Question on TOS?

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

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.

...over the KT, I think (I hope) I can shed some light onto the
"openness" aspect of the KT.

When it was announced, it didn't seem "open" in two respects. First,
it wasn't pre-announced that there would be such a thing and, should
anyone be interested, e-mail Greg.

Second, when it was announced, there were simply a list of names,
without a good (I know... subjective) explanation about what made each
person work so well. More importantly, how the diverse membership
really represents the diverse membership of the larger group.

Obviously, no group of 4 or 5 people is going to ever represent
everyone. But, at least, I think it would have gone easier had their
been a pre-announcement, a call for volunteers, and then a
announcement of the membership. With a "bio" or other information
about why that person makes sense to be part of the group. Someone
that's good with words (Deb, no joke, you come to mind) I'm sure could
have crafted a short description of each person such that it conveyed
the idea that, yes, there is someone on the committee that represents
me.

"they don't like the idea of someone having input"

This is easy: people want to have their own input. Where that's not
possible, they need to feel that those that DO have the input speak
for them.

In this case, there was not enough information to give comfort that
others would really speak for them. And, what made the whole KT thing
get so ugly, I think, is that there was a "slash-and-burn" approach
taken. Many comments were removed, without justification, and that
made people feel like their input really didn't matter.

In other words, just let people speak. Deb, as you've said "Someone
will always get upset at something I've said. And frankly, that
doesn't bother me." If that's the case, then there should have been
no reason to remove responses to your comments. (Yes, I know, you had
no hand in it). Dialog, that was necessary to achieve that sense of
openness and "I matter", was cut-off and censored. At least, that's
how it seemed.

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