RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to General RPoL

15:16, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Age requirements?

Posted by Jessi
otghand
member, 311 posts
Sat 16 Aug 2014
at 17:31
  • msg #16

Re: Age requirements?

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 15):

I think you might have misunderstood my question.  How would RPOL handle being presented with a parental request for access to their child's information?
Merevel
member, 692 posts
Gaming :-)
Very unlucky
Sat 16 Aug 2014
at 17:34
  • msg #17

Re: Age requirements?

So, even if it is frowned upon, a user under the age of 13 is permitted if parents do not demand access to their account?
cruinne
moderator, 6516 posts
what DO you do with
a drunken sailor?
Sat 16 Aug 2014
at 17:37

Re: Age requirements?

In reply to otghand (msg # 16):

We do not give out users' information to others, period.  If a parent wants those things, RPoL is not the place for their child to be.   It's actually never happened, though we have had people claiming to be others' spouses demanding various accesses to their accounts, which we have always denied.


In reply to Merevel (msg # 17):

As I said above, we've never had a specific rule against it, though I think it's probably time we determine a policy on it.  We don't do policy changes lightly, so it usually takes us some discussion to hash out.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:38, Sat 16 Aug 2014.
Merevel
member, 693 posts
Gaming :-)
Very unlucky
Sat 16 Aug 2014
at 17:41
  • msg #19

Re: Age requirements?

Thank you. I disagree with allowing children under 13. But that might be because of Coppa, and how much I remember kids being brats lol.

That is a discussion for another thread though, sorry.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:41, Sat 16 Aug 2014.
icosahedron152
member, 334 posts
Sun 17 Aug 2014
at 20:00
  • msg #20

Re: Age requirements?

In reply to cruinne (msg # 11):

If you don't advise that children under 13 are allowed on the site, the 'Mature' tag is meaningless, since all users should be 'mature'.

Definitely sounds like this whole issue is something to look at.
swordchucks
member, 809 posts
Sun 17 Aug 2014
at 20:02
  • msg #21

Re: Age requirements?

icosahedron152:
the 'Mature' tag is meaningless

As far as I know, the mature tag has never had a real meaning aside from serving as a warning about possible game content.  Anything that can appear in a Mature game can also appear in a general game, and vice versa.
Merevel
member, 701 posts
Gaming :-)
Very unlucky
Sun 17 Aug 2014
at 20:04
  • msg #22

Re: Age requirements?

Pretty much. That was the way it was explained to me in another thread that focused on adult games.
icosahedron152
member, 335 posts
Sun 17 Aug 2014
at 20:10
  • msg #23

Re: Age requirements?

Ah, of course. Mature doesn't just relate to age. Got it, thanks. :)
This message was last edited by the user at 20:12, Sun 17 Aug 2014.
pfarland
member, 144 posts
Sun 17 Aug 2014
at 20:11
  • msg #24

Re: Age requirements?

I think what otghand was trying to say is what would happen if a parent legally requested access to a minor's account.  Not necessarily one that is under 13, but say a 15 year old.  I believe a parent has the right to legally request that access and I think you would probably need to grant that request.
Shannara
moderator, 3470 posts
Whatever you do,
DON'T PANIC!
Sun 17 Aug 2014
at 20:17

Re: Age requirements?

The parent legally requesting access would likely need to do so 'legally' -- ie, thru a lawyer with proof of legality, identity, guardianship, etc.


Parents do not have 'rights' to their child's account on RPoL -- and if they don't agree to that, they need to not allow their child to have an account on RPoL.
otghand
member, 312 posts
Sun 17 Aug 2014
at 20:30
  • msg #26

Re: Age requirements?

Shannara:
Parents do not have 'rights' to their child's account on RPoL


I think you are probably wrong about this, presuming proof of the relationship is established.  Generally speaking terms of service, implied or clearly stated, do not trump state and federal law, and with some very narrow exceptions parents have a right to any and all information regarding their child.

Now a wise parent knows what their children do online and has their passwords, etc.  That does not change or diminish their legal rights or responsibilities, nor those of a hosting site.
Shannara
moderator, 3471 posts
Whatever you do,
DON'T PANIC!
Sun 17 Aug 2014
at 20:33

Re: Age requirements?

Maybe so.  If and when it ever comes up, we will defer to proper legal authorities.

Until then, our policy is that noone have access to anyone else's account, and if and when we are aware of that happening, we will disable the accounts in question.
cruinne
moderator, 6520 posts
what DO you do with
a drunken sailor?
Sun 17 Aug 2014
at 20:35

Re: Age requirements?

In reply to otghand (msg # 26):

Of course, as I keep saying: it's a situation that's never arisen.

All the hand-wringing and armchair lawyering in the world isn't going to change the fact that this is a situation that's never come up.  And even then, it's one we'd handle once we were contacted through legal channels and (I'm sure) after jase reviewed his options and obligations.

So, while I understand you might be interested, there's really no point to hand-wringing and arguing about it here in hypotheticals.  Especially so if you're not the one who'd be receiving or dealing with such demands.

ETA: Ah, Shannara got here before me!  Ah well, just keep reading her bio lines. ;-)
This message was last edited by the user at 20:36, Sun 17 Aug 2014.
facemaker329
member, 6435 posts
Gaming for over 30
years, and counting!
Mon 18 Aug 2014
at 07:14
  • msg #29

Re: Age requirements?

otghand:
I think you are probably wrong about this, presuming proof of the relationship is established.


Ummmm...considering the fact that the only way a parent could really establish proof of relationship is to send a legal document, I think it's kind of a moot point to argue beyond that.  If someone requests access to an account, claiming the account owner is a minor and they are the minor's parent, RPOL would be perfectly within reasonable measures in refusing access until there was legal proof of the claim.  Once the lawyers are involved, then it becomes the kind of scenario that Shannara was positing.
Tileira
member, 393 posts
Mon 18 Aug 2014
at 14:34
  • msg #30

Re: Age requirements?

I'm somewhat dubious as to how much entertainment an 11-year-old could get out of RPoL. It's a slow medium for gameplay amongst other complications. I think she'd probably just get bored of it very quickly.
Wine Guy
member, 352 posts
So many reds...
So little time.
Wed 20 Aug 2014
at 00:25
  • msg #31

Re: Age requirements?

While this may be true, it WOULD be good to see an 11 year old with an attention span capable of tolerating our glacially slow game play.

Of course, way back when, I used to play DnD by mail when the DM moved away.  Regular old mail.  Once a week, I'd send a letter and get a letter.  It was a highlight of the week.  But I was much, much older than this 11 year old.  I was 14.

And back then, we had Atari consoles and Zelda to distract us.

:-)
This message was last edited by the user at 00:26, Wed 20 Aug 2014.
Gaffer
member, 1141 posts
Ocoee FL
40 yrs of RPGs
Wed 20 Aug 2014
at 14:07
  • msg #32

Re: Age requirements?

I don't think anything would prevent a child user from allowing a parent to read 'over her shoulder' while connected to her Rpol account.
bigbadron
moderator, 14633 posts
He's big, he's bad,
but mostly he's Ron.
Wed 20 Aug 2014
at 14:10

Re: Age requirements?

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 32):

And that isn't a problem.

What is a problem is a parent using an account that doesn't belong to them.
LoreGuard
member, 555 posts
Thu 21 Aug 2014
at 03:37
  • msg #34

Re: Age requirements?

Don't presume that a parent in the US has the right to access a child's information.  There are very (perhaps to myself and others) strange interpretations of privacy laws that have been ruled that parent do not have the permission of the state to spy on their own children... even in their own (the parents) houses.

One case I seem to recall was in Washington state, if my memory serves me correctly.  A judge ruled to make inadmissible evidence that was acquired when an individual whom was past the age of majority was speaking on the phone to a minor child in the parents home, and admitted to a crime the police suspected them of.  I believe the judge threatened to throw the books at the _parents_ if they dared do it again.

If you want to have access to your child's system... use a system where their system grants you access and part of their TOS includes their policies... [granting it, such as some cell phone companies have for text messages of phones on their plans]

Really... I'd say... presuming you have a decent relationship with your child... you simply make it clear to them... that Your condition of their maintaining that account is that they recognize your right to have them show you what games they are in.  [looking over shoulder]  As has been suggested... don't encourage or allow your child to use RPOL if you don't feel like they are responsible enough to do the right thing and allow your supervision, if necessary.  It is an issue for you to resolve between you and your child... not really a thing directly involving RPOL.  It is just an object in the sentence not the subjects.  :)

I must admit I find it interesting that the same legal system that will sometimes find parents responsible for the minor child's actions (since the child isn't normally considered responsible, and they must blame someone) will sometimes say that the parent has no rights into the privacy of said child.
Bevin Flannery
member, 79 posts
Thu 21 Aug 2014
at 13:46
  • msg #35

Re: Age requirements?

LoreGuard:
One case I seem to recall was in Washington state, if my memory serves me correctly.  A judge ruled to make inadmissible evidence that was acquired when an individual whom was past the age of majority was speaking on the phone to a minor child in the parents home, and admitted to a crime the police suspected them of.  I believe the judge threatened to throw the books at the _parents_ if they dared do it again.


You may be remembering the decision by the Supreme Court of Washington in State v. Christensen, 153 Wash. 2d 186 (2005).  Washington has one of the strictest statutes governing the interception and/or recording of "transmitted" communications (telephone conversations, email communications, and the like).  It is a two-party (actually, "all-party") consent statute, requiring the consent -- either explicit or implicit -- of all participants in the communciation, and expressly states that without such consent information from the "outsider" who violated the statute is inadmissible in any proceeding.  In Christensen, the Washington Supreme Court noted that the statute had no exception for parents who wanted to monitor their minor children's telephone communications.  (By the way, in that case at the time of the communications, the criminal defendant and his girlfriend, whose mother listened in through the phone base while her daughter was in another room with the handset, were both minors; by the time of the criminal prosecution, he had turned 18.)  The court also held that under the facts of the case, an exception to the state's privacy laws regarding a parent's ability to "invade" a minor's privacy for protection of the minor simply didn't apply.

It's an outlier decision for a lot of reasons (as noted above, Washington's privacy statute in this area is very strict), but it does high-light your main point:  a parent's right to monitor/intercept/record a minor child's communications/activities may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

quote:
I must admit I find it interesting that the same legal system that will sometimes find parents responsible for the minor child's actions (since the child isn't normally considered responsible, and they must blame someone) will sometimes say that the parent has no rights into the privacy of said child.


Part of the issue is that the privacy of said child is not the only privacy at issue -- it could also be the privacy of a third-party for whom the parent has no responsibility, and no inherent "right" or "expectation" to monitor/supervise.

And perhaps a poor analogy, but an employer can be liable for an employee's actions - that doesn't necessarily mean that the employer has carte blanche to invade the privacy of the employees.  Though in most U.S. jurisdictions, at least, all that means is that the employer has to notify the employee that, as a condition of employment, the employee's activities may be monitor (computer usage, telephone calls recorded, surveillance cameras in hallways/rooms).
Brianna
member, 1882 posts
Thu 21 Aug 2014
at 20:56
  • msg #36

Re: Age requirements?

I'm always surprised at how many young children have a computer in their room, and are allowed to go in there and use it with the door closed.  Of course laptops and smartphones have complicated this issue.  Not that very young children should have either, IMO.  (and how can parents pay for all that?  probably by working more, and being less accessible to parent?)
steelsmiter
member, 1157 posts
GURPS, FFd6, Pathfinder
NO FREEFORM!
Thu 21 Aug 2014
at 21:03
  • msg #37

Re: Age requirements?

Brianna:
(and how can parents pay for all that?  probably by working more, and being less accessible to parent?)

Not saying I can afford it, but it's an extra 10 bucks per kid on a preexisting plan. Per the fact that it's more convenient, I go halvesy with my mom. I've got a phone and tablet. My tablet cost an extra 10 bucks, and my insurance on both is 15. we divide the bill in half and reduce hers by 25. I'm still paying under a hundred, and I'm the greater half. I can see how a family with 2 incomes might manage it on a level of difficulty similar to my own (which admittedly isn't that easy).
pfarland
member, 185 posts
Thu 21 Aug 2014
at 21:05
  • msg #38

Re: Age requirements?

In reply to Brianna (msg # 36):

My children have to have internet connected phones or tablets for school.  They have to take them to school and use them at home.
Brianna
member, 1883 posts
Thu 21 Aug 2014
at 21:35
  • msg #39

Re: Age requirements?

In reply to pfarland (msg # 38):

And this is one of many reasons I'm glad I'm not bringing up children now.  IMO kids have enough to handle in their immediate environment without unrestricted access to the whole world!
pfarland
member, 187 posts
Thu 21 Aug 2014
at 21:41
  • msg #40

Re: Age requirements?

In reply to Brianna (msg # 39):

I agree that they shouldn't have complete web access.  Though they way they've integrated the tech into the school work has helped.
Sign In