Abolishing the 13 years of age rule

[root]

Hello, MC-Market.

I am making a suggestion due to one of my fellow Slashy_Hosting members being banned and I am annoyed at it to be honest, I am fed up with discrimination from appearance.

A recent example being PurpleStorms he was banned for "being underage" when I speak to one of the staff members the reason has reveled that they had not solid proof...
The proof behind the ban was `his appearance`

You may not trust me on this issue but I do have proof backing my end of support on this situation and I shall be providing it now, http://prntscr.com/fr7mxd

I don't want it completely abolished just make it so staff are aware that you need solid proof or a confession

I will not be naming the staff member who banned him as you can find that yourself but I would not like to start a war with staff on this issue.

If you are a community member please vote freely.
If you are a staff member please comment below with a detailed explanation on your judgement.

EDIT:
ALERT
Sorry, The title is worded wrong. It should be `Unpunished users with invalid proof`

Regards,
root

 

[SheepeyDarkness]

Regardless I think we should remove this. I can name some people here that are more immature than most 12 year olds... ( not going to ). Although some may say it is the law nothing will happen to MCM if they don't ban people under 13. True story, we contacted apple with stuff and they just told me to lie against my age. Also nintendo support, I told them I was 11 or whatever when I contacted them, they saw I lied about my age and didn't care. It'd be nice to lower the age cap to 12 and also unban those who where banned for this reason when they do turn 13.

 

[Samuel]

I don't know/care if hes unbanned or not, but they cant get rid of the 13+ age rule.

Its literally the law, look up COPPA.

This is coming from someone who turned 13 a few months ago.

So you were on MC underage. lol

What I mean is say they are banned they have the option to get VALID parental permission...

I am sure COPPA does not allow you to signup with parental permission. The site still (afaik) has to comply with COPPA for <13's to join.

 

[rno123]

Regardless I think we should remove this. I can name so much people here that are more immature than most 12 year olds... ( not going to ). Although some may say it is the law nothing will happen to MCM if they don't ban people under 13. True story, we contacted apple with stuff and they just told me to lie against my age. Also nintendo support, I told them I was 11 or whatever when I contacted them, they saw I lied about my age and didn't care. It'd be nice to lower the age cap to 12 and also unban those who where banned for this reason when they do turn 13.

They won't since it is ILLEGAL. They have to abide by the laws... This was not their decision to put this rule. There is a $16,000 fine per person.

 

[root]

• Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from persons under age 13;
• Make reasonable efforts (taking into account available technology) to provide direct notice to parents of the operator’s practices with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from persons under 13, including notice of any material change to such practices to which the parents has previously consented;
• Obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from persons under age 13;
• Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from their child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance;
• Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the personal information collected from children under age 13, including by taking reasonable steps to disclose/release such personal information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security; and
• Retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use.
• Operators are prohibited from conditioning a child’s participation in an online activity on the child providing more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in that activity

SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA

 

[rno123]

• Post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from persons under age 13;
• Make reasonable efforts (taking into account available technology) to provide direct notice to parents of the operator’s practices with regard to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information from persons under 13, including notice of any material change to such practices to which the parents has previously consented;
• Obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, prior to any collection, use, and/or disclosure of personal information from persons under age 13;
• Provide a reasonable means for a parent to review the personal information collected from their child and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance;
• Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the personal information collected from children under age 13, including by taking reasonable steps to disclose/release such personal information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security; and
• Retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use.
• Operators are prohibited from conditioning a child’s participation in an online activity on the child providing more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in that activity

SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA

They get its possible to get parental consent. It is better to not go through all that hassle. It is better to be safe than sorry.

 

[rno123]

You can't fight with the legal system but does that mean as a 12 year old and I sign up to 300 websites I can get them all fined 16k? I don't know how this works but I'm pretty sure

As you just said, you want to get them fined. Also, if no evidence is found that the website/company knew of their age there is no fine/case.

 

[SheepeyDarkness]

As you just said, you want to get them fined. Also, if no evidence is found that the website/company knew of their age there is no fine/case.

I removed it since I had no way to phrase it right. Didn't mean to post that xD ( also to mention I don't know the legal system) Also I never said I wanted them fined I said if I did does that mean I could

 

[MostlySnakes]

As you just said, you want to get them fined. Also, if no evidence is found that the website/company knew of their age there is no fine/case.

They don't care if they knew of their age or not. They can still be fined no matter what because it's their responsibility to know which is why some sites are so anal about it...

 

[Sywren]

They don't care if they knew of their age or not. They can still be fined no matter what because it's their responsibility to know which is why some sites are so anal about it...

Not true at all.

If the user lies about their age, and there is 0 evidence that they are underage, the site isnt responsible. Simple as that.

 

[rno123]

They don't care if they knew of their age or not. They can still be fined no matter what because it's their responsibility to know which is why some sites are so anal about it...

If there is no evidence then the fine is invalid and will not be carried out.

 

[Charlie]

Hello, MC-Market.

I am making a suggestion due to one of my fellow Slashy_Hosting members being banned and I am annoyed at it to be honest, I am fed up with discrimination from appearance.

A recent example being PurpleStorms he was banned for "being underage" when I speak to one of the staff members the reason has reveled that they had not solid proof...
The proof behind the ban was `his appearance`

You may not trust me on this issue but I do have proof backing my end of support on this situation and I shall be providing it now, http://prntscr.com/fr7mxd

I don't want it completely abolished just make it so staff are aware that you need solid proof or a confession

I will not be naming the staff member who banned him as you can find that yourself but I would not like to start a war with staff on this issue.

If you are a community member please vote freely.
If you are a staff member please comment below with a detailed explanation on your judgement.

Regards,
root

Honestly, I usually don't post on threads like these.

But I agree, personally, I don't look my age at all and I firmly believe that you need solid proof when banning people. Banning them based upon their appearance is quite lazy to be honest with you.

 

[Jerry]

Honestly, I usually don't post on threads like these.

But I agree, personally, I don't look my age at all and I firmly believe that you need solid proof when banning people. Banning them based upon their appearance is quite lazy to be honest with you.

It's quite a significant fine, if there's a potential for a user to be underage based on appearance, I don't see the problem with banning them.

 

[AdamEdits]

Does it really matter, i don't see a difference it makes to abolish the rule everyone acts like if they're that age here lmfao

 

[Theo J]

Does it really matter, i don't see a difference it makes to abolish the rule everyone acts like if they're that age here lmfao

Lot's of people on here are extremely mature. You might just deal with the wrong users.[DOUBLEPOST=1499118257][/DOUBLEPOST]

Its not whether the administrative team here want to remove the rule or not. Right now, they are abiding by a law if they don't do that, they could and will face a fine.

And a pretty hefty one to say the least.

 

[rno123]

Does it really matter, i don't see a difference it makes to abolish the rule everyone acts like if they're that age here lmfao

Its not whether the administrative team here want to remove the rule or not. Right now, they are abiding by a law if they don't do that, they could and will face a fine.

 

[Jerry]

Another point that should be included not in favor of the suggestion, do you really think people under the age of 13, even 15 is questionable, should be given the ability to deal money online? Especially in an environment solely based on trust and past reputation.

 

[Sparko]

The title of this thread confuses me honestly, are you suggesting to remove the 13 yr old rule? or the specific method which was used against PurpleStorm? I agree that the method wasn't valid, I could pass for a 12 year old and I sound like a kid thats undergoing puberty.

 

[rno123]

The title of this thread confuses me honestly, are you suggesting to remove the 13 yr old rule? or the specific method which was used against PurpleStorm? I agree that the method wasn't valid, I could pass for a 12 year old and I sound like a kid thats undergoing puberty.

I believe root's reason to post this was to suggest to remove the method in which they banned PurpleStorm.

 

[Theo J]

I believe root's reason to post this was to suggest to remove the method in which they banned PurpleStorm.

I think he wanted to remove the rule altogether based on the title.

 

[root]

ALERT
Sorry, The title is worded wrong. It should be `Unpunished users with invalid proof`