Forum age requirement.

[Swoop 2,278]

If you've read the title of this thread, chances are you already know what this is all about. If you happen to be against the idea of a global age limit, you may with to read through the rest of this post, in order to gather an appreciation for the reasoning behind our decision.

---

MLP Forums was originally intended to cater to members of all age groups. Given that the very focus of these forums is on that of a children's cartoon, intuition would likely prevent many from assuming otherwise. However, as the forums have grown and evolved, it has become increasing clear to us that some aspects of the Brony fandom (such as risqué shipping, the discussion of NSFW fandom elements, etc..) tend to be more suited towards that of a teen to adult audience, as opposed to those aged twelve and below. Furthermore, many threads located in and around the Life Advice and General Discussion boards carry more mature elements that may not be suited for particularly younger members.

 

In response to these changes, we've decided to implement a global age requirement to the forums. The age minimum will result in the following:

• All new members are required to be aged thirteen or older in order to participate in the forums.
• All existing members aged under thirteen will be unable to participate in the forums until their thirteenth birthday, after which their account will become accessible once more.

Given the rather hefty implications the age minimum brings, it's worth noting what the requirement will and won't achieve. Below are a handful of responses given for some of the arguments raised in the age limit suggestion thread:

 

 

Member age ≠ maturity. It never has, and never will.

 

Honestly, I couldn't agree with that statement more.

 

If anything, these forums have proven to be quite an ideal instance of mature discussion across all age groups. However, be that as it may, the mental and/or emotional development of members isn't what we're attempting to filter here.

 

Taking into account that many parents and guardians of younger children do in fact care about what content their children are exposed to on the internet, in addition to those who do consider what they view based upon a recommended or compulsory age limit, such a limit would effectively function as an indicator to those who wish to monitor what they or their children do and do not view. Moreover, a good deal of accountability for what is observed within the forums is shifted from the administration to the user themselves.

 

 

Can't members simply lie about their age, rendering the whole minimum useless?

 

They sure can, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.

 

I have no doubt that many members will falsify their age to access the forums. Though, as previously mentioned, in doing so any liability is placed directly on the individual, rather than on the forums as a whole.

 

 

Isn't this just a knee-jerk reaction to the whole Ol' Sarge incident?

 

The incident regarding Ol' Sarge was without doubt the catalyst for change, but it wasn't the only factor. The idea of an age requirement had been tossed around long before the event arose - we'd had time to give the proposal some solid thought, rather than diving in headfirst at the first sign of trouble.

---

As with any sort of blanket measure, a global age minimum is by no means a global cure - the overall effectiveness of the age minimum still remains to be seen. Nevertheless, given the forums current direction in terms of content, I'm willing to say that it's a step in the right direction.

[Finesthour 7,287]

I am beyond happy this rule has been put into play. I have nothing against maturaty per say, (as the 12 year old user -Crazymisty- was actually really amazing) but the legal matter for the forums is well accepted into my head.

As you said, yeah, people can just lie. But no foul on the forum for someone lying.

[Speedy Transition 788]

I understand where you are coming from, i just found it unfair that younger members could not enjoy as much of the fandom as us older members, but i agree with you Swoop, and i feel for the members who cannot yet take part with this site.

[Twiliscael 3,960]

I agree with this age limit. Sure, we may be restricting some members from this site, but we are also making sure no more incidents like Ol' Sarge's happen. Not to mention protecting the innocence of some fillies and colts.

[Ashbad 969]

Makes sense, Facebook is the same way. Sure, maturity can be found across all age levels, hell, many 16 year olds act like they're in their 30's, some people in their 30's act like they're 13 -- but it's honestly an exception when someone under 13 acts older than their age. That's not the issue however, it's the legal implications -- and that's a very fair justification. Still, my condolences to those under 13 affected by this, I have nothing against you.

[Bronium 512]

Finally! This cleared up a bit of the details for me.

 

It's really unfortunate really.

 

Just asking but don't we have some sort of ToS? Can't we just say include a statement that says that we are not liable for so and so, and let them join, having a box saying that their parents consent to their child using the forums and all liability is on them? That would allow for the kids to join and save the forums from legal liability (right?)

 

And can't we have age restrictions on some the more mature sub-forums? Though the Ol' Sarge thing did happen in the CC and these incidents could happen anywhere, so the restrictions won't matter much, but it might reduce the chance of it happening.

 

Also, I know that you were thinking about the age limit beforehand and that the incident didn't instigate this age limit, but had the incident not happened, would the age limit have been delayed or even applied?

 

Just my opinion and a few questions. It's still Feld0's forum and I don't want him to get into any legal fuss.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Bronium

[Finesthour 7,287]

And can't we have age restrictions on some the more mature sub-forums? Though the Ol' Sarge thing did happen in the CC and these incidents could happen anywhere, so the restrictions won't matter much, but it might reduce the chance of it happening.

 

Just my opinion. It's still Feld0's forum and I don't want him to get into any legal fuss.

 

Isn't possible to have mature sub forums.

If you are thinking of anything 18+, you'll have to forget it. Feld0 is only (16, 17? I forget, damn.) He wouldn't be able to run it himself.

[Midnightive 458]

Isn't possible to have mature sub forums.

If you are thinking of anything 18+, you'll have to forget it. Feld0 is only (16, 17? I forget, damn.) He wouldn't be able to run it himself.

 

If he's 17 we only have a year to wait

 

 

 

 

I feel sorry for all the under 13 year olds, but i can see why this has happened. This now does not make the forum we all know and love. To blame for seeing stuff like NSFW. So yes i'm happy about this!

[AngryGamer432 155]

I can see putting the age limit at 13 because of all the profanity. It just sucks that some people can't enjoy the forums as much

[AppleShy Sparkle 312]

I don't think i've seen any unmature young people here, but as Crona said, i think it'll be great for the legal matters.

 

I also hope that if the ''Ol' Sarge incident'' happens again, the parents would at least check the rules and see that it's their own kid who has been doing the wrong thing, and not blame others just trying to have fun.

[Bronium 512]

Isn't possible to have mature sub forums.

If you are thinking of anything 18+, you'll have to forget it. Feld0 is only (16, 17? I forget, damn.) He wouldn't be able to run it himself.

 

I wasn't talking about nsfw or anything 18+, but Swoop mentioned some sub-forums

Furthermore, many threads located in and around the Life Advice and General Discussion boards carry more mature elements that may not be suited for particularly younger members.

contain some mature content. Basically, if we don't want some kids to discuss some things, just have a mature (I should say age restricted forums) forums. Still, I already rebutted that idea in my post. Just in case someone brought up the idea.

 

Does the lack of other kids affect other rules though? Hmmm.

 

P.S: I'm 16 so the 18+ forums would be bad for me.

[thegoodhen 698]

I just hope the ponies that got suspended because of this will be immature enough to make a new account and bypass the age limit and mature enough not to brag about it anywhere.

 

(haha, it's like when Doctor regenerated-new face, good ol' Doc.)

[HomuraBL 851]

I agree with this. Although I do feel bad for those members, it needs to be clear that this more a brony forums instead of a just plain My little pony forum. I don't think little kids should be running around here...And what do you mean shipping is more suited for teens and adults?

[Evilshy 5,090]

So we can swear like a bunch of fucking sailors now?

Not that we didn't anyway...

 

I am beyond happy this rule has been put into play. I have nothing against maturaty per say, (as the 12 year old user -Crazymisty- was actually really amazing) but the legal matter for the forums is well accepted into my head.

As you said, yeah, people can just lie. But no foul on the forum for someone lying.

 

Wait, Crazy Misty is only 12?

... damn. That's one user gone I'm going to miss...

 

 

Also, love the tags, Swoop

Edited August 8, 2012 by Evilshy and His Own Ego

[notdog1996 315]

At first I didn't really agree with this, being 15 and all, I just passed those limits. I've been told I'm really mature for my age and I know other people like this exist. But, after reading Ol' Sarge's open letter, I felt so bad for him... Seriously, it was only a game. It makes me think about that incident in which a girl claimed to have been kidnapped just to cause trouble to everyone else.

[weegeez 150]

considering the fact the majority of this forum is based off the brony fandom rather tham just the show, this age limit seems perfectly sensible. Not that the u-13 members are immature or anything, but more for their own good, especially if they have picky parents watching over them. Some people may disagree with this, but I believe its fair

[Haven Celestii 9,385]

Man, I feel bad for all those under 13 who loved it here.

It's gonna suck to have to wait a/some year(s) just to get back in the fun. Atleast it keeps the forum safe. ^~^

[HomuraBL 851]

Atleast it keeps the forum safe. ^~^

 

I think its more about keeping the kids safe though Kirby, Very few things they could do to get the forums in trouble.

[Dragonshy 2,305]

It's good to see that this rule was added. I would hate to see some fat idiotic father take down the best forum on the internet.

 

I agree with age not being the equivalent to maturity. I saw a 9 year old here a few months ago (It seems he lost interest.) and he was very mature for his age. We had intriguing conversations that you wouldn't expect from a nine year old.

 

If an under aged member were to lie about their age and admit to it later, would that result in a ban or a timer so they would have to wait until their 13th birthday?

[FedoraMemes 582]

First of all, dem tags.

 

Secondly, I'm actually happy this has been placed. Kids on the internet are not a good combination. Especially on online games. (I'm not saying all kids are like that. I'm 13 and I've been told that people thought I was older)

 

Also, now that this rule has been put in, does this change the swearing rule? (I mean, obviously having curse words every other sentence would be against the rules)

 

Oh yeah, and I'm gonna mis Crazy Misty

[Doctor XFizzle 8,669]

Unfortunate for the under-13 users who were actually cool and mature for their age because that rule wasn't established when they joined but this covers the forum's butt legally so I'm all for it.

 

Seeing as the majority of users here are teens, it was like having a 6th grader hanging around sophs/juniors/seniors in HS and who knows what stuff that 6th grader would pick up when hanging out with the teens. Sucks for the youngins who were cool but that's how it goes, life's unfair.

[PonyEcho 1,610]

well i feel bad for the under 13's because this rule was made with the over 13's in mind. but this had to be done. (i'm guessing there wasn't a way to make the NSFW stuff restricted to them so they could stay on the forum and still be safe from all the mature stuff)

 

well i don't see this changing the forum to much, we still have the rule ensuring nothing to graphic can be posted on the forum.

[MVC NVMXD JVRXD 2,406]

Lol the tags.

Though we may lose some nice members, it's for the longevity of the forums, I guess. I'd rather lose a bunch of 12 and under people than have the forums be shut down as a whole.

@@Swoop

One thing. If someone is registering, and they put in their real age, but are denied, can they just change it mid process? This could happen, if they really want to get on these forums.

[Zoop 8,384]

Just a quickie since I'm at work at the moment, but the age restriction is not gong to have any impact what so ever on rule enforcement and such. We are still uninterested in having 'mature' or otherwise NSFW content, threads, or boards.

 

Business as usual.

[Lady Rarity Pony 4,892]

After reading the Ol' Sarge incident, I can't get myself to disagree with this decision.

 

This is the norm for websites anyway. This shouldn't be considered some restrictive and oppressive change.

 

It is, of course, unfortunate that our younger members will be locked out for a time, but it's something the forums needed.

 

 

Just one question. If someone changes their age to below 13 will they be barred from the forums?