3 ms·

A few choice items from the contract, and how I would've read them as a 13 year old. "1. It is my phone. I bought it. I pay for it. I am loaning it to you.

A few choice items from the contract, and how I would've read them as a 13 year old. "1. It is my phone. I bought it. I pay for it. I am loaning it to you. Aren’t I the greatest?" This phone is not yours. Don't use it for anything important and praise me for allowing you to even look at it. "2. I will always know the password." I don't trust you. "4. Hand the phone to one of your parents promptly at 7:30pm every school night & every weekend night at 9:00pm. It will be shut off for the night and turned on again at 7:30am. If you would not make a call to someone’s land line, wherein their parents may answer first, then do not call or text. Listen to those instincts and respect other families like we would like to be respected." I don't trust your friends or your opinions. "5. It does not go to school with you. Have a conversation with the people you text in person. It’s a life skill. *Half days, field trips and after school activities will require special consideration." Once again, I own you. "18. You will mess up. I will take away your phone. We will sit down and talk about it. We will start over again. You & I, we are always learning. I am on your team. We are in this together." You are the only one that can mess up, I am untouchably perfect and this contract is perfect. --------------------------- This contract makes it seem like the kid is a worthless, non-thinking drone and it glorifies the parents as gods. #3 taken with #11 creates a situation in which the kid has to decide when to turn the phone off, but at the same time answer every phone call. #15 states that the kid's peers' music preferences suck. #1 directly contradicts #6 in regards to who pays for the phone. This is insane. I hope someone can show me that this is not as I think it is.

lawtguy 14y ago
I'll offer my perspective as a parent of a 10 year-old: For #1, I see it as trying to preempt the "but it's my iPhone, I don't have to follow your rules!" argument. The last sentence I read as self-deprecating humor: read it with ;) at the end. #2, this is doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Same as I wouldn't allow my son to have a lock on the door to his room that I didn't have a key to, I need to have access to his phone as well. Hopefully she'd only use that access in a serious situation (suspected bullying, suspected drug-use, etc). It could be she's always going through his things and never allows him any privacy, but this rule doesn't necessarily mean that. #4: I see this as setting a strong boundary around when phone calls can be made. When I was growing up, it was very common to see calling late at night as being rude. I don't see this as not trusting his opinion but more as saying don't be on the phone late at night. 7:30 pm doesn't seem very late, but that's hard to say without knowing when they have to be up in the morning. #5: Many schools ban phones or disallow their use in school, so not taking the phone to school seems reasonable. #18: I don't see anything in here that says the rules are set in stone. In fact I'd read the last part as saying the opposite. The first part I read as trying to defuse anxiety around breaking the rules. My son often gets anxious when we set a new rule and worries that he'll break it. Letting him know that breaking the rules won't be the end of the world helps. Presumably #11 trumps number #3. I assume they'd expect a common sense approach. #1 and #6 don't contradict each other. If I let you borrow something from me and it was broken or lost, I'd expect you to pay for it. I think that's pretty normal. Finally, 13-17 seem to be more aspirational than actual rules. 13, 14, and 17 could be replaced by: don't become so obsessed with your iPhone you ignore everything else. I didn't read 15 as an exclusion of the son's peer's music. More a suggestion to take advantage of the wide range of music available. I don't see this as insane, but it's very hard to judge from the outside. We don't know the kid or the mom. It could be she's crazy overbearing or it could be she's just setting up reasonable rules for he son. Being a parent of a high-strung 10 year-old, I tend to read it as reasonable rules for a very smart, very obsessive young teen.
- biscarch 14y ago
  I appreciate the alternative viewpoint. #1 It would definitely counter the "rules" argument, but that still means the kid can't use it for important purposes (It could be taken away at any time, and the data could be deleted). #2 The purpose of a contract is to protect both parties. This clause helps give absolute power to the parent. By the logic you've presented, the government should have access to your email, computer and phone passwords as well for the same reasons. #4 It does set up a strong boundary. It also means that the kid's friends have to remember when the kid is actually in possession of the phone, which will cause problems with the communication aspect of a phone. #5 Unless the kid does after school activities, in which case not having a phone means being less prepared for an emergency. #18 The use of pronouns here is important. "The kid will mess up. The parent will take your phone away." It's a forgone conclusion that the kid will mess up. The parent doesn't think the kid can follow the contract as given. "We will sit down and talk about it. We will start over again. You & I, we are always learning." This isn't so bad taken by itself, but when taken with the context of the first two sentences it calls to mind the classic authority figure type conversation. Ex: Your boss says "Can I talk to you for a minute?". Such conversations are typically one-sided and berating of the non-authority figure. #3 vs #11: Ambiguity has no place in a contract. #1 and #6 That makes sense given the lending situation. #15 is a heavy handed suggestion of music at best. "your peers that listen to the same exact stuff." The double-confirmation "same exact" is unnecessary and serves to show the opinions of the parent. The whole sentence is a command that says downloading music that the kid's peers listen to is off limits. I'd agree that it is hard to judge from the outside, I'm also not sure it would be easier on the "inside". My largest concern is that the kid has no protection in this contract; It just serves as commands from on high.

lawtguy 14y ago

I'll offer my perspective as a parent of a 10 year-old: For #1, I see it as trying to preempt the "but it's my iPhone, I don't have to follow your rules!" argument. The last sentence I read as self-deprecating humor: read it with ;) at the end. #2, this is doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Same as I wouldn't allow my son to have a lock on the door to his room that I didn't have a key to, I need to have access to his phone as well. Hopefully she'd only use that access in a serious situation (suspected bullying, suspected drug-use, etc). It could be she's always going through his things and never allows him any privacy, but this rule doesn't necessarily mean that. #4: I see this as setting a strong boundary around when phone calls can be made. When I was growing up, it was very common to see calling late at night as being rude. I don't see this as not trusting his opinion but more as saying don't be on the phone late at night. 7:30 pm doesn't seem very late, but that's hard to say without knowing when they have to be up in the morning. #5: Many schools ban phones or disallow their use in school, so not taking the phone to school seems reasonable. #18: I don't see anything in here that says the rules are set in stone. In fact I'd read the last part as saying the opposite. The first part I read as trying to defuse anxiety around breaking the rules. My son often gets anxious when we set a new rule and worries that he'll break it. Letting him know that breaking the rules won't be the end of the world helps. Presumably #11 trumps number #3. I assume they'd expect a common sense approach. #1 and #6 don't contradict each other. If I let you borrow something from me and it was broken or lost, I'd expect you to pay for it. I think that's pretty normal. Finally, 13-17 seem to be more aspirational than actual rules. 13, 14, and 17 could be replaced by: don't become so obsessed with your iPhone you ignore everything else. I didn't read 15 as an exclusion of the son's peer's music. More a suggestion to take advantage of the wide range of music available. I don't see this as insane, but it's very hard to judge from the outside. We don't know the kid or the mom. It could be she's crazy overbearing or it could be she's just setting up reasonable rules for he son. Being a parent of a high-strung 10 year-old, I tend to read it as reasonable rules for a very smart, very obsessive young teen.

biscarch 14y ago
I appreciate the alternative viewpoint. #1 It would definitely counter the "rules" argument, but that still means the kid can't use it for important purposes (It could be taken away at any time, and the data could be deleted). #2 The purpose of a contract is to protect both parties. This clause helps give absolute power to the parent. By the logic you've presented, the government should have access to your email, computer and phone passwords as well for the same reasons. #4 It does set up a strong boundary. It also means that the kid's friends have to remember when the kid is actually in possession of the phone, which will cause problems with the communication aspect of a phone. #5 Unless the kid does after school activities, in which case not having a phone means being less prepared for an emergency. #18 The use of pronouns here is important. "The kid will mess up. The parent will take your phone away." It's a forgone conclusion that the kid will mess up. The parent doesn't think the kid can follow the contract as given. "We will sit down and talk about it. We will start over again. You & I, we are always learning." This isn't so bad taken by itself, but when taken with the context of the first two sentences it calls to mind the classic authority figure type conversation. Ex: Your boss says "Can I talk to you for a minute?". Such conversations are typically one-sided and berating of the non-authority figure. #3 vs #11: Ambiguity has no place in a contract. #1 and #6 That makes sense given the lending situation. #15 is a heavy handed suggestion of music at best. "your peers that listen to the same exact stuff." The double-confirmation "same exact" is unnecessary and serves to show the opinions of the parent. The whole sentence is a command that says downloading music that the kid's peers listen to is off limits. I'd agree that it is hard to judge from the outside, I'm also not sure it would be easier on the "inside". My largest concern is that the kid has no protection in this contract; It just serves as commands from on high.