means for the children who play at this site. I can understand why Russ has made this descision, I feel his hand has been forced, I love this site and wish to see it continue, without the fear of litigation.
I went through some of my old posts looking to see if I myself have ever made a post out of anger out of boredom or just plain stupidity that could be construed as hazardous to minors, I found one. A kneejerk reaction to an insult hurled at me in a now buried thread. For this I apoligize.
I can only agree with what Remora has said it still seems that to protect our site for us adults, the children have to suffer. I hope that any children who find themselves barred from this site will not lose their love of chess. On behalf of that I apoligize to any children who are left, and vow before you now that I will do my part not to participate in any threads that would be construed as hazardous to our 13-18 yr olds. I will not post things that could be of harm. I will not particapate in any flame threads. If my name is brought up, I will let it go. It is not worth seeing what children we have left suffer because of the immaturity of others, or even myself.
I am still shocked
Nyxie
I posted this several hours ago in the "Age Verification" thread in the Site Ideas Forum, but since the discussion here has focused on the supposed effects the Forum controversies had on the decision to ban under 13 year olds and since this Forum is more widely read, I'll repost it here:
I think the above post is the crux of the matter. I checked the federal trade Commission's website and found How to Comply with COPPA at htp://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/coppa.htm.
Any web site operator who collects personal information from children under 13 including full name, email address, hobbies, etc is required to seek parental consent BEFORE obtaining said information. The relevant portion is as follows:
Verifiable Parental Consent
Before collecting, using or disclosing personal information from a child, an operator must obtain verifiable parental consent from the child's parent. This means an operator must make reasonable efforts (taking into consideration available technology) to ensure that before personal information is collected from a child, a parent of the child receives notice of the operator's information practices and consents to those practices.
Obviously, the feasibility of obtaining VERIFIABLE parental consent from parents all around the world would be cost prohibitive; the act would seem to require written or personal contact from the parent ("Verifiable". The act became effective in 2001 so Russ would probably be in technical violation of the Act, although there are provisions allowing operators to come into compliance without penalty. Therefore, all the hue and cry about Forum materials seems to have little impact on this decision, although, as Russ states, it will have the side benefit of eliminating the issue of young children having access to inappropriate (for them) Forum materials.
Roland Young's post before mine in that thread first raised the issue of the effect this law would have on the site and should be read also. In short, the ban doesn't have anything to do with Forum content; it is Russ making a decision pretty much mandated by law (he specifically mentioned COPPA in his Announcement). Therefore, the bulk of this thread is irrelevant to his decision.
Originally posted by RagnorakQuite right.No problem then 😀
I don't know how much Russ will thank me for saying this, but basically he's covering his own ass, which has to be done in this day and age of litigation.
Any under 13 can easily say they are over 13 and continue using the site. What Russ has basically done is covered himself against an angry parent reading the forums and seeing discussions on marijua ...[text shortened]... t its a terrible thing to have to do, but in this day and age, you have to cover your back.
D
Originally posted by chancremechanic
There is clearly NOTHING written in the forums that is any worse than the crap that comes out of Hollyweird (Hollywood) that anyone < than 13 years of age sees on a daily basis!! 🙄
As my mother used to ask to me, "If everyone else flung themselves from a cliff, doesn't that mean you have to?"
Personal responsibility mean anything to you? .... to anyone?
Originally posted by no1marauderHey everybody. Read this post (I've only quoted the last part). Then read it AGAIN. Make sure you understand it. Because it's very good and 90% of this thread seems to be ignoring it.
In short, the ban doesn't have anything to do with Forum content; it is Russ making a decision pretty much mandated by law (he specifically mentioned COPPA in his Announcement). Therefore, the bulk of this thread is irrelevant to his decision.
Basically you're all complaining about the wrong decision. If you want to complain, you should be complaining about the passing of the relevant law requiring parental consent, NOT what Russ has done which is simply to act to comply with the law.
If you really want to, you can lie about your age I suppose. The site should be covered because Russ acted to comply with the law and if you lie, it becomes YOUR responsibility if anything untoward happens.
So, if you want to break the law, go ahead, but please stop jumping up and down and asking Russ to do it for you.
Originally posted by orfeoAgreed! Enforcing the age limit is unfortunate, and I'm sure the decision wasn't reactionary. I have no doubt that the site admin's were not selecting young people for discrimination, and would certainly prefer to ban offensive individuals. That being said, they really didn't have an effective option in this matter. Perhaps Yahoo (or any other site that posters would refer to) has the legal firepower to ignore restrictions and regulations, or has found a loophole in the law. But for this site to enjoy future prosperity, and remain active into the future (when those young people will again be able to enjoy it), this decision obviously had to be made. I do sympathize with all who were affected though.
[b]Hey everybody. Read this post (I've only quoted the last part). Then read it AGAIN. Make sure you understand it. Because it's very good and 90% of this thread seems to be ignoring it.
Basically you're all complaining about the wrong decision. If you want to complain, you should be complaining about the passing of the relevant law requiring parental consent, NOT what Russ has done which is simply to act to comply with the law.
Brian
Originally posted by padfootIf you want all ages to come ehre, then the debates forum has to close, then the moderators would have to delete any reference to sex, and any reference to foul language.
People, men, women and most of all - kids. - if there are any of you left...
What does rhp mean to you? is it a site for grown up talk? is it a site for tea party chat? is it a grandmaster 'exclusivo' chess site??
or is it a site for ALL - old and young - to get together - LIKE EQUALS - whatever their status?
I joined this site a couple of years ago, ...[text shortened]... u me, so will all the other kids who DID get excluded...
anyway - say 'no' to age limit...
RHP would get fines if they didn't. In stead of closing down and limiting a big part of RHP, they've chosen to set a minimum age.
I fully support that desicion.
I agree with the post of Remora91 in the Announcements Forum.
If this change is necessary then it should apply to new members only. Those current members who are under 13 will eventually reach that age and the 'problem' will be resolved.
This was implemented in an arbitary and heavy handed manner.