Changes to IMO Forum Posting

[yoviher]

Originally Posted by Imagyne

Ummmmm....Hmmmmm....No

You are too much Ken

So... if the company hosting my website site is sitting in... say... Mexico City, but I am here in Puerto Rico, I would still have to obey the Mexican laws regarding websites, rather than the American ones. Answers my question.

 

[kumbulu]

Good move.

Don't worry Victor, you aren't the youngest member on TCS and anyway, I'm sure TCS will still be around when you 'come of age' and can join the IMO forum.

 

[Anne]

Internet laws are not always that clear, so it's best to go by the laws that apply where the website is hosted + where the webmaster lives. Besides I personally think the COPPA regulations make sense. I think that it takes more than mental abilities. It takes emotional maturity and stability - and those are rare among teenagers (and are not always there with adults either). To participate in IMO one also has to know how not to provoke other members (and I don't just mean being polite) and how to take it in stride if and when things heat up.

 

[yoviher]

Originally Posted by Anne

Internet laws are not always that clear, so it's best to go by the laws that apply where the website is hosted + where the webmaster lives. Besides I personally think the COPPA regulations make sense. I think that it takes more than mental abilities. It takes emotional maturity and stability - and those are rare among teenagers (and are not always there with adults either). To participate in IMO one also has to know how not to provoke other members (and I don't just mean being polite) and how to take it in stride if and when things heat up.

Emotional maturity... stability... man.... virtually everyone in my town needs to be banned from IMO.

I sometimes wonder who is truly the most mature one in the house - my parents or me. There are days when I feel that I am handling with 4 year olds when I handle with them. Vicky agrees with that.

 

[ghostuser]

Originally Posted by Anne

Internet laws are not always that clear,

Some free legal advice for you -- worth exactly what you are paying for it.

As you old-timers here might expect, Anne is quite correct. The sentence I quoted above is the only correct analysis of the law of the internet so far posted in this thread. The law or laws applicable to the internet change by the minute and are developing at a rapid pace. The internet is not immune to the laws of any country in the world. Don't be misled by armchair legal advice as to whether one country or another is in control here. It's just not true. One country or another may have a primary interest in certain areas, but certainly not in control in all areas.

As a simple example, if I state on this thread that George W. Bush is a moron, where might he bring a libel action against me? The answer is, you name it, you got it. In the U.S. I could escape by proving that the statement is true. Not in the U.K. Is this uniformity? Not at all, but it doesn't have to be uniform.

Bottom line, take free legal advice about the status of the internet with a BIG grain of salt. It may be dangerous. (Actually, that is not a bad piece of advice about free legal advice about anything).

Cheers to all,

Jim (who forgot to check what kind of cat he is)

 

[jcat]

I find the "Adult Cat" restriction quite reasonable, because I think it best that members read the posts on the IMO forum and get a feel for what is considered reasonable and what is regarded as "over the top", but I'm unsure about the age restriction. In many U.S. states, 16-year-olds can legally operate motor vehicles and marry (albeit with parental permission), so 18 might be a bit high for a forum that I'd personally rate more as "PG" than "R". Keep in mind that I'm reacting as a teacher who sometimes despairs about teenagers' lack of interest in current events, so I appreciate the participation of teenaged members on the IMO forum.

 

[ghostuser]

jcat,

Although we completely agree with the moderators' intentions and their motivations, there may be just a bit of irony if a young girl can be sent to die in Iraq, or in Gaza, if you will, Anne, yet she cannot chat about her fur baby here. Of course we hasten to admit that if a particular age was suggested we missed it.

The "Adult Cat" restriction makes a lot of sense; we are not sure that an age limitation is quite so rational. We have known more insensitive and just plain dumb adults than we have children. Yet, on the other hand, we have not had your pleasure of attempting to educate young'uns, jcat.

Cheers,

 

[yoviher]

Originally Posted by jcat

I find the "Adult Cat" restriction quite reasonable, because I think it best that members read the posts on the IMO forum and get a feel for what is considered reasonable and what is regarded as "over the top", but I'm unsure about the age restriction. In many U.S. states, 16-year-olds can legally operate motor vehicles and marry (albeit with parental permission), so 18 might be a bit high for a forum that I'd personally rate more as "PG" than "R". Keep in mind that I'm reacting as a teacher who sometimes despairs about teenagers' lack of interest in current events, so I appreciate the participation of teenaged members on the IMO forum.

Very true! I have to agree there with you Jcat! I second that! We should realize one other thing: Discussing such subjects for a teen is a more educational experience. I myself, have to admit I have learned a LOT out of IMO. Let's admit it, you can't argue an issue of the day with people elsewhere on the globe and not learn something.

Taking into account that at the same time that it is not "R", neither it is General Audiences, I say that the most reasonable thing would be that there should be an age limit of 15 or 16.

 

[cougar]

I like this new rule

... makes perfect sense to me.

 

[weatherlight]

I am offended that you think no one can have serious or political thoughts until the day they turn 18. Seriously, how could anyone ever come up with that?? Ageism is a serious problem, but one rarely even acknowledged.

Besides which, rules that are totally unenforceable never do any good, and can do harm (depending on other factors). Anyone can lie about their age online. I could come here with a new account and say that I'm 14 or that I'm 41, and who can know otherwise?

When I was 14 and 15, many people thought I was at least 20, and quite surprised when I corrected their misconceptions. (And now that I'm legally an adult, people think I'm an immature brat who can't be over 12, except for the little fact that they knew me since I was 14 or 15.) "Maturity" really has nothing to do with age. There's this guy I met online when he was 12. He had well thought out philosophies and was an activist for social change, and he had great web design skills (when I saw a site he made, I had to ask if he actually did the HTML himself). I'm sure he'd be quite offended by this discrimination as well. Then there are extremely "immature" people at over 40--those who insist that they are right despite any evidence to the contrary (actually my father comes to mind; he thought the only working method of housetraining a dog was to rub its nose in its messes, and no number of articles, books, or anecdotes could show him the error of his ways).

18 Earth years from birth is an extremely senseless and arbitrary judgement of a person's maturity, thoughtfulness, interest in politics, etc. I used to post at a political forum where the average minor may have had more political knowledge and insight than the average adult poster here. I don't say this to offend adults on this forum, but to illustrate that we shouldn't insult the intelligence of minors on that one. Can't we judge different aspects of a person by the aspects of their knowledge, abilities, or other relevant things, rather than when their birthday is?

Stereotypes can be self-fulfilling prophecies, but this certainly doesn't justify them.

 

[cougar]

Mabye that 12 year old was just lying about his age. Did you ever meet him in person?

 

[jcat]

Originally Posted by valanhb

4. The serious and political nature of the majority of the threads in IMO do not lend themselves to being discussed by minors, therefore the forum is restricted to adults only. The age restriction has been set at 18 years old.

The voting age in most countries is 18, but I find that many people below that age have little opportunity to "sound out" their beliefs, and therefore receive little or no feedback about the validity thereof. I think they should be given the opportunity to test their beliefs before they actually exercise their right to vote. "IMO" is obviously a hotbed of controversy, and thus a real headache for the moderators, but it's extremely educational. People are often at loggerheads, but at least they are communicating with each other on the forum. Yes, there are contributors who can quite simply be designated "troublemakers". However, there are members who can learn from each other. I don't want to offend anyone, and apologize in advance if I do so, but Victor ("Yohiver") and Jim ("James Brown") are examples I can't resist giving. Victor is young and sometimes overly passionate (who isn't at 15?), and Jim is worldly-wise and understandably cynical at times. Jim sometimes admonishes Victor to "grow up", which I hope makes Victor rethink some of his positions, but I also hope that Victor's posts remind Jim of why he went into law and hoped to "change the world" at some point. Jim, and others, can explain their point of view, based on their experiences, and Victor, and others, can express their evaluation of today's world. IMO, this exchange of information/perceptions is very valuable, In short, I'd put the "minmum age", if it's deemed necessary, at 15, 16, or at most 17.

 

[yoviher]

Don't worry, you never offended me there! On the contrary, I want to back up your words. You can add my signature under that last post.

And you are right, Jim's post later made me rethink my opinions.

 

[deb25]

The bottom line is this: internet law is a very new and untried forum. But a website or its owners and moderators could be held liable and cases like this exist. When one considers damages that might be brought by a parent objecting to participation or its affects on a minor child, those of us running this site do not want to risk our respective livelihoods, no matter how frivilous a potential suit could be.

That being said, this particular adult feels strongly that kids/teens spend altogether too much time on the net as it is. I am not a proponent of encouraging that behavior on this site. Although I think we provide valuable interaction and education regarding cat care issues for all ages, the scoial forums have been designed with adults in mind. Many of us come here to relax and interact with adults. I, for one, don't like having to second guess what I post about because I am dealing with kids.

 

[lucia]

Personally, I find the changes reasonable, especially the adult cat status. I also follow the 'your ball, your rules' with something like this. The website owners have the perogative to set any policy, as long as it isn't illegal. Age 18 is as reasonable as any for an age cut-off.

 

[wellingtoncats]

Your call I guess, However I love posting in IMO.

Thanks for that.

 

[rapunzel47]

Yes, and you usually have something useful to say, too.

But that cannot be said of all people your age, nor can it be assumed that the minor poster's parents aren't jacka$$es who'll get litigious over some possibly harmless, but nonetheless provocative exchange, in which their darling little idiot was involved. Unfortunately, there's usually an idiot available to spoil things for the rest of a perfectly responsible group of people, and if we want to ensure that the site and its operators are not jeopardised, some precautions are necessary.

I'll miss your posts in IMO, Sam, but I have to agree with the age limit, and the more I think about it, the more I think it needs to be the generally accepted "age of majority", i.e. the point in a person's life when legal responsibility for their actions no longer falls to their parents.

 

[weatherlight]

If you don't want to be sued, lock yourself in your closet and never go out. Never say anything to anyone, look at anyone, never buy or sell anything, never walk on the street...

How can you use a tiny risk of an angry idiot as justification for discriminating against all people under 18 years of age, but still walk or drive or run/mod a messageboard? That has to be among the most irrational rationalizations I've ever heard. Is there something I'm not aware of that would make this make sense? Did I misread something? I don't understand.

This particular adult feels strongly that kids/teens should be free to spend their free time as they see fit, barring harm to anyone. I'd rather someone be thinking about our world and exchanging ideas with other people than buying and using crack or downloading porn. (Disclaimer: I don't have anything against minors seeing porn or using crack any more than I do against adults who do the same.) I have seen many forums of communication, online and offline, where people of varying ages could talk freely, be honest, and get along. I do not see why this cannot be the case here.

As for the "age of majority," the US is not the only nation in the world. (Some Americans just act like it.) Iirc, the "age of majority" generally used in international law is 21 (i.e. an 18 year old dual citizen must have parental consent to renounce citizenship of one country). In any case, 2, 14, 18, 21, and 83 are all equally arbitrary "lines." I disagree with society's prejudices, and I disagree with this board's.


"Fear of corrupting the mind of the younger generation is the loftiest of cowardice."
-Holbrook Jackson


I'm not the only one who challenges age discrimination against younger people.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/7357/youth.html
http://www.tcs.ac/Articles/TheFinalPrejudice.html
http://www.soaw.org/new/article.php?id=649
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/soc/355lect15.htm

And a nice article on why minors should be allowed free speech and internet access: http://www.peacefire.org/info/why.shtml

Hmm, thanks for this immature rule. A little digging has led me to some interesting reading.

P.S. If we are to assume that everyone online lies about their age anyway, why bother? Just say on the registration page: "To post on all the boards at this forum, you should say you are at least 18 years old. If you are under 18, just say you're 34. People might say you're lying, but people might say anyone lies about anything online. Have fun."

 

[Anne]

Thank you everyone for sounding your opinions in the matter. The decision is final.

I do want to add that your feedback has been taken into considertions, but also that there are other issues at stake here, some of which cannot be disclosed due to privacy considerations. Trust me, these new rules were all set for a reason and based on recent and past experience. That's why they weren't there to begin with and are only added now.

Not everyone has to like the new (or old) rules. But if you wish to be a member of this community you have to respect them and abide them. Otherwise, the internet is huge and I'm sure you can find other websites more to your liking. I don't mean that in a mean way either - just stating a fact.

A note about internet laws before I close the thread. I am currently being sued for more than $200,000 because I alledgedly failed to censor some posts at another board where I used to moderate. Is the lawsuit justified? Not in my eyes and in the eyes of anyone who knows the internet. Still, the internet is so new you can never know what a judge will decide in the matter. So you will excuse me if I take these legal precautions a bit more seriously then others. I have paid enough to lawyers this year to handle that lawsuit and I don't feel to be involved in another one.

Thanks again and I'm closing this thread now. Further comments on the issue can be directed to me via PM.