Originally posted by Red NightThis thread is in response to Russ' announcement that no one under 13 would now be allowed on the site: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=14651&page=1
I would like seeing that.
MWMiller points out the TOS provision regarding legal age to form a binding contract, but can't find any follow up on it.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm just going to pull out some interesting posts as I wade throught the thread.
This thread is in response to Russ' announcement that no one under 13 would now be allowed on the site: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=14651&page=1
MWMiller points out the TOS provision regarding legal age to form a binding contract, but can't find any follow up on it.
this one by Russ:
Just so everyone is clear about this, and reiterating nemesio's remarks earlier in the thread.
This is not forum related! The forums are just one small part of the RHP package, and some big changes are coming which again won't please everyone, but should appease the majority, which is all I can aim for.
Anyway, back to the point.
I knew the day would come when I knew I would be forced to take action like this. Very recently on uChess, I received feedback from a distressed parent about someone who "was attempting to have sexual conversations with my 11 year old boy".
They wanted to know if they should contact the FBI.
Now, when this kind of thing happens, you look at the big picture, and react. I have taken this action to protect myself and the site.
The same thing will be introduced to uChess shortly too.
And to respond to you Ravello, this new age limitation does not mean you can post freely and not expect moderation.
this one by you:
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 mwmillerThe legal age to enter into most binding contracts varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In most US states it is 18. No1 say's it is 18 in the UK. I honestly don't know the answer, but it would be easy to look up.
I don't believe I have ever seen the answer to that particular question.
Originally posted by Elamef37I don't know what was going on in your head when you came up with this joke, and this could be interpreted in a couple of ways.
his wife?
I thought it was the love child, from his bonding with a certain significant other on here, who's name starts with 'h' too. 😕
But in light of everything that has gone on in the past week or so, i'd have to agree with Sushill at this point; does border on being hypocritical.
Originally posted by chrissybAt some time or other I am sure we ALL border on the line of being Hyporcitical, even if we don't admit it. That is all part of being human.
I don't know what was going on in your head when you came up with this joke, and this could be interpreted in a couple of ways.
But in light of everything that has gone on in the past week or so, i'd have to agree with Sushill at this point; does border on being hypocritical.
Originally posted by chrissybChrissy it was just some light hearted banter...nothing personal intended by anyone and no one was offended. We were all just being playful.
I don't know what was going on in your head when you came up with this joke, and this could be interpreted in a couple of ways.
But in light of everything that has gone on in the past week or so, i'd have to agree with Sushill at this point; does border on being hypocritical.
Hypocritical maybe so, I usually serve hypocrite biscuits for breakfast. I've seen Huck eat a double portion and ask for more. He belches more hypocrisy that what you just heard. Give her a break.