Jump to content

Should Kids be allowed to post in the forums?


Recommended Posts

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

 

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

 

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To participate in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older.

 

This particular bit of the Terms of Use has been widely ignored. Should it be enforced?

 

Vote Here

Link to comment

I would be happy to at least know that the poster is underage, it's easier to just let some of their remarks slide off your back rather than get into arguments with them. Maybe just a note by their profile "under 18" or "young cacher"... "wisdom not fully formed" ??????

Link to comment

Yes, kids should be welcomed here. Geocaching is to my mind the perfect family activity.

 

If anything it's the adults who take this game way too seriously who shouldn't post here!

 

If we adults are behaving in ways that youngsters don't feel welcome and accepted here then we are doing it wrong.

 

The Guideline does not need to be changed, I'm sure it serves a legal purpose. Perhaps an informal 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is best here... take poster's at face value without worrying about how old they are.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

I can see that physical age might be a problem sometimes. Perhaps it would be better to simply demand 'mental age'.

Forums everywhere are full of people who are questionable on that level. Of course same can be said of gamesites etc.

I won't mention the newservice 'comment' areas.

 

I think that using an enforceable 'adult' supervision requirement might work better. That would mean parental consent, some monitoring at home, and the collective review of other contributors and moderators. It should not exclude anyone who actually wants to participate here. Besides which, how would one limit team and family accounts made in an adults name?

 

From what I've seen here, the contributor and moderator part is in place and mostly works. Nothing will stop an occasional 'glitch' from taking place. And that goes for 'adults' as well. It's part of typing things online to make innocent comments into major events by way of a typo or word spelling. Emoticons help a bit, but I think many don't even see them any more than they type or read the words on the screen.

 

As to being there in the first place, it's a TOU after all is said. Agreeing to it has to fit into whatever is legal age wherever it originates (Washington State?) or it is worthless anyway. It might be a Federal thing, I'm not sure about the US, but this is supposed to be a 'family' site isn't it? I don't think that refers to MOB owned some how.

 

I say young people are fine by me. That would be anyone 10 years younger than me of course. Some control is desirable of course but not exclusion. Interaction with 'adults'(other than family) is how the young develop life skills.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment

All the rules in the TOU should be enforced for all posters and all threads.

That's cool, I actually agree with that. So yes, change the Guideline to remove the minimum age if legally acceptable. If not then turn a blind eye to it, as is done with other TOU violations on a regular basis.

 

Or just enforce the rules in the TOU, as wacky an idea as that may be.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

I suspect the age requirement is all about the law. If a child develops an inappropriate relationship with an adult through these forums or is exposed to inappropriate content here Groundspeak can say that the child violated the published TOU and it was the parent's responsibility to see that the kid adhered to them.

 

I'm absolutely sure that you're probably right. I agree with this. I still think that enforcing all of the TOU on all forum members in all threads would solve the issue, regardless of age.

Link to comment
...Interaction with 'adults'(other than family) is how the young develop life skills.

 

 

Yes.

 

I've seen some very good contributions by younger forum members and also some inaccurate and 'cocky, bordering on rude' ones. Maybe the older, more mature (ho ho ho) contributors can give a word of praise and/or agreement when appropriate, and a verbal clip-around-the-ear for the more inappropriate stuff. ;)

 

smack.gif<--- One of these. :lol:

 

MrsB

Edited by The Blorenges
Link to comment

Yes, kids should be welcomed here. Geocaching is to my mind the perfect family activity.

 

If anything it's the adults who take this game way too seriously who shouldn't post here!

 

If we adults are behaving in ways that youngsters don't feel welcome and accepted here then we are doing it wrong.

 

The Guideline does not need to be changed, I'm sure it serves a legal purpose. Perhaps an informal 'don't ask, don't tell' policy is best here... take poster's at face value without worrying about how old they are.

 

I do not like the idea of ignoring a rule...that sets a very bad precedent...if a rule is in place, enforce it...if the rule is bad, change the rule...but don't ask, don't tell is just not okay.

Link to comment

Kids are allowed to create profiles arent they? Therefore, they should be allowed to post in the forums and share their ideas. I am one of the many kids that I know of in Colorado, and we all even pay the $30 membership fee a year. kids should be allowed every right that a adult has on geocaching.com, particularly because Groundspeak advertises geocaching as a "family activity."

Link to comment

Absolutely not. I know that kids have become a problem here- I know exactly who you people are talking about. But a blanket ban is not how to deal with it. I myself would be banned from the forums under that rule. I see no reason I shouldn't be able to post here, I haven't posted anything most people would object to.

Link to comment

I participate in another website and there are many things on the website which are banned if you are under 18. However, folks just use incorrect birth dates to get around that. If you make the DOB directly effect forum use, they will just create accounts with an adult DOB and use that to post.

Link to comment

I doubt there are any 10 yo kids posting in here... But I've seen some 15-16-17 yo kids posting but they have given valid points, valid arguments and not so good comments, etc. But as noted, adults are guilty of this as well.

 

Not sure how Groundspeak could enforce this.

 

It's not as if there is anything vile in the forum posts.

 

Most kids see a heck of a lot worse than what has been posted in these forums. There's nothing that is NOT age inappropriate in here. Very seldom see any cursing or swearing, let alone any pictures that shouldn't be here..

 

It's a forum to discuss geocaching and I think anyone who wants to post, should be able to post. There are moderators in here who quickly close down topics that don't deserve to be here and they've banned others. They have done a good job in ensuring everyone gets an opinion.

 

I don't know if the poster is a 16yo kid or a 90year old person.

 

I definitely think that the terms of use should be modified.

Link to comment

It's a family game. Let the family participate.

 

Nodody is preventing kids from finding caches. They can play the game all the want.

 

And when they are old enough they can post on the forums.

 

I see no valid reason to ban kids from participation in any aspect of this hobby. That includes these forums.

 

If an individual user is posting in an inappropriate manner then that user should be dealt with. Age is irrelevant.

Link to comment

The guidelines should be enforced, not the age requirement.

 

Ive noticed posts by a "kid" which would indicate that they really are not a kid at all.

 

And then only the sightest hint of that, brings out childlike posts afterwards. Next, I discovered the "parent's" account and noticed the same type of behaviour, and the same type of posts..

 

You guys really believe everything you read, dont cha? :D

Link to comment

The guidelines should be enforced, not the age requirement.

 

Ive noticed posts by a "kid" which would indicate that they really are not a kid at all.

 

And then only the sightest hint of that, brings out childlike posts afterwards. Next, I discovered the "parent's" account and noticed the same type of behaviour, and the same type of posts..

 

You guys really believe everything you read, dont cha? :D

 

Actually no, I don't. I've seen the same things you point out. I sometimes wonder who the kids are and who the adults aren't. :anibad:

Link to comment

I've really enjoyed reading most of what these guys have posted. I don't see what the problem is, when there has been an occasionally badly timed or badly worded comment, there is always someone to pick up on it and play the ball back into field, no matter who it is. They're 16 not 13, and they have shown that 16 year olds can use the forums responsibly and usefully. If anything, we could do with more posters of their age, as they're still heavily outnumbered by us old fogeys.

 

I think the TOU should lower the age to 16 for the forums. I was surprised it has an 18 age limit.(An age limit is a good idea, though, as small children might give away too much information about themselves.) Everyone should be equally accountable for their own behaviour on the forums. I think it is a good idea for people to only have one account each, and to each only post under one username if regular forum users, rather through a family account.

 

Mrs. F

Link to comment

As many have noted, there are plenty of adults who act like kids and vice versa, so a ban based on a user's age presumes a great deal about the individual. Are those under 18 less mature than those over 18? On average, sure, but there are plenty of exceptions, and this forum is full of them.

 

One valid point brought up earlier was that if it is generally felt that the rule is unnecessary, change it. It sets a bad precedent to claim well, follow all of these, but not so much that one. Some people already feel other aspects of the TOU are abused anyway. Instead of taking a stance that claims since it's already abused, why deal with it, why not work to fix it by identifying what could be changed to reflect actual practice?

Link to comment

Well, when they're new accounts and young, there is a risk that they might not understand the way the forums work, or when to say when. Early adolescence is a stage when "peer groups" become increasingly important, and this forum has clearly taken a few young newbies in. But peer pressure is possible, and modelling behavior of some folks or shared opinions in the forums can often become misguided.

 

Developmental psychology and biology show that the social and emotional part of the brain (amygdala) develops faster than the cognitive-control part of the brain (frontal cortex), so risk taking endeavors become more apparent. Thoughtful decision making is also guided more by the emotional stimuli. So, behaviors can become inappropriate...leading to threads like this.

 

But, I know that I, and other adults, can exhibit behaviors on a forum board that can be unclear and seem inappropriate. By not having the experience face-to-face, many subtleties of communication are lost, and more than often we aren't able to properly articulate meaning or intention. We also don't reward or rebuke improper actions in constructive ways. (I said we, meaning "me" and "us")

 

...see, it's hard to make it clear what I mean. But you get the gist of it. I'll don my asbestos suit and face shield now. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I'd rather have my kids dealing with ya'll then going elsewhere on the net. This is a family oriented sport. Treat it like it is. If you don't like carrying on a conversation with a youngster then don't. But don't deny them an adult perspective on things. Kids need more of that, not less. Age don't mean squat nowadays on forums. Some of the underaged folk here are more mature then some of the 'mature' folk here.

Link to comment

It seems to me that the bottom line is that it is an unenforcable guideline. Even if the poster claims in the public forum to be less than 18, that doesn't mean its true, and more than it would be necessarily true if they stated publically to be over 18. I agree that the only reason it is in the forum guidelines is for legal protection.

 

Funny point: there is one young forum user here that for many months, I thought was an older man (I mean considerably older... like maybe in his 80's). Boy, was I shocked when I learned otherwise.

Link to comment
...Interaction with 'adults'(other than family) is how the young develop life skills.

 

 

Yes.

 

I've seen some very good contributions by younger forum members and also some inaccurate and 'cocky, bordering on rude' ones. Maybe the older, more mature (ho ho ho) contributors can give a word of praise and/or agreement when appropriate, and a verbal clip-around-the-ear for the more inappropriate stuff. ;)

 

smack.gif<--- One of these. :lol:

 

MrsB

 

Wouldn't be bad if the young ones would take heed of being told that they are out of line.

 

Perhaps the moderators should take "special interest" in guiding those who post "cocky, bordering on rude" posts, especially in the Getting Started forum, or when replying to folks who are new to the game and to the forums?

Link to comment

I'd rather have my kids dealing with ya'll then going elsewhere on the net. This is a family oriented sport. Treat it like it is. If you don't like carrying on a conversation with a youngster then don't. But don't deny them an adult perspective on things. Kids need more of that, not less. Age don't mean squat nowadays on forums. Some of the underaged folk here are more mature then some of the 'mature' folk here.

Word

Link to comment

Have you been to 4chan? Some of it's boards are not safe for work, but I think if you would check it out it would explain a lot.

Some of the questionable responses I have seen here remind me very much of the culture on that forum.

 

Take it as you will.

 

Being more specific to the issue, I find that it's only one or two people who are repeatedly out of line. Should we project that on to everyone?

Link to comment

Some of the questionable responses I have seen here remind me very much of the culture on that forum.

 

I don't know what your reading, but nothing here that I have seen has been as vulgar as 4chan.

not nearly as vulgar, but the same inhospitable, sarcastic vibe. The language is different, but the attitude is similar.

Link to comment

I suspect the age requirement is all about the law. If a child develops an inappropriate relationship with an adult through these forums or is exposed to inappropriate content here Groundspeak can say that the child violated the published TOU and it was the parent's responsibility to see that the kid adhered to them.

 

I'm absolutely sure that you're probably right. I agree with this. I still think that enforcing all of the TOU on all forum members in all threads would solve the issue, regardless of age.

It seems hypocritical to claim the forums as always family friendly then not allow the youth participate in them. Again, it's probably a legal issue, like you said, but the inappropriate relationship scenario doesn't make sense. Should we ban kids from theme parks and Chuck E. Cheese's based on the same unlikely scenario?

Link to comment

I suspect the age requirement is all about the law. If a child develops an inappropriate relationship with an adult through these forums or is exposed to inappropriate content here Groundspeak can say that the child violated the published TOU and it was the parent's responsibility to see that the kid adhered to them.

 

You mean, like Facebook?

Link to comment

http://www.geocachin...termsofuse.aspx

 

4. Use of Publishing Tools and Forums

 

All features, functions and areas of the geocaching.com website, including the Groundspeak Forums (http://forums.Groundspeak.com), are governed by this Agreement and are also subject to such additional terms and conditions as Groundspeak may, from time to time, publicize. To participate in the Groundspeak Discussion Forums, you must be 18 years or older.

 

This particular bit of the Terms of Use has been widely ignored. Should it be enforced?

 

Vote Here

 

If Groundspeak is going to limit the forums to adults (in the legal sense), I'd like to see this applied to cache ownership too. There should be a statement in the submission form that says To post a cache on the Groundspeak site you must be 18 years or older. I know that there are some good responsible kids out there but legally we're talking about children who are autonomously setting up accounts and placing caches.

Link to comment

Some of the questionable responses I have seen here remind me very much of the culture on that forum.

 

I don't know what your reading, but nothing here that I have seen has been as vulgar as 4chan.

not nearly as vulgar, but the same inhospitable, sarcastic vibe. The language is different, but the attitude is similar.

 

I have no idea what 4chan is, but the "vibe" of these forums has been pretty constant since I started reading them in 2006. I don't think the under-18 crowd has affected the tenor of this forum at all--if you read some of the "classic" threads from early on, they showcase some biting wit and sarcasm beautifully! No, I don't have a problem with kids participating in these forums. Seems to me you would want the younger set to be interested in the forums--what better place to learn about caching and all the unwritten norms and etiquette?

Link to comment

I suspect the age requirement is all about the law. If a child develops an inappropriate relationship with an adult through these forums or is exposed to inappropriate content here Groundspeak can say that the child violated the published TOU and it was the parent's responsibility to see that the kid adhered to them.

 

I'm absolutely sure that you're probably right. I agree with this. I still think that enforcing all of the TOU on all forum members in all threads would solve the issue, regardless of age.

It seems hypocritical to claim the forums as always family friendly then not allow the youth participate in them. Again, it's probably a legal issue, like you said, but the inappropriate relationship scenario doesn't make sense. Should we ban kids from theme parks and Chuck E. Cheese's based on the same unlikely scenario?

 

Most theme parks and Chuck E Cheese's won't let in minors without a responsible adult present. That doens't really work here.

Link to comment

I suspect the age requirement is all about the law. If a child develops an inappropriate relationship with an adult through these forums or is exposed to inappropriate content here Groundspeak can say that the child violated the published TOU and it was the parent's responsibility to see that the kid adhered to them.

 

You mean, like Facebook?

 

Facebook will disable an account if it's found to be held by a minor, per their TOU. The same should apply here. If a poster admits openly to being under the minimum age in the TOU then the account should not be allowed to post- per the TOU.

 

Until such time as an account is known to be under the minimum age then all the other rules in the TOU should apply- to all posters in all threads.

Link to comment

I suspect the age requirement is all about the law. If a child develops an inappropriate relationship with an adult through these forums or is exposed to inappropriate content here Groundspeak can say that the child violated the published TOU and it was the parent's responsibility to see that the kid adhered to them.

 

You mean, like Facebook?

 

Facebook will disable an account if it's found to be held by a minor, per their TOU. The same should apply here. If a poster admits openly to being under the minimum age in the TOU then the account should not be allowed to post- per the TOU.

 

Until such time as an account is known to be under the minimum age then all the other rules in the TOU should apply- to all posters in all threads.

Except the minimum age of Facebook is 13, not 18.

Link to comment

I suspect the age requirement is all about the law. If a child develops an inappropriate relationship with an adult through these forums or is exposed to inappropriate content here Groundspeak can say that the child violated the published TOU and it was the parent's responsibility to see that the kid adhered to them.

 

I'm absolutely sure that you're probably right. I agree with this. I still think that enforcing all of the TOU on all forum members in all threads would solve the issue, regardless of age.

It seems hypocritical to claim the forums as always family friendly then not allow the youth participate in them. Again, it's probably a legal issue, like you said, but the inappropriate relationship scenario doesn't make sense. Should we ban kids from theme parks and Chuck E. Cheese's based on the same unlikely scenario?

 

Most theme parks and Chuck E Cheese's won't let in minors without a responsible adult present. That doens't really work here.

Maybe, but my teenage son goes to many establishments without an adult - Starbucks, the pizza parlor, theme parks, etc.

Link to comment

 

Facebook will disable an account if it's found to be held by a minor, per their TOU.

 

 

This doesn't always happen. I know people who have contacted the website about accounts of under 13s. Nothing was done in any of the cases I know about. I'm guessing it's hard for them to prove/disprove it.

Link to comment

Have you been to 4chan? Some of it's boards are not safe for work, but I think if you would check it out it would explain a lot.

Some of the questionable responses I have seen here remind me very much of the culture on that forum.

 

Take it as you will.

 

Being more specific to the issue, I find that it's only one or two people who are repeatedly out of line. Should we project that on to everyone?

 

That's like saying the Bhut Jolokia has a little bit of heat to it.....I'm young enough to know what 4chan is. While I actually do agree that a rule that is in effect should be enforced, and that there is a degree of negativity and an attitude of severe entitlement to some youths on this board it is nowhere near the across the board wild west that 4chan is.

 

And when I say Wild West I don't mean the 1960's westerns. I mean the Wild West from the show Deadwood.

Link to comment

 

Facebook will disable an account if it's found to be held by a minor, per their TOU.

 

 

This doesn't always happen. I know people who have contacted the website about accounts of under 13s. Nothing was done in any of the cases I know about. I'm guessing it's hard for them to prove/disprove it.

 

Rule enforcement of ANY kind is rarely ,if ever, 100% perfect or effective. Does that mean the rule is invalid or should not be enforced? I don't think so. The rule should be taken on it's own merits, not whether there may be a way around it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...