Forum Responsibilities - Advice needed please!

[mizwizzy]

Hey Guys,

I’m currently in the early stages of incorporating a forum into one of my websites and I’ve a few questions I’d love to put past you guys and hopefully you might be able to give me some advice on what I should do!

My first dilemma is with regard to registration - I’m steering in the direction of not allowing anyone under the age of 13 to join my forum - mainly from the point of view that I don’t want any children on my forum because it would just be a bit weird - So I’m going to apply the COPPA policy to those registrations. I am thinking though that I should really have an “I’m over 18 & agree to the terms” option upon registration also just to cover all the bases. I’m not really sure what legal requirements or responsibilites are on the shoulders of those who own and run forums so any advice in this area would be greatly welcomed! (Btw my forum is just going to be of a generalised nature really with a few techy subjects thrown in)

My second issue is more of a moral/ethical stance with regard to whether or not I should archive private messages on the Forums. From a spamming point of view I can see the benefit and also for those who are getting harassed but those messages are indeed private and I don’t want to be snooping around something I shouldn’t. Should you declare that you do archive PM’s in your Disclaimer? Maybe it’s best to just archive them but only call upon them when a situation calls for it i.e harassment or spamming.

Well that’s it. All thoughts are welcome, thanks in advance!

Hazel

[Patrick]

No problem. Happy to help.

Patrick

[Patrick]

Hey mizwizzy,

No worries. Happy to help.

With the private messages, I think if I was uncomfortable managing private messages, I would reconsider having them at all and instead just keep all messaging in public and if people want to talk privately, they can e-mail. That way it is off of my servers and not within my jurisdiction, so to speak.

The big downside of that is the inability to use it for communication from staff to member, where I can see what was sent and if it was read, which is something I value.

I don’t snoop through the private messages. As I said, they are only viewed when I receive a report or have a strong suspicion and even then, it’s only me and I limit it to as few messages as possible. I don’t go looking for violations or anything like that.

I would say to apply the same standards to everyone 13 and older. Prevents unnecessary confusion or work, like maintaining different guidelines. Also, eliminates a potential loop hole. I have found that adults are not necessarily more responsible or mature than someone 13-17.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks,

Patrick

[mizwizzy]

@Alexa12345

I think you should introduce a CAPTCHA for not having chidren under 13, but for this from my point of view it should be a math exercise or something that a child under 13 couldn’t do, otherwise anyone can say that is over 13.

Hey Alexa!

Interesting concept, I’m 29 and I think I would struggle with any sort of maths! but I do see your view point and it’s something to consider thanks!

@iFroggy

Hey mizwizzy,

No worries. Happy to help.

With the private messages, I think if I was uncomfortable managing private messages, I would reconsider having them at all and instead just keep all messaging in public and if people want to talk privately, they can e-mail. That way it is off of my servers and not within my jurisdiction, so to speak.

The big downside of that is the inability to use it for communication from staff to member, where I can see what was sent and if it was read, which is something I value.

I don’t snoop through the private messages. As I said, they are only viewed when I receive a report or have a strong suspicion and even then, it’s only me and I limit it to as few messages as possible. I don’t go looking for violations or anything like that.

I would say to apply the same standards to everyone 13 and older. Prevents unnecessary confusion or work, like maintaining different guidelines. Also, eliminates a potential loop hole. I have found that adults are not necessarily more responsible or mature than someone 13-17.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks,

Patrick

You’re right, I don’t mean to pigeon hole anyone really, and I do appreciate that some teenagers are indeed quite mature and responsible than some adults - I guess I just want to create a safe online community environment really, but I don’t think that’s going to be possible and that’s what I need to accept - I did think of eliminating the PM’s altogether but for the quality and interaction elements of a forum it will take away alot of enjoyment for the members and it’s not something I would like to do personallly based on my own involvement in forums :injured:

It’s interesting what you mention about the rules for all - I agree and it will be abit crazy for me to have rules for some but not for others - I think I will award certain privileges based on a member honour system - sort of like the signature rule here at SitePoint but with regard to the PM option, I’ll apply this rule for everyone within the sign up terms regardless of age - I think this is a healthier approach on the whole rather than it being OK for some and not for others, it may be a bit too OTT!

I really appreciate everyone’s help here and I will take all feedback and advice on board Much appreciated!

Hazel

[mizwizzy]

@Stomme_poes

Maybe the section denying 13-year-olds should have at least a one-sentence explanation as to what your misgivings are… a more informed liar might possibly count more in some imagines legal setting, or would server to inform guardians (who may be ok with their 13-year-old on your forums) what the problem is/might be.

Personal Message sounds cool.

Hey Stomme,

Yeah, I think if I do go the route of the COPPA Agreement which will allow 13 year olds to register but under the guidance and supervision of a guardian or atleast with their consent/authorisation - I will stipulate this within the terms also :tup:

@iFroggy

Hey mizwizzy,

COPPA is an internationally enforceable act and if you are going to be welcoming traffic from the U.S. from people under the age of 13, it’s a generally good idea to follow and respect it. If you disallow people who are under the age of 13, you probably don’t need to bother with COPPA and shouldn’t really refer to it as “COPPA policy,” as that isn’t completely accurate and can be confusing. It’s your policy and that’s fine.

If you wanted to require that people are 18 or older, that is fine, as well. But, verification of any of this is difficult. That said, you can simply ask people to enter their birth date and if you find them lying, you can ban them. Once in a very, very long while, I will catch someone who is under 13 and lied about it and they are immediately blocked from the site. If you find out and allow them, you are then complicit.

On my sites, I welcome people of all ages and do accept the signed forms required by COPPA and keep them on file and allow the member entry. But, across 5 plus communities over 9 years, I’ve maybe had 4 people do that. I think that, from a general perspective, most folks aren’t as interested in forums at that age as later.

Regarding private messages, you cannot allow them to be abused. So, in my opinion, you must have the ability to read them easily when needed, limiting yourself to as few messages or people as possible and limiting the ability to as few people as possible. On my sites, only I can read private messages and I only do so when I receive a report or have a very strong suspicion.

An example of a suspicion? Well, we have a 25 post minimum to be able to initiate new private message conversations. If a member joins, posts 25 junk posts in rapid order, then stops… I have a strong suspicion that they did it to be able to send junk via private message. The way my system works is I can easily type in their username and see if they have sent any private messages, without actually having to view the body of those messages. It’s a responsibility I take seriously.

The flip side would be inappropriate in my eyes. “Patrick, there is this guy who is threatening me via private message?” “Sorry, but those are private, nothing I can do, even though they are on a website I manage and a server I pay for.” Just not pretty.

I do make it clear in our guidelines that the guidelines apply to private messages and that, under the circumstances outlined above, they can be viewed, but that we try to limit or avoid that as much as possible.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks,

Patrick

Hey Patrick,

Sorry I was a bit all over the place with my COPPA statement I’ve received alot of feedback on this matter at this point now across the forums here and elsewhere and the general consensus seems to be in agreement with yourself; allow 13yr olds to register but in accordance with the COPPA Agreement and also the ability to view PM’s - I think with regard to the 13yr old issue I will allow registrations but only in conjunction with written consent from a guardian/parent and as you stated, keep that on file :tup:

The issue I’m struggling with is with regard to the PM’s - I understand the counter spamming angle and also harassment but it just doesn’t sit comfortable with me I guess - I like you’re idea about not viewing the entire PM body - now this is what I would be happy with introducing, I’ll have to investigate this further, perhaps filter PM’s of a suspicious nature/activity into a mod queue therefore I don’t have to investigate them all - I want my members to feel comfortable in the knowledge that an Admin won’t be snooping through their PM’s but I guess that’s just having my head in the clouds really, if I do allow that then I’m not really being responsible especially once 13yr olds are allowed to register - I wonder would it be mean to disable PM’s for anyone under 18? Is that too strict or is just being sensible?

That’s another thing - Do I have to state at the outset what rules apply to different member groups? Say for example the above, I’m thinking that it might be useful in catching people out, if they do try to re-register after they find out that PM’s are disabled for under 18’s ?

Ok, lots to think about! Thanks Stomme & Patrick, appreciate your time and advice!

Hazel

[Alexa12345]

I think you should introduce a CAPTCHA for not having chidren under 13, but for this from my point of view it should be a math exercise or something that a child under 13 couldn’t do, otherwise anyone can say that is over 13.

[Stomme_poes]

My first dilemma is with regard to registration - I’m steering in the direction of not allowing anyone under the age of 13 to join my forum - mainly from the point of view that I don’t want any children on my forum because it would just be a bit weird - So I’m going to apply the COPPA policy to those registrations. I am thinking though that I should really have an “I’m over 18 & agree to the terms” option upon registration also just to cover all the bases. I’m not really sure what legal requirements or responsibilites are on the shoulders of those who own and run forums so any advice in this area would be greatly welcomed! (Btw my forum is just going to be of a generalised nature really with a few techy subjects thrown in)

If there’s no way you can tell or prove anyone’s age, I’m not sure how you can be held responsible. Not that I didn’t just always lie when I was young, so we all know it doesn’t actually mean anything.

My second issue is more of a moral/ethical stance with regard to whether or not I should archive private messages on the Forums. From a spamming point of view I can see the benefit and also for those who are getting harassed but those messages are indeed private and I don’t want to be snooping around something I shouldn’t. Should you declare that you do archive PM’s in your Disclaimer? Maybe it’s best to just archive them but only call upon them when a situation calls for it i.e harassment or spamming.

HAWK can read PMs while others can’t. You could check what SP forums’ disclaimer says and possibly use it as a model.

[Stomme_poes]

Thanks for your response! I understand that people will lie of course about their age, I guess that’s why I wanted to include the 18+ declaration so that members must acknowledge their age prior to activation I guess - sort of leaves me in a better place where minors are concerned I guess so that if they do lie, the onus is on themselves or indeed their guardian to monitor their internet habits rather than me babysitting them! That’s the whole point with regard to denying anyone under the age of 13 and introducing the 18+!

Maybe the section denying 13-year-olds should have at least a one-sentence explanation as to what your misgivings are… a more informed liar might possibly count more in some imagines legal setting, or would server to inform guardians (who may be ok with their 13-year-old on your forums) what the problem is/might be.

Personal Message sounds cool.

[Patrick]

Hey mizwizzy,

COPPA is an internationally enforceable act and if you are going to be welcoming traffic from the U.S. from people under the age of 13, it’s a generally good idea to follow and respect it. If you disallow people who are under the age of 13, you probably don’t need to bother with COPPA and shouldn’t really refer to it as “COPPA policy,” as that isn’t completely accurate and can be confusing. It’s your policy and that’s fine.

If you wanted to require that people are 18 or older, that is fine, as well. But, verification of any of this is difficult. That said, you can simply ask people to enter their birth date and if you find them lying, you can ban them. Once in a very, very long while, I will catch someone who is under 13 and lied about it and they are immediately blocked from the site. If you find out and allow them, you are then complicit.

On my sites, I welcome people of all ages and do accept the signed forms required by COPPA and keep them on file and allow the member entry. But, across 5 plus communities over 9 years, I’ve maybe had 4 people do that. I think that, from a general perspective, most folks aren’t as interested in forums at that age as later.

Regarding private messages, you cannot allow them to be abused. So, in my opinion, you must have the ability to read them easily when needed, limiting yourself to as few messages or people as possible and limiting the ability to as few people as possible. On my sites, only I can read private messages and I only do so when I receive a report or have a very strong suspicion.

An example of a suspicion? Well, we have a 25 post minimum to be able to initiate new private message conversations. If a member joins, posts 25 junk posts in rapid order, then stops… I have a strong suspicion that they did it to be able to send junk via private message. The way my system works is I can easily type in their username and see if they have sent any private messages, without actually having to view the body of those messages. It’s a responsibility I take seriously.

The flip side would be inappropriate in my eyes. “Patrick, there is this guy who is threatening me via private message?” “Sorry, but those are private, nothing I can do, even though they are on a website I manage and a server I pay for.” Just not pretty.

I do make it clear in our guidelines that the guidelines apply to private messages and that, under the circumstances outlined above, they can be viewed, but that we try to limit or avoid that as much as possible.

I hope that this helps.

Thanks,

Patrick

[mizwizzy]

Hey Stomme

Thanks for your response! I understand that people will lie of course about their age, I guess that’s why I wanted to include the 18+ declaration so that members must acknowledge their age prior to activation I guess - sort of leaves me in a better place where minors are concerned I guess so that if they do lie, the onus is on themselves or indeed their guardian to monitor their internet habits rather than me babysitting them! That’s the whole point with regard to denying anyone under the age of 13 and introducing the 18+!

I’m going with the angle of perhaps stating that the PM’s are personal messages rather than private (as advised earlier on another forum) - I’ll include a note in the disclaimer to state that all activity is monitored on the forums which will include PM’s but are only called upon on a case by case basis only i.e. Reported issues of spam/harassment etc - I think this will work for me.

I’ve read through SP’s FAQ on PM’s - seems to be of a similiar stance which I guess means I’m headed in the right direction! :tup:

Thanks again