Should the tos age be lowered

Should the tos stay at 8 or be raised to Ten


  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .
I think it should be higher to atleast 10-12, 8-9 are definitely not capable of making good posts.
you must be 8-9

whoa whoa whoa, that's not what we're saying man, even I've made some bad posts in my short time here (how to fix a 1x1 pop for dummies), the point is, is that it's just not always safest for an 8-9 yr old to be chatting on the internet with strangers.
 
you must be an 8-9

whoa whoa whoa, that's not what we're saying man, even I've made some bad posts in my short time here (how to fix a 1x1 pop for dummies), the point is, is that it's just not always safest for an 8-9 yr old to be chatting on the internet with strangers.
i know that I was just saying another point.
 
Last edited:
I, personally think it should be higher, 10/11 even.

Firstly, safety. I've seen how reckless some children can be with personal information at a young age, and we dont want that to be exploited.

Second of all, etiquette, (netiquette, if you will). Understanding what makes a good post, when and when not to make a joke, being accountable for actions, and being polite. Most of this is common sense that doesnt really develop until 10/11+, which is my reasoning.

I have made many, many, bad posts that i probably shouldn't of- and also a couple stupid threads. But i have learnt since then, and i hope to be a more trustworthy person on these forums
 
Back a decade almost no online social media platform was allowing users under 13 to join. When you look at the statistics 12-13 is typically when kids start to get spelling right.

Personally, when I see drama here or dramatical posts, just stupid posts altogether or 3 1 sentence posts in quick succession, I like to look at the users age and they are typically under the age of 13. So the argument of having "higher quality posts" is definitely not too far off.
 
As a formerly young person, I am strongly in favour of abolishing age limits.

As a geriatric, however, some of you kids make some really stupid posts sometimes.
(But that's fine! Don't let the boring adult naysayers spoil your fun.)

Second of all, etiquette, (netiquette, if you will). Understanding what makes a good post, when and when not to make a joke, being accountable for actions, and being polite. Most of this is common sense that doesnt really develop until 10/11+, which is my reasoning.
I would go as far as to say that even adults often don't have this sense, but maybe I'm just projecting.
 
As a formerly young person, I am strongly in favour of abolishing age limits.
I kinda agree with you here, I think education would be good over just forcing young people out in terms of safety, however me being in the US’s education system I know from personal experience kids can have a very hard time listening and learning things which is why sometimes we have to have age limits.
 
I kinda agree with you here, I think education would be good over just forcing young people out in terms of safety, however me being in the US’s education system I know from personal experience kids can have a very hard time listening and learning things which is why sometimes we have to have age limits.
sometimes those age limits arent inforced
 
As a formerly young person, I am strongly in favour of abolishing age limits.

As a geriatric, however, some of you kids make some really stupid posts sometimes.
(But that's fine! Don't let the boring adult naysayers spoil your fun.)


I would go as far as to say that even adults often don't have this sense, but maybe I'm just projecting.

Sheer age will of course always be a terrible way of determining intellect and maturity, as there’s such a wide range. There’s 11 year olds who I think are a fine addition to the site, and full-grown adults who we could be better without. Unfortunately, there’s no realistically practical or fair way to enforce “maturity minimums”. On the other hand, it is true (anecdotally; I haven’t performed a study) that a correlation exists between how much a member spams/their average post quality and their age. Because of this, while yes it would unfairly exclude some (and include others who would be better excluded), the vast majority of people hit by a “minimum 13” age requirement wouldn’t be particularly valuable members to begin with.

But again, it’s difficult to practically make this change, particularly with the forum’s active community being as small as it is.
 
Sheer age will of course always be a terrible way of determining intellect and maturity, as there’s such a wide range. There’s 11 year olds who I think are a fine addition to the site, and full-grown adults who we could be better without. Unfortunately, there’s no realistically practical or fair way to enforce “maturity minimums”. On the other hand, it is true (anecdotally; I haven’t performed a study) that a correlation exists between how much a member spams/their average post quality and their age. Because of this, while yes it would unfairly exclude some (and include others who would be better excluded), the vast majority of people hit by a “minimum 13” age requirement wouldn’t be particularly valuable members to begin with.

But again, it’s difficult to practically make this change, particularly with the forum’s active community being as small as it
Excellent Post. It's the same with legal age requirement.
You have the 15 year old who could drink responsibly and the 23 year old who wakes up in the hospital every 2 weeks from alcohol poisoning. You just can't judge every person on a case-by-case basis so you just have to have an age limit and set it at 16 in this case.
From what I can see in politics, there are often discussions if the legal age requirement for loads of things is correct. Unfortunately there is no objective Maturity-meter in existance.
Well people think I am
Maybe start giving people reasons to believe that you are older than 9?
 
Back
Top