Question on TOS?

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

Don't you think that the dialog could have happened in a way that did
not violate the TOS? Perhaps, in some cases, if a bit more thought
had gone into the comments, they could have been "spoken" in a way
that would have allowed them to be left up.

You have posted several very well worded comments which have remained
up - you state your opinion, offer your interpretation, and are
engaging in a back and forth that is respectful and doesn't violate
the TOS.

If all the disagreement or feedback had been handled that way it would
probably have been better received.


I don't know if you also have had comments removed, but I do know that
when I see one of your posts, I take the time to read it.

That is just my opinion.

All our email addresses are right there. Greg even put something in
place for people to leave anonymous feedback. I fail to see how this
demonstrates a lack of openness.

Just like "no" doesn't always equal "rude", "no" does not always mean
PFB isn't listening.

You make an excellent point.

However, the problem is that the dialog regarding the KT was really
(in a number of cases) about the TOS. And questions about what PFB is
really about? And who's really in charge?

It's hard to have a discussion about TOS without violating it.

Case in point: it's against the TOS to question the TOS. This entire
discussion is, technically, not allowed. I live in "fear" that one of
my posts will get yanked for being in violation of that particular
part of the TOS... and not knowing why my post was singled out.

Without getting into details, I had several posts removed from the KT
thread. And, yes, several that remained. I can honestly say that
there were several posts that were removed that I do not, to this day,
know why.

And that's why, rules and exceptions can feel arbitrary. When someone
walks away saying "I have no idea why my post was removed, and the
person that removed it won't tell me... oh, and there's another post
there, which seems clearly in violation, but has been allowed to stay
without explanation," then there's a problem. That problem is that
people cry foul, say that the exceptions are unfair, and jump to the
conclusion that there is bias.

Anyway, I very much appreciate you saying that you take the time to
read my posts.

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