Board Thread:2015 - A Year of Community/@comment-4897796-20150303214044/@comment-8988338-20150304072713

Ahmad15 wrote: Inspired from Sci's original naming to one of the boards for his suggestion of board names (the Wiki Meeting back in early January), "We the People", I am going to present a little something as a user in this wiki who deserves to have his voice delivered.

I'm not sure if this fits in here or the General Wiki Discussion forum, but to Admins seeing this, please do change the board in case of inadherence and remove this specific line to prevent further addo.

As a wiki user, I present my point of view to the Admins, the decision makers, concerning the action to be taken to those users who revealed their underage after thirteenth birthday.

Now, of course, you will say that regular users are not allowed to check the Adminstrator Discussion topics, but in my own defense, I think that hinders the democratic role of the users in a better wiki. And I think we're at a time when we're willing to try new strategies in an attempt to keep the BTFF family together (e.g. letting them have their voice.)

So, my point is: let's check quite correctly why the underage rule exists. The underage rule was forced in the form of COPPA onto USA, which in turn meant Wikia has to follow, which also means BTFF has to follow it. COPPA intends to minimize the damage on users under 13, whether emotional or psychological or whatever that can be induced from spending prolonged unsupervised hours on the infinite wide world web, where they might run into inappropriate content or scams or tricking adults or so.

As further discussed, the duration of blocking of underaged users has ranged across wikis (some reaching up to seven years even if the user is 12 or so), but in our wiki, its rather unclear, or just not revealed to the public, or me by specificity. (let's address this issue later) By norm, it is until the user turns the required age, 13.

Now we are finally in the area you intended in the first place-should an action be taken on those who joined after 2012, yet were underaged, and only revealed that after "it was too late" (their 13th birthday)?

The duration says the user be blocked until they turn 13, so such a duration will have to be discussed in detail if the user is blocked eventually.

Now, let us come up with potential crimes on the long run, (the same stretch of exaggeration that COPPA was created based off) that could result from this happening far too late. None. Had the user been an actual noob beyond comprehension and actually damaged, the user would've been revealed as underage long ago and identified as so. So the users that have survived until age 13 on the wiki without getting blocked or warned whatsoever are far too experienced to be judged based off age. If you doubt this specific point, take a look at some of the users who were underaged: Brian, our proud crat and famous Admin, (and is exempt due to joining before November 2012) Ren, who you might have not even guessed was underage, and most recently, Street who has turned 13 two weeks ago.

Would you suppose these users have brought damage unto themselves or the community by being underage? The answer is no. They have commited no crime. And punishment itself is for the greater good, benefiting the bepunished.

The original block to underaged people was not even to punish them for damage. It was to protect them. And if these people are above the legal age, they need no more protection.

This is how I end the first "We the People", the community's voice, Petition, and potentially the last.

Users may go ahead to kudos this to present their support for the ideologies presented (I suspect a forever alone total of zero), or to discuss the overall existence of petitions, or this specific topic by replying.

(Edit: The terminology of "Petition" might be inaccurate here since this does not have to be enforced upon the decision makers but instead just a suggestion.) O_O You always surprise me, man.