Originally posted by PhlabibitDepends where you look at it from. In UK and US, teens are very immature so the age protection sounds like good sense. In Scandinavia where there is a lot less censorship (Japan too maybe?) the teens know a lot more and there's much less teenage pregnancy as a result. Fabian's point is sound from a Swedish perspective.
I hope you ARE a child, because an adult saying such things would scare me.
The problem is that RHP is global so one solution won't fit everyone.
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat topics, other than sex, are we "forbidden" to discuss here at RHP because of the age limit? Am I to understand that this point is being raised because folks want to discuss sex in these forums or are we all just tired of sharing the forums with 14 and 15 year olds?
I'm so sick of this 13 year old minimum age rubbish. I suggest we raise the age to 16 so that we can talk about subjects like sex without fear of imbecilic moderation due to alerts from gigantic mammaries who think we're polluting the minds of the young.
Amend to ToS!
This thread appeared soon after I closed another in the general forum, so I can only assume that it started in response to that closure.
The thread referred to would normally be a candidate for moderation right away. Nothing wrong with a healthy conversation about sex, right? Well, unsurprisingly, by the time I caught up with the thread, one thing lead to another, and a VERY offensive joke has been posted. This was cleared down, of course, and the thread closed. (Although, in hindsight, it should have been removed right away.)
Regardless of age limits, many people do not want to see that stuff, or be associated with a site that publishes it. That may not be how you feel, but that is how others feel, so respect that, and keep conversation of an overtly sexual nature off RHP please.
Thanks.
-Russ
(BTW : The age limit stays the same.)
A footnote to the above post : Do remember that this site is most heavily used in the workplace, not the home environment. If conversations discussing sex became common place, that would most certainly make this site 'NSFW' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW) - and this in return could have a dire impact on the future of this site.
-Russ
Originally posted by RussNSSW, even.
A footnote to the above post : Do remember that this site is most heavily used in the workplace, not the home environment. If conversations discussing sex became common place, that would most certainly make this site 'NSFW' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW) - and this in return could have a dire impact on the future of this site.
-Russ
P-
Originally posted by RussHow about an "after hours" forum where those that feel the need to post NSFW materials can, and those of us that wish to avoid such material can avoid them by not reading that forum? That was strict enforcement of the prohibition against NSFW material can be performed and still allow posting of "nudge nudge wink wink" materials, if you know what I mean gov'ner...
...The thread referred to would normally be a candidate for moderation right away. Nothing wrong with a healthy conversation about sex, right? Well, unsurprisingly, by the time I caught up with the thread, one thing lead to another, and a VERY offensive joke has been posted. This was cleared down, of course, and the thread closed. (Although, in hindsight, it ...[text shortened]... overtly sexual nature off RHP please.
Thanks.
-Russ
(BTW : The age limit stays the same.)
Originally posted by kwgoodwinPerhaps you need to read what he said again. He doesn't want anything like this associated with RHP.
How about an "after hours" forum where those that feel the need to post NSFW materials can, and those of us that wish to avoid such material can avoid them by not reading that forum? That was strict enforcement of the prohibition against NSFW material can be performed and still allow posting of "nudge nudge wink wink" materials, if you know what I mean gov'ner...
RHP has clan forums, private forums where we can say anything we like. Too bad you can only have 20 members, but it is better than nothing.
P-
Originally posted by RussOkay, I can understand this is a major concern.
A footnote to the above post : Do remember that this site is most heavily used in the workplace, not the home environment. If conversations discussing sex became common place, that would most certainly make this site 'NSFW' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSFW) - and this in return could have a dire impact on the future of this site.
-Russ
The post before however is something I'll continue to disagree with. I understand it's your site, you make the rules, I just think it's a shame we have to run to lowest common denominator practices.
lol
raising the age is fine and all
but it won't accomplish anything
all a kid has to do it check the box and lie about his age
i've done that a bunch of times on sites like this
i was 14 when I joined this site, so don't kick me off for that last statement
anyway, i suppose that raising the age does mean that the kid's parents can't complain if they catch adult material on this site and their kid's reading it
so, yeah
great idea
haven't read over the whole thread, so i don't know if this con has been mentioned
you are deleting an entire 3 year age group from the site, a lot of those kids are subscribers, meaning that the site would be losing money
have the mods or the administrators made any comments on this issue?
Originally posted by StarrmanSo the lowest common denominator is the 13 year olds, not the adults behaving like 13 year olds?
Okay, I can understand this is a major concern.
The post before however is something I'll continue to disagree with. I understand it's your site, you make the rules, I just think it's a shame we have to run to lowest common denominator practices.
Originally posted by Ian68No, the lowest common denominator is just that, the group which encompasses the most common ground. What has your statement got to do with anything?.
So the lowest common denominator is the 13 year olds, not the adults behaving like 13 year olds?
Originally posted by StarrmanI found your response confusing as well. In the figurative or literal sense, lowest common denominator does not mean the "group which encompasses the most common ground". Figuratively, to appeal to the lowest common denominator is to appeal to those with basic, vulgar interests - i.e. using violence and/or sex to sell or promote some product.
No, the lowest common denominator is just that, the group which encompasses the most common ground. What has your statement got to do with anything?.
Get it now? It's pretty funny...
Originally posted by StarrmanYour logic is simply fascinating...'Space Travel' is not something that would be classified as 'NSFW' so no, I am not suggesting that nobody should discuss this.
I don't see a forum called 'Space Travel', are you suggesting nobody should discuss this, or any of the inexhaustible number of topics the forums are not named after?
But you are right, I change my mind...I can see why 'tis absolutely imperative we have sex discussions on a CHESS site, even though there are many other places on the net where one could go just for that....O_o
Originally posted by Raven69My logic is fine, it's your lack of posting what you mean which is the problem. Not once did you mention the NSFW aspect as clarification of your position. Even including that your position is arguable, discussing sex and those discussing material which is not safe for work are not the same thing. As well as this your objection to a topics on a chess site, as I have already pointed out, is beside the point as we have plenty (the majority) of non-chess discussions here.
Your logic is simply fascinating...'Space Travel' is not something that would be classified as 'NSFW' so no, I am not suggesting that nobody should discuss this.
But you are right, I change my mind...I can see why 'tis absolutely imperative we have sex discussions on a CHESS site, even though there are many other places on the net where one could go just for that....O_o
Perhaps you shoud work on your logic.
Originally posted by darvlayBad post, agreed. I intended to mean that we are catering to as many people as possible by limiting what is allowed.
I found your response confusing as well. In the figurative or literal sense, lowest common denominator does not mean the "group which encompasses the most common ground". Figuratively, to appeal to the lowest common denominator is to appeal to those with basic, vulgar interests - i.e. using violence and/or sex to sell or promote some product.
Get it now? It's pretty funny...