Should There Be a Special "Under 18" Symbol for Younger DU-ers?

[CO Liberal]

So that us adults will know that we're not having an argument with a kid?

[petepillow]

1. What fun would that be? Besides, they always give themselves away

eventually.

[St. Jarvitude]

5. What's that supposed to mean?

You make it sound like young folks are freepers.

[CO Liberal]

12. This is What It Means

Many of us are in our forties and fifties.

We do NOT want to get into arguments with teenagers, because teenagers do not have the knowledge or the experience to know what they're talking about on many subjects. Besides, I had enough arguments with my kids when THEY were teenagers.

[St. Jarvitude]

26. No, I get where you are coming from

The comment I took issue with was the "they reveal themselves soon enough anyway" comment. It's as if we're all lame AOLers:

u 2 r teh gr8est ppl in teh Woorld!!!!!!!!!!!!!! omg omg omg u rox

[Left Is Write]

29. I'm still arguing with my teenage kid.

(Fortunately, not over politics. But just about everything else!)

[petepillow]

17. Well I certainly didn't mean to. I only meant that

there is a limit to their life experience and it tends to show in arguments. And one should take into account where an argument is going before they decide to continue it. By labeling someone as underage right off the bat, it may prejedice some responders into discounting the validity of the poster's point. That wouldn't be fair, especially if a youngster is perfectly capable of a quality informed discussion. If the argument goes nowhere or seems immature, then other posters can decide whether or not it's worth the back-and-forth. That can apply to a poster who is retired, in the prime of their career, in college, or under 18. If a poster is under 18 and it's relevant to the discussion, they should be able to choose to admit it or not.

I suppose I would have done better to have expressed that better in the first post. No offense to under-18 posters!

[hippiechick]

2. I'd say yes because

I don't want any of you bad boys in the lounge hitting on 13 year old HippieKid when she's here.


:hippie:

[CO Liberal]

7. Excellent Point, Hippiechick!!!!

As a father, I wouldn't want to see that, either.

[jdj]

3. how would you know?

doesn't everyone lie about stats on the internet...when I reg. on papers I like to put myself down as a 92 year old.

[JimmyJazz]

4. Yes. I've seen some instances where I have wanted to step

in and say, "do you realize this person is young enough to be your son?" I think it would be a great idea.

[Placebo]

6. Absolutely.

But I don't know how you'd know if they really were or weren't under 18.

I mean, gawd, tons of DUers don't even have profiles! all you know about them is their post-count

[CO Liberal]

9. I'm Sure The Admins Can Put a Line on the Registration Form

"Are you over 18? Yes /No".

If they're under 18, they'd have to include their birth date so the admins would know when to turn the symbol off.

And lying about your age would be grounds for an automatic tombstone.

[Donkeyboy75]

11. How would the admins discover that they lied about their age?

:shrug:

It makes no sense.

[CO Liberal]

15. Well...

...if someone attests that they're over 18 and then posts a thread about getting ready for their Junior Prom, that would be a dead give-away, right?

[JohnKleeb]

19. people can fail grades

just saying, and I am undecided.

[redsoxliberal]

18. I'm 15. Why do you care?

[the Princess]

37. Why do we care if you're 15?

Lots and lots of reason. Most specifically it serves no purpose to argue with a child. Yes, you are certainly old enough to have your own opinions beliefs and ideals but at 44 - I don't wanna be bothered. It's that simple for me anyway.

[matcom]

8. YES!!!!

i want to know i am corrupting YOUNG minds! :P

[jpgray]

10. I personally think obsessive, crazy DUers should get branded first

That would make things much easier--they're a much greater threat than JohnKleeb or LeftPeopleFinishFirst, for example.

:)

[JimmyJazz]

20. It's not that Kleeb is a threat - but I saw an instance where someone

implied that he had knocked her up - it was supposed to be funny, but it was coming from a 37 year old woman!

I love talking with Kleeb and Name Not Needed cracks me up - I don't think it's an avoidance issue so much knowing ones audience.

[JohnKleeb]

21. aww thanks

and yes they are a much, much bigger threat.

[jpgray]

24. I think the idea of forcing a DUer to reveal personal info is a bad one

But I'm just kidding about branding the crazy, obsessive DUers--they usually reveal themselves pretty readily without the need for such an intrusive policy. :)

[JohnKleeb]

27. Well I am sorry I arrived so late on the scene

but I did manage to copycat this.

[asthmaticeog]

35. How would that work?

A mandated asshat avatar?

[WMliberal]

13. but then how can i use the excuse

"how was i supposed to know she was under 18?" or "she told me she was 20"

I can hear the alert buttons being hit right now....

[Sabriel]

14. that's the beauty of the internet(s)

You never know to whom you're typing. It's the great equalizer.

[norml]

16. You're really big on this protect the children thing

but I don't see any good in having a mandatory under 18 symbol. If age designating avatars are offered for those who want them that's ok,but to put dividing labels on people who come here would to me be offensive. What words might be said to them in an argument that they don't know already?

[CO Liberal]

23. Look...

I don't want to get into an argument with a kid - plain and simple. And many threads in the Lounge turn into flirtation - I think a guy should be able to know whether the woman DU-er he's flirting with is 35 or 13, don't you?

And when did wanting to protect children become a bad thing? :shrug:

[norml]

32. The person being flirted with will very quickly reveal their age

as they will in any chat room. As for not wanting to get into an argument with a kid,if they can hold their own what does their age matter? Is it that you don't want to hurt their feelings,or use too much force,if in an argument with a kid? Just be somewhat polite all the time,and you'll have no worries.

[JohnKleeb]

22. I really dont like it

There are some good intentions but I don't like the idea of branding people. Your intentions do sound good but it just feels odd to be labeling people.

[BoX o BooX]

25. Let's be very clear about this poll:

1) CO has a mad-on against Woody Allen and has designated himself the DU Protector Of Children.

2) This has become CO's best way of dismissing anyone with whom he disagrees; if you don't toe the CO line, you must be under 18, and, therefore, cannot be debated.

Speak to the idea... not the person. Ad hominem attacks are unworthy.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lars39]

28. Soooo, you'd want to label minors so that all the pervs

could easily identify them? Not a good thing.

[Wat_Tyler]

30. Doesn't make much sense. People are either intelligent or not.

Age has very little to do with it.

[JohnKleeb]

31. so you mean me being a dum-dum has little to with the fact I am 17

[redsoxliberal]

34. you're a very special person

you get dummer every day :P

[BoX o BooX]

36. Whimsical question:

Would a 17-year-old know enough to say "So that WE adults will know" rather that the incorrect usage of "So that US adults will know," used by the original (presumably adult) poster?

[Moderator]

38. Locking

I think this would be a good question to address in the Ask the Administrators forum but not here.

Thank you
DU Moderator