3 ms·

Thanks for the thorough reply. The min. age is actually 16 -- I updated the post to reflect that. 1) 16 was advised by our counsel (we're US-based) to attempt

by throwaway31911 16y ago

Thanks for the thorough reply. The min. age is actually 16 -- I updated the post to reflect that. 1) 16 was advised by our counsel (we're US-based) to attempt to keep us out of issues that may arise state to state w/r/t minors and privacy laws 2) The goal is (hopefully) to help curb the issues that we've noticed stem from underage users. Perhaps then, banning would be most effective, but that comes back around to "how do we retroactively ban users now that should have been banned X months ago" 3) My guess is scale. I think generally speaking we need to be more aggressive about banning when the situation warrants that. 4) Great advice here. Thanks again for the thoughtful and insightful reply.

Mz 16y ago
16 was advised by our counsel (we're US-based) to attempt to keep us out of issues that may arise state to state w/r/t minors and privacy laws I suggest you get with counsel and if they still feel 16 should be the minimum age to keep you out of court, then wholesale ban all accounts below that age and state that it is to comply with privacy laws regarding minors. In this case, you can apologize and indicate you wish you could keep them. Do not in any way mention that behavior issues were at all a concern. If counsel indicates this is important, than do it as a business move to stay out of court and let everyone know that it sucks, but you have no real choice. Then let folks know you look forward to having them back at age 16. Alternately, look more closely into state-by-state laws and put out rules that indicate that age of entry varies by state. Enforce by IP address or something else reasonable along those lines. This might allow you to keep more members that you would like to keep and do less damage to the site culture but there is a significantly larger cost involved in terms of determining state exceptions, enforcing the rules, etc. If you can bear the cost, this might be a good option. If you cannot bear the cost, do an across-the-board thing for all states based on what counsel tells you. Since this question came up due to behavior concerns, revisit that issue separately. It won't magically disappear just because all the underage accounts were removed. Banning should be a last resort. Try hard to find other means to deal with this first. When it does come time to ban someone, I recommend public bannings which state the cause of the banning. This helps create an atmosphere of "rule of law" and helps encourage members who do want to stay to behave properly without being scared to death they will do the wrong thing. Secret bannings are a good way to scare the hell out of your members and cause them to walk on eggshells, which is generally not conducive to creating a healthy site culture. It also does not provide any closure when someone bad is finally removed. Public bannings allow remaining members to breathe a sigh of relief and feel safer once they know the troublemaker is gone. Good luck with this.

Mz 16y ago

16 was advised by our counsel (we're US-based) to attempt to keep us out of issues that may arise state to state w/r/t minors and privacy laws I suggest you get with counsel and if they still feel 16 should be the minimum age to keep you out of court, then wholesale ban all accounts below that age and state that it is to comply with privacy laws regarding minors. In this case, you can apologize and indicate you wish you could keep them. Do not in any way mention that behavior issues were at all a concern. If counsel indicates this is important, than do it as a business move to stay out of court and let everyone know that it sucks, but you have no real choice. Then let folks know you look forward to having them back at age 16. Alternately, look more closely into state-by-state laws and put out rules that indicate that age of entry varies by state. Enforce by IP address or something else reasonable along those lines. This might allow you to keep more members that you would like to keep and do less damage to the site culture but there is a significantly larger cost involved in terms of determining state exceptions, enforcing the rules, etc. If you can bear the cost, this might be a good option. If you cannot bear the cost, do an across-the-board thing for all states based on what counsel tells you. Since this question came up due to behavior concerns, revisit that issue separately. It won't magically disappear just because all the underage accounts were removed. Banning should be a last resort. Try hard to find other means to deal with this first. When it does come time to ban someone, I recommend public bannings which state the cause of the banning. This helps create an atmosphere of "rule of law" and helps encourage members who do want to stay to behave properly without being scared to death they will do the wrong thing. Secret bannings are a good way to scare the hell out of your members and cause them to walk on eggshells, which is generally not conducive to creating a healthy site culture. It also does not provide any closure when someone bad is finally removed. Public bannings allow remaining members to breathe a sigh of relief and feel safer once they know the troublemaker is gone. Good luck with this.