It's a tough situation - I do understand that Russ needs to protect the site against lawsuits.
I'm sad to see some very good people leaving the site in protest though, and do think that there would probably be a better way of complying with the laws protecting children than banning under 13-year olds altoghether.
How about, instead of banning 13 year olds, simply disable all chat/PM's/forum acces to children under 13? I know that wouldn't be exactly popular either, but it would still allow children to participate in correspondence chess, which is what the site is really about anyway.
As an optional add on, (if it is deemed possible and safe) to aleviate the "muting", perhaps a new forum could be set up, one that would only be accessible to you if you had verified your age to be under 13. This forum could then be moderated by adults.
The only practical problem with the complete muting of under 13 year olds that I can see would be communication between a clan leader and a young "muted" clan member. But I think I and other clan leaders could live with this, if that was what would be required to allow under 13 year olds to participate.
-Jarno
Originally posted by PyrrhoHow about we just not ask the anyone under 13 about their personal information? 😕
It's a tough situation - I do understand that Russ needs to protect the site against lawsuits.
I'm sad to see some very good people leaving the site in protest though, and do think that there would probably be a better way of complying with the laws protecting children than banning under 13-year olds altoghether.
How about, instead of banning 13 yea ...[text shortened]... h this, if that was what would be required to allow under 13 year olds to participate.
-Jarno
Originally posted by Remora91I think the reason for the ban goes deeper than that - who is to prevent some predatory pedofile from befrieding a child and getting his personal information in private chat?
How about we just not ask the anyone under 13 about their personal information? 😕
If informing that you're under 13 would lead to simply the relevant features that cause concern being disabled, then that would protect the site against lawsuit while allowing our future Fisher's and Kasparovs to practice their art uninterrupted, without having to lie to do it. 🙂 After all, it's not the chess that is potentially dangerous here!
-Jarno
Originally posted by Danger MouseThe responsibility for the safety of children lies with their parents, not RHP. Even if you can "protect" children on this site, you cannot "protect" them them from the WWW, only parents can do that.
It is unfortunate that the younger players on this site will miss out. It's a great site and the vast majority of people on here are improving their chess and hopefully enjoying the interaction with other players.
The reality is that ...[text shortened]... pporting any steps taken to prevent it when we had the chance.
I think this restriction is completely unnecessary and arbitrary. As a parent I know that my child can be molested in the local shopping mall. There is no ban on under-13's there, but as a parent I can ensure the child is accompanied, knows how to deal with strangers, and knows how to react in dangerous situations.
It is not the place for RHP to be a Net-Nanny. I say NO to the age ban, I think it is pointless and presumptious, and will do far, far more damage than good.
I would love my children to be playing chess on RHP, if ONLY I could get them interested... And I dislike the fact that my function as a parant and guardian has been usurped by this puerile act.
Originally posted by slimjimBush has taken care of that already. An hour of exercise every day at gym (examples: running the mile in under 10 minutes, doing suicides, and playing football). Taking a few minutes to play chess isn't the problem; it can be the food the kid eats, how much they watch tv (other things can make kids fat too), and their parents control these. Plus since I joined rhp I have lost a significant amount of weight (which isn't too healthy in my case).
Yes to the age limit. Let them go out and get some exercise. Too many fat kids running around today.
Originally posted by Faith No MoreI would.
It is easy for you to support this decision, you are not going to be affected form it.
If the decision would be to kick out all dutch from the site (only an example) I am sure you would not support that would you?
I can see people saying "put yourself in russ' shoes", why dont you and everyone who approve with the age decision put yourself in 12 ...[text shortened]... es, or in Rachel's shoes for exaple that needs to say good bye to half of her friends.
Shaul
But to ask a silly question. How many are actually under 13 years of age?
Thanks for the explanations. I am still quite disappointed that this step has been taken, but I can understand it much better now.
To all who have suggested simply disabling the "hazardous" features such as in-game messages and forum access, please reread no1marauder's posts. The first problem with COPPA-compliance is that RUSS, i.e., RHP, is in violation if ANY personal information is collected without verifiable parental consent. There is no way to register at all without submitting at least an e-mail address and the fact that chess is one of your "hobbies".
Now, as laws go, I am in agreement with nearly everyone here that this one is not nearly effective enough to do what the legislators thought it ought to do. Laws are often stupid and this one is not all that exceptional. This one could be better, and it could be worse. There are certainly lots of worse ones around. But there is little we can do about it. Those of us who are US citizens can write to our congresscritters and make concrete suggestions for improvements, but remember that "protection of children" is a high priority and "appearance of protecting children" (with or without corresponding substance) is an even higher priority for anyone who hopes to get reelected. Most people are not going to care about details and whether the laws are actually the best possible. Look at the flaps about Kerry and "waffling". Most of the public is neither prepared nor able to make subtle distinctions. Bush can successfully get away with criticising Kerry for voting against the same bills that he, himself threatened to veto! What does that say about public astuteness? Legislators are not going to "weaken" COPPA without a very good reason, and probably not then.
Russ is absolutely right to think that having RHP hosted in the US puts the site in danger from US laws. Whether or not he could "succeed" in winning a court case is not really the question. Whether or not he could "survive" winning a court case is a much more serious question (never mind losing one).
I am not convinced that barring under-13 members is necessary. In theory, at least, Russ could allow those members whose parents sent in confirmation of their approval. OTOH, I suspect Russ is not making much money (!) off this site. I hope Russ gets rich from RHP, but at this point, I'd settle for his making enough money that he can afford to keep the site open. Is it really worth his while to go through the paperwork requirements to comply with COPPA? I don't know. I would hope that some of the parents would want to send in suitable paperwork on their own, but who knows? Back when my son was under 13 (not at all long ago) I did have to fax my signed approval to a couple of sites so that he could register. I was happy enough to do that, especially as the forums on those sites were pretty well-moderated. I might be a bit less sanguine about having a younger child on these forums than on those. OTOH, I don't really think a younger child would be terribly likely to want to participate in many of these discussions, so I'm not altogether opposed, either. In fact, if I could get my son a little bit more interested in playing chess, I'd be happy enough to pay for a subscription to RHP for him. 🙂
All in all, I can't say Russ is doing the wrong thing here. I have to be disappointed, but I can understand the need. 🙁
Best Regards,
Paul
Okay guys lets face the truth. This arguement here is all very well, and I agree against the ban, but what are we going to do about it now? It's done, gone, and past. What are we going to do if Russ agrees with us? He'll say" Let there be kids" and all the kids come flocking back? It's over. The kids are gone. What will this arguement accomplish? I am sorry about these troubles, but people, kids ( yes kids, not everyone is perfectly honest), teens, and adults, let us unite. Let's not bash the decision that has been done. One day the kids will come back, and, well that's that. Let's not waste our posts here angrily screaming and pointing and saying " Damn this ban!" Cause nothing, yes nothing, will come out of it. Instead, go read my funny jokes😉.
Originally posted by abejnoodactually if "Damn this ban" works then we shall continue to do it!
Okay guys lets face the truth. This arguement here is all very well, and I agree against the ban, but what are we going to do about it now? It's done, gone, and past. What are we going to do if Russ agrees with us? He'll say" Let there be kids" and all the kids come flocking back? It's over. The kids are gone. What will this arguement accomplish? I am ...[text shortened]... this ban!" Cause nothing, yes nothing, will come out of it. Instead, go read my funny jokes😉.
Originally posted by TheMaster37I've met around 20 12 almost 13 year olds.
I would.
But to ask a silly question. How many are actually under 13 years of age?
One 9 year old (not participating in the forums).
One 11 year old (not participating in the forums).
And someone told me there was a 7 year old at uchess.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think there are probably other ways in which a site similar to this (add appropriate not-giving-legal-advice disclaimers) could ensure compliance with the COPPA -- for example, by simply declining to collect e-mail addresses from children under 13 (although that might permit abuse) or requiring children under 13 to provide a parental e-mail address for consent.
The site doesn't have to be geared toward children, the law applies according to the FTC to: 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.
I can't remember if we're required to give ...[text shortened]... is much question that the law is applicable (the law sucks in my opinion, but what can you do).
Nonetheless, given the likely low percentage of < 13 users and the likely needs of the site, I think Russ' decision to ensure compliance by this method is totally reasonable.
If anyone's curious, see the FTC's interpretation of COPPA:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/coppa.htm
Originally posted by paultopiaActually, that page seems quite reasonable and (if it were actually current, which it is not) would give Russ explicit OK to get parental permission by e-mail, which would be fine. The fact that the page dates from 1999 and says that the methodology of how to comply was due to expire in 2001, with no update to tell us what the current policy is, leaves everyone hanging. I would be more than happy (if my son were still under 13 and more interested in chess than he currently is) to give permission by that methodology.
If anyone's curious, see the FTC's interpretation of COPPA:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/coppa.htm
I remain disappointed that Russ felt it necessary to go this road.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by prnI agree.
I remain disappointed that Russ felt it necessary to go this road.
Best Regards,
Paul
[/b]
It is not the decision that bothers me so much as the sudden, arbitary and rather ham-fisted way in which it was implemented.
Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
🙁