Reply With QuoteI felt it was an issue WORTH DISCUSSING. Stop getting all UP IN MY FACE you HIDEOUS LITTLE BRAT.
You pointed it out that there was a 13 year old. I have posted my age but my gosh it was like yelling it out for everybody to hear.Originally Posted by Agnetha
I felt it was an issue WORTH DISCUSSING. Stop getting all UP IN MY FACE you HIDEOUS LITTLE BRAT.
Well I'm going to go to bed, its 12pm and I gotta get up at 6am, I really do hate public transport. Good Night Moopy!
Last edited by Pearl; 29-07-2009 at 12:58 PM.
r u srs?
WHERE THE FUCK IS IT FROM?
You pointed it out yourself in another thread this morning. I would have started this thread myself but I was beaten to it.
You can't stop kids looking. That's not OUR responsibility.
You should have to confirm your age at sign-up though. At the moment I think that is set to 13 years and up. We should raise that to 16 and we'll be just FINE.
They're 11 hours AHEAD... Isn't that like MICRONESIA or SOMETHING
Moopy's a lot older demographically than dotmusic was. I doubt the content is much worse, but I guess people just feel it's more UNSEEMLY
I don't really have much to say to a 16 year old (unless they want to make insightful comments about the new Whitney Houston album) but I don't see the point in excluding people just because they are young. If they are crap/annoying/unstable, it's a different matter
FEARLESS FEMALE
NZ are 11 - 13 hours ahead depending on the time of year. Either there or Australia, then I guess.
And the fact he wasn't banned STRAIGHT AWAY
I would like to know whre we stand legally. Do we have anything to worry about if a 13 year old is looking at cock pics in a thread here? Bearing in mind that we all know there is stuff here that from a legal viewpoint is dubious, would we be covered if we had some sort of 'do not enter if you are under 18' thing on a front page? I really don't want one, but if there are legal implications to not having it, then we would need to think about it, if the alternative is to be restricted in what we post. I'm sure nobody wants that.
Hang on just coming back for a second.
I WILL TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LEGAL ISSUES THAT YOU MAY (PROBABLY NEVER) FACE
Last edited by Pearl; 29-07-2009 at 01:06 PM.
I'm far from an expert, but obviously we can't stop kids lurking any more than Xtube can stop kids clicking "yes I am 18" and watching two guys bareback each other.
But if we're seen to be actively engaging in a dialogue with them in full knowledge of their minor status, that MUST be dangerous ground.
A "Do not enter/register if you are under 18" and a zero tolerance policy to under sixteens seems like a reasonable response. We still have a couple of major posters who are under 18 or only just turned though. Jark, Tetris Rock, SDF, Pop etc... It's important that we find a sensible balance.
Last edited by VoR; 29-07-2009 at 01:08 PM.
You aren't old enough, resolution of legal issues would rest with your parents, now get to bed!Hang on just coming back for a second.
I WILL TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LEGAL ISSUES THAT YOU MAY (PROBABLY NEVER) FACE
Pain is just weakness leaving the body
I don't think that anyone WOULD engage with anyone who they knew was under 18 in that way. Or certainly 13. But when you think of the 'shut up and get your cock out' talk that goes on here, how would we stand if we said that to someone who was 13, but who was pretending to be over 18? I mean I know we didn't know, but would having the 'you must be over 18 to enter' business afford us some sort of legal protection?
Precisely - it's a simple statement you make at signup that covers you. There's no more to it than that.
Oh I know, I'm not suggesting anyone here would ask a thirteen year old to do anything inappropriate. But if their parents see them reading a thread in which adult men are exposing themselves or talking graphically about sex there must be a danger of at least getting in trouble with our server hosts.
Last edited by VoR; 29-07-2009 at 01:12 PM.
TO BE HONEST, I think there should be a warning that states it is suitable viewing for over 18s only, BUT it wouldn't have stopped me from entering when I was 13 and I doubt it will stop any 13 year old lurkers either.
I guess, as long as Moopy is legally covered.
Last edited by SDF; 29-07-2009 at 01:13 PM.
I remember back in the days on StepsOfficial.com some 11 year olds mother came on to post saying it was disgusting that her 11 year old daughter had read about what a group of lesbians on the site wanted to do with a Crunchie bar to Claire Richards.
For the purpose of this thread, I think that there should be some sort of disclaimer saying that the content on this site is not suitable for people under the age of 16.
TRUTH.
I don't think we're THAT BAD.
I do think we need some RULES somewhere on the site... What NOF means, spoilers, age, txt spk... whatever.
Can were adapt our current T&C...
Oh yeah, it's the men that are the problem? Come on, we all know it's Star and Kate posting all the graphic filth.
If some don't remember this:
http://www.moopy.org.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=56349
I don't know about you but some of the graphic descriptions of lunchtime meals and theatre trips is shocking to a sensitive thing like myself
(>;_;)>
30.
You didn't say anything about this meaning a LOWER LIMIT...
I'm 24 and probably shouldn't post because I'm full of it. I'm a sad case.
As long as we don't give away what NAR means straight immediately. I always love it when we have to explain it
never any raisins
I can see why some of the content isn't appropriate but I don't see the point in excluding people because they're younger. Especially because teenagers use the internet a lot, and there's a chance that these younger people might become half decent posters.
How on Earth are you supposed to vet it anyway? People just lie. Just add a disclaimer saying that it's better if they're at least 15/16 and adapt the T&Cs.
And to be honest, nothing much that is talked about on here would have shocked me aged 13 or 14. Kids just aren't that naive nowadays.
I'm sure I was 15 when I joined here, and 14 when I joined my first internet forum (which was ALSO heavily homo-oriented.. *sues*)
I'm from N.E.R.D
Aren't you BRITNEY
Ok, I've said this elsewhere, but my stance was, and remains, that if there are to be any "limits" imposed upon posters, it should be based on what they post, not who they (say they) are.
We're not a XXX site, no-one is doing ANYTHING wrong because no-one is trying to engage with anyone under 18 in a sexual, or otherwise manner. XTube encourages users to post videos and engage in talk of an exclusively sexual manner, so yes, they HAVE to discourage minors from entering (but the point stands, clicking "I am 18" doesn't actually STOP anyone from under 18 entering the site).
The only thing I'd be wary of is posting of pictures in, for example, the "Post a picture of yourself" thread. But even then, loads of websites have "kids" posting their pictures - my 13 year old cousin is on Facebook, and has been for several years. There's nothing wrong with it, as long as no-one is abusing it (which, quite frankly, you can't ever stop, but I'd like to think no-one here would).
Loads of Moopy/Dot posters started posting before they were 16. Maybe the forums were more heavily moderated, particularly on Dot, but I go back to my point that if you draw a strict line through a certain age bracket, you might just lose a valuable poster who just wants to talk about the music they like.
A disclaimer is the only thing I'd be in favour of, but for a site that's thrived, and built on pseudonyms/double identities, it seems ironic that we're now trying to put a stop to it, just because the majority of us have grown up and don't need to do it anymore.
Besides anything else, I feel like making us an over-18/16, ETC. site suggets something about the nature of the discussion that lumps us in with a whole category of unsavoury sites that we're really nothing like.
I do respect that it's totally an age/lifestyle thing though. I imagine that if I were a parent, or perhaps even just of a different generation, I'd feel very differently about the dangers and such.
I think we should do whatever we need to do to cover ourselves legally, and no more.
Everpres and the likes were below our proposed 'limit' at the beginning of their posting times.
This just smells of power trippy exclusion to me.
(>;_;)>
16+ I'd say.
I agree.
I don't think it's that in the slightest. We're more than happy to ban people for being crap without some kind of formalised rule in place. This is about making sure we're covering our backs in terms of the content on here - or at least working out if there's a need to do that.
Any forum I've seen which has any type of age disclaim usually has a sign in where you have to say "I am under 13" or "I am over 13". That seems to be the norm.
Don't know if vbulletin has this sort of sign up functionality built in.
(>;_;)>
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
