Judging a book by it's cover.

[suedarbo]

I can understand both sides to this. I remember reading one post where the young man in question says he can remember the close of a certain works 6 years ago. If he is only 12 it seems rather confusing how he would remember this. I sincerely hope he can get written permission from his parents/carers and come back to Accyweb and we will all then, hopefully have the patience and understanding to treat him accordingly

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Less

Indeed there is,

it is in place to protect both the innocent and the site, after all what could be worse than finding that our site has caused harm to our youth?

When adults or people claiming to be adults sign up to the site they are treated as adults, however if someone of a delicate age tries to sign up they are flagged and are asked for adult permission in writing to protect them.

In this particular case, we either have a child that lied or else an adult that started a membership, then passed it on to a child, (I honestly can't see this young man able to make up the profile he used).

The whole of this has been blamed on bullies and unfeeling people, why?

Well it's obvious to me, why,
a child managed with or without adult assistance, deliberatly or innocently to have access to the site, the fact that that child is supposedly 'afflicted' in some manner does not excuse the adults supposedly responsible for that child, they allowed this to happen.

I don't blame the Administrators or Moderators for this deliberate lie, but anyone that is responsible for this child that allowed him to be treated as an adult IS to blame.

It could have meant due to what a child thought as 'little white lies', the end of accyweb had something far more serious happened.

Who would be to blame?

The members? The Moderators? The Administrators? The owner?

Or

The adults that knew of this childs actions but did nothing about it?

That child was treated as he was by members that had looked at his profile and treated him as an adult, he was accepted as what he claimed to be, therefore treated as we have all seen.

Can I ask that in future any child in similar circumstances is protected not by accyweb, (it could have been a worse site he was a member of), but by the people that should protect him?

His parents and guardians?

Best post on the thread, perhaps the "Holier than Thou" knobs will take it on board, somehow i doubt it.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by cashman

Best post on the thread, perhaps the "Holier than Thou" knobs will take it on board, somehow i doubt it.

I don't think anyone's been 'holier than thou'.

I started this thread saying I was ashamed of some of things I'd posted, regarding a certain member.

Regardless of the age issue, we had a new member who was constantly the target of sniping, and demeaning attacks.

As far as I recall this was aimed at someone who was never rude, or obnoxious to anyone else on here.

He was singled out because of his enthusiasms, that some others didn't share them. Even though there was a simple solution if you found it irritating...don't read what's posted.

Singling someone out, who hasn't posted anything bad, is wrong.

It's the sad sort of behaviour you see in school playgrounds.

It reflects badly on all of us. Myself included.

[garinda]

By the way.

If anyone's so bored they bother to read my profile details, I'm not actually sponsored by the Arts Council of Great Britain to post on here.

That doesn't make me a liar.

Just someone with a sense of humour.

[Less]

The last two posts also show that when you put on your sack cloth and ashes, you won't stop whipping until everybody bleeds.
It could never have happened if the lad wasn't here under false pretences a problem his parents/guardians created, not the members.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by garinda

I don't think anyone's been 'holier than thou'.

I started this thread saying I was ashamed of some of things I'd posted, regarding a certain member.

Regardless of the age issue, we had a new member who was constantly the target of sniping, and demeaning attacks.

As far as I recall this was aimed at someone who was never rude, or obnoxious to anyone else on here.

He was singled out because of his enthusiasms, that some others didn't share them. Even though there was a simple solution if you found it irritating...don't read what's posted.

Singling someone out, who hasn't posted anything bad, is wrong.

It's the sad sort of behaviour you see in school playgrounds.

It reflects badly on all of us. Myself included.

That's correct...nobody knew Bee's real age .. he was picked on simply because people found his posts boring (and I did)..the strange thing is the same members were usually the first to reply to Bee's posts.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by Less

The last two posts also show that when you put on your sack cloth and ashes, you won't stop whipping until everybody bleeds.
It could never have happened if the lad wasn't here under false pretences a problem his parents/guardians created, not the members.

Of course it could still have happend... the same could even have happened to any new adult member..the picking on had nothing to do with the persons profile... some of this was just abit of mickey taking but some was plain nasty.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Less

The last two posts also show that when you put on your sack cloth and ashes, you won't stop whipping until everybody bleeds.
It could never have happened if the lad wasn't here under false pretences a problem his parents/guardians created, not the members.

People targeted him not knowing his age.

Threads were started asking for his removal.

Purely because of what he'd posted.

Youi might think that's acceptable.

I think it stinks.

If people are nasty, I'll happily kick their arse, and give them a taste of their own nasty medicine.

He'd done nothing wrong, other than post things that he thought interesting.

To target him because of that is wrong.

Period.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Mancie

Of course it could still have happend... the same could even have happened to any new adult member..the picking on had nothing to do with the persons profile... some of this was just abit of mickey taking but some was plain nasty.

Exactly, and it's sad people don't seem able to understand that.

[garinda]

All the conspiracy theorists didn't believe the profile details anyway.

They thought it was an already active member.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Is there a rule on age Neil, I'm asking because I genuinely don't know

Yes there is, if you read the rules from the link in my sig you will find this one.

24: If your 13 or under you MUST get your parents/guardian to fill the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 form in
when you put your date of birth in to register

If you read this link about it

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you will see it is a US federal law and our rule is wrong, it should state under 13 which means 12 or under not 13 or under as in our rule.

The servers are hosted in the US so have to follow US law on the collection of information of children.

[mobertol]

A tangled web indeed -and what a shame. It took me about half of this thread to work out who you were talking about and I am very sorry that he had to be banned. What some deem boring others found interesting and his threads generated an average number of replies so presumably they weren't so bad.
As a relatively new contributor to this site I must admit that it can be a bit daunting to write down your thoughts etc for the scrutiny of folk you don't know. One little run in with Less a while ago brought me up short at first, then I realised what a loveable old rascal he is (as they say in the best women's magazines Less is more....which always features alongside Grey is the new black and other such startling truths). Other members have been helpful and witty and in the end, you know, it takes all sorts. Variety is the spice of life after all....
G - stop beating yourself up, heavy-weights don't usually get thrown into the ring with fly-weights and wouldn't throw any punches unless they were blind-folded, which was effectively the case....keep up the bear-baiting though.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by mobertol

A tangled web indeed -and what a shame. It took me about half of this thread to work out who you were talking about and I am very sorry that he had to be banned. What some deem boring others found interesting and his threads generated an average number of replies so presumably they weren't so bad.
As a relatively new contributor to this site I must admit that it can be a bit daunting to write down your thoughts etc for the scrutiny of folk you don't know. One little run in with Less a while ago brought me up short at first, then I realised what a loveable old rascal he is (as they say in the best women's magazines Less is more....which always features alongside Grey is the new black and other such startling truths). Other members have been helpful and witty and in the end, you know, it takes all sorts. Variety is the spice of life after all....
G - stop beating yourself up, heavy-weights don't usually get thrown into the ring with fly-weights and wouldn't throw any punches unless they were blind-folded, which was effectively the case....keep up the bear-baiting though.

Less a loveable old rascalHe won't have love you for that, you've got more nerve that me

[Neil]

Originally Posted by mobertol

.....
As a relatively new contributor to this site I must admit that it can be a bit daunting to write down your thoughts etc for the scrutiny of folk you don't know......

Did you get the "if you had been on here for more than 5 minutes" or "we have had that before" or "you will get used to us" or the many other unwelcoming comments and ridiculing new users often get?

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Neil

Did you get the "if you had been on here for more than 5 minutes" or "we have had that before" or "you will get used to us" or the many other unwelcoming comments and ridiculing new users often get?

I didn't think you were allowed to print the clique oath, even in part.

Isn't it supposed to be chanted at the swearing in ceremony, and never written down?

At least that's what one of the members of the clique once told me.