Forums

ForumsSupport Forum

{Answered, Wrong Forum}Why the Age Restriction is pointless

Thread Locked

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 3:12pm

blk2860

blk2860

4,214 posts

Okay, so here's the thing:

The kids will get on anyway. I mean seriously, the parents HELP the kids get on sites like this. I know, I know, it's not because of armor games, it's because of COPPA. Here's the thing. COPPA states that the site could just get the parents to send in forms and the like. Most sites just make a 13 and up rule.

 

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 3:32pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

8,195 posts

Moderator

We have it so we don't get hammered and rot in a sack when the inevitable arises. It does state that parents could send in forms. Now take the amount of members we have and assume 1/40 of them are under-aged divided by the non-development administration team. It's like the "approving submission forms" side of being Santa Claus. 1/40 of a few million is still a huge number. You want this to be held by a couple people? Me neither. 13+ Age Restriction is there because it's easier.

 

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 3:34pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,553 posts

It's a Federal law. We don't make it up, we just have to enforce it.

I wish people would understand this.

 

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 5:25pm

blk2860

blk2860

4,214 posts

it's because of COPPA. Here's the thing. COPPA states that the site could just get the parents to send in forms and the like. Most sites just make a 13 and up rule.

This is what I wrote, I know it's federal law.

 

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 5:26pm

xeano321

xeano321

2,598 posts

Knight

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

As stated above, simply not allowing children under 13 to register online is much easier then requiring the parents to fill out some form to send in. AG can't afford some lawsuit over this, so I highly doubt if we'll see the age restriction depart anytime soon.

 

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 5:30pm

blk2860

blk2860

4,214 posts

Still it's not exactly stopping the kids, I know that there are a lot of kids are pretty good at hiding it. I don't know who on this site is under 13 though. It should be based on maturity, not age. Which aren't the same thing. I'm talking about mentally mature, not physically.

 

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 5:36pm

pickpocket

pickpocket

3,473 posts

I'm talking about mentally mature, not physically.

Once you figure out a fair way to determine the mental maturity of every child on the planet, im sure they will take it under consideration.

 

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 5:43pm

blk2860

blk2860

4,214 posts

Once you figure out a fair way to determine the mental maturity of every child on the planet, im sure they will take it under consideration.

Maybe something like giving them hypothetical situations, and asking what they'd do, as well as some sort of test, similar to an IQ test?

 

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 5:44pm

blk2860

blk2860

4,214 posts

They'd most likely take it at the age of 10.

 

Posted Mar 6, '13 at 5:47pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,553 posts

Listen, this really is not up for debate. And this is in the wrong forum as well.

There are ways to go about allowing children under 13 distribute personal information, it is a giant pain. We'd have to constantly delete information regarding such. Also, we'd have to verify the consent from a parent for everyone that created an account under the age of 13. Which would require loads of time, resources and man-power.
I think you fail yo understand exactly how much work that would be. We don't do it just for the hell of it.

As such, we're complying with Federal Law within our restrictions. Which also means that we are forced to ban users we find to be under 13, since the fines for that sorta thing can be huge.

So you can feel free to make the Feds change the law. Otherwise, AG would have to become a subscription site to pay for all the authenticating of consent forms...or AG would just be fined into oblivion. Neither one we want.