Age Verification

Now that age verification is in place my previous agruments about site content are withdrawn.

Obviously, I will still consider alerting posts that clearly breech the TOS but I will desist asking for tougher forum moderation.

Let's hope this change makes the forums lively and suitable for all.

🙂

Erm - why exactly was age verification required? Just curious here - I've only been playing chess, and came in here to find out why all of a sudden I had to confirm I was above 13.

A pity - I'd have loved a site like this when I was a kid. Of course... back then computers wre a novelty.... sigh. So old. So old.

Some of the topics in the forums are not suitable for young children.

can't you read all the forums without beeing a RHP-member?
th

All users, subscribed or not, can read and post in the forums. Even non-users are able to read them (although not post) as they are indexed on Google.

Fair enough - that's what I suspected. Good move then - of course... there's no way of actually verifying they are 13.

No, but I think it is a necessary disclaimer.

I have posted in the site announcements about other reasons for this - but it does help with the forum moderation too.

Aiming moderation at 13+ should be substantially easier than trying to cater for all ages.

-Russ

Just out of curiosity, doesn't 13+ include 65- as well? I remember reading something about "posts I wouldn't want my grandma to see etc." (Don't know about you - but my grandmom would flip if she read half the posts on the Debates Forum ... )

OK, I'm just kidding here.

*retreats back to the dark side of the moon*

Luc

Russ,

What about allowing younger players to belong to the site, but if you are under 13, no forum access except for site anouncements?

Originally posted by Pie1120
Russ,

What about allowing younger players to belong to the site, but if you are under 13, no forum access except for site anouncements?

No, except for help

Why can't we have a forum for people 13 and younger or 13 and older? Then we wouldn't have to do this.

I like both posts which are just above mine. Any of them might be the better way to implement age restrictions.

Originally posted by Remora91
Why can't we have a forum for people 13 and younger or 13 and older? Then we wouldn't have to do this.

I think Russ is thinking beyond the Forums, although this might have been the explicit impetus for the change.

He said that it can be awkward to host a site which situates strangers against each other; it can be a vehicle for getting the wrong people in touch with innocents.

So, simply dividing the forums doesn't alleviate that problem.

Nemesio

To quote Russ's announcement:

"This is not because of the forum content alone, but also because the very nature of correspondence chess requires frequent private communication with strangers.

"This also allows us to comply with COPPA (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act) because we do not want to seek parental consent for every minor that attempts to join this site."

To comply with child protection legislation, Russ either has to seek the consent of the parent(s) of each young person who joins the site (and I think we all understand that he cannot afford to do this), or he has to take steps to exclude people who are under 13.

Excluding young people may make forum management easier, and that may have helped make Russ's mind up, but in the long run, he may not have had much choice.