Question on TOS?

See what happens when an eight-year-old is allowed to comment on PFB?
hehe

From what I read of the others, I don't get the sense that many others
want "no" exceptions. They just want the process to be fair and
open.

It's that "fair" part that's tricky and why, I think, so many are
inclined to give up and say "...in the case, no exceptions."

The oft-discussed issue of "past 90 day returns" has been raised here
and I think it's a good example. I think most would say that there
should be exceptions to these rules. The problem is, how does one
fairly determine what's a good enough reason for an exception? For
example, if there is an exception for the soldier deployed in Iraq,
should be there an exception for the consultant that got an extended
assignment overseas? And if that that consultant also should get an
exception, should the person that's on vacation get one? What about
the person that simply got busy and forgot? Or the person that knew,
full-well, that they had only 90 days, but heard that their friends
all got exceptions (because they were soldiers, consultants, and
vacationers) and figured that they should get one, too?

Reductio ad absurdum? Not to the person that honestly can't
understand why the three people in line in front of them got to return
things after the deadline, but they can't.

Which is why I think the "open" part is so important. It's better to
say to that last person in line "we make exceptions for people that
have documented reasons why there were factors beyond their control"
than to say "that's our policy."

Sometimes when you repeat the same thing over and over it starts to
lose its meaning. So thanks for understanding what some people are
trying to say and for sharing a new perspective. It's actually even
clearer to me now.

You explained that very well and I appreciate it.

I don't know how we get past the blanket (and false) accusations that
PFB isn't playing fair. In most instances, people are going to
disagree when their comments are pulled. I know I've disagreed when
mine have been. Oh yes. Some have been pulled - no one on this site
is bulletproof and it's absolutely arrogant for anyone to insist
otherwise.

And what has happened recently when PFB attempts to be "open" about
things - like the Kitchen Table? People get their noses all bent out
of shape... either because they weren't chosen, or they don't like the
idea of someone having input, or they just don't like Greg.

That's why I keep telling Venice there's no winning here.... because
people are on a witch hunt for me anyways. Someone will always get
upset at something I've said. And frankly, that doesn't bother me.

How do we know the 8-year old ever came to PlanetFeedback?
Maybe he wrote the letter by hand or on a word processing program, and
his mom or whomever Debra R. might be chose PlanetFeedback as the
means to send such letter.

If the account is in the name of someone who is eligible for
membership, and under their supervision, someone ineligible send a
letter, is it that big of a deal?

I think the 13 and up rule is a result of law as previously mentioned.
This is not necessarily a "rule", but a requirement for anyone
collecting personal information online such as names and addresses. It
is not PFB specific. All websites have this same rule.

My thought is that since the TOS also serves a legal purpose, this
section was likely added to be in legal compliance and to avoid any
issues that may arise.

To the people below -
I think this part of the TOS is a legal issue - collecting information
from users under the age of 13 is governed by the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act.

I got the impression that it was under a parent's account as well.

I don't think moaning about the 13+ rule is apples to apples with
commenting rules. One is site policy and the other one is law governed
by the FTC.

Perhaps the TOS should be revised. Many kids of the age of that
letter writer have been online for a few years and surely this site
provides a communication tool that kids can use as well as adults.

If this is done to protect kids: I feel that the level of moderation
on this provides a much safer environment for a young person to
interact with adults than other websites. If any conversation were to
get inappropriate, it likely would get dealt with promptly.

I just don't think using this site provides much risk to kids, and I
think kids have a lot to offer a site like this.

Yes, our TOS does require users be at least 13 years old. In this case
we made an exception for the following reasons:

1. Every indication is that the 8 year was using an adult account,
most likely a relative.

2. It was a great letter. We are happy to provide a way for this young
person to offer feedback.

He has written two letters so far. If this person continues to write
letters then we will certainly take another look at the situation
however we're not particularly worried about it at the moment.

Thanks for helping make sure folks use our site properly!

Good Eye, didnt catch that.

Wonder what will happen?!?!?! Hmmmmmm


Good Day