Cantr II Discussion Forum

To be perfectly blunt, I'm really tired of having to look over my character's shoulders for potential minors hidden in the crowd. It's completely disruptive to my game play to have to have my characters watch their mouth or behavior due to strictly ooc reasons. I mean, that's what the CR is all about - enforcing a strict in-character environment in the game. (I'm not advocating the spewage of toilet language over the radio, at least not in the current system where it's impossible to track those people down. That's still lame.)

I propose that new applicants be limited to those 18 and over, while current minors will be grandfathered in. Eventually, they will all age out and we'll have a completely safe environment in which to play uninhibited. I think the potential loss in new players would be balanced by the collective sigh of relief from both the players and the staff members that have been put in the unenviable position of having to worry about these sorts of things. (Have you ever worried that you could be sued by someone because you work as a volunteer admin in a game where said person was corrupted or traumatized by some kind of objectionable content? Well, that was the reality I lived in when I was on the GAB, and worry I did, and at times it was more than a minor level of worry.)

It's simply not worth the disruption and stress.

Edit: I just want to add that I don't think I'm any more vulgar or perverted than anyone else. It's just that when my characters were created and developed, this wasn't an issue in the community, so they developed their personalities in an atmosphere free of restriction. Now behavior restrictions are in force, and I simply can't go back in time and change who my characters are to accommodate the new reality. Instead I have to make conscious ooc choices to curb their behavior.

I think minors contribute very little to the game, so it wouldn't be a great loss to prevent them from joining.

How does one get convinced about X's maturity?

I think just a button saying "yes, I am 18 years or older" should be enough. I believe 'adult sites' work in the same way, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

There are plenty of disclaimers that can be incorporated into the sign up process. If someone claims to be 18 or over then tries to make a claim as a minor...
A) The contract is extremely likely to be held void.
B) Even if it is not, the rights have been waived (although note the issue of minors' inability to give consent).
C) Those who seek equity must come to it with clean hands. Lying about your age, especially if that is one of the main terms of the contract, will not do the minor any favours.
However this is all based on my knowledge of the workings of a certain legal system. One would hope that basic legal principles are universal, though.
My own disclaimer: I am not a contract lawyer and I do not have a retainer with any individual/organisation associated with Cantr in any capacity, so I do not purport the above to be taken as legal advice, and it should not be construed as such. It is just guidance/educated/informed opinion.
And a huge yes to this suggestion, although I know one minor who won't like it.

Very nice personal disclaimer there, Chroma

Definitely in favor of this. I just hope it doesn't get used as a defense when someone is told to tone down their vulgarity some. Everyone has different thresholds for what they will tolerate or consider offensive so I'm really not sure where to draw the line for a rule. Sorry, I don't mean to derail the topic but I am curious how some balance will be enforced once we can no longer say "there could be kids seeing this stuff you're posting." Feel free to split if necessary.

SekoETC wrote:I think minors contribute very little to the game, so it wouldn't be a great loss to prevent them from joining.

We've had many contributions from minors including GreeK, JoshuaMonkey, and Pie, to name only a few. I vote No.

The reason this is an issue now is the implementation of the NCS rule a few years ago, which I think was a mistake. It used to be the case that vulgarity was handled only in response to complaints. That was not a great system, and we did lose players who encountered rp they were uncomfortable with. But by formalising an NCS rule, the burden of enforcement, or even potential liability, was placed on PD. Now what choice do they have? It's a bell that is hard to unring.

sanchez wrote:

SekoETC wrote:I think minors contribute very little to the game, so it wouldn't be a great loss to prevent them from joining.

We've had many contributions from minors including GreeK, JoshuaMonkey, and Pie, to name only a few. I vote No.

The reason this is an issue now is the implementation of the NCS rule a few years ago, which I think was a mistake. It used to be the case that vulgarity was handled only in response to complaints. That was not a great system, and we did lose players who encountered rp they were uncomfortable with. But by formalising an NCS rule, the burden of enforcement, or even potential liability, was placed on PD. Now what choice do they have? It's a bell that is hard to unring.

I agree that we've had a number of very talented players under the age of 18. With that said, I still voted yes. However, I am intrigued by your comments regarding NCS. What is it and how does it relate here?

By the way... not sure it's a great idea to out our minors on the forum

I believe none of them is a minor now. The NonConsensual Sex Rule: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19795&p=462215#p462215 formalised what had been an understood policy about gaining prior OOC consent before any RP of sexual assault and the like. Good policy, but the effect of this rule, with the understanding that minors are legally incapable of giving any consent, has led to censorship of a much broader variety. Any explicit rp for minors is, by virtue of this rule, nonconsenual. Censorship is always a slippery slope, and we're seeing all strong language being enforced in a similar way.

I just mostly want them to get off my lawn.

Black Canyon wrote:I just mostly want them to get off my lawn.

Interesting that in an attempt to cover our asses, the GAB may have made the ice under its feet slicker.

Using offensive language is a crime in most countries, regardless of age of victim. But if character is a person who would use such language even if such character would commit a crime its still a game. Just like killing another character, or stealing, or any other illegal activity. But using such offensive language over radio in global network should be reported and deal by PD, as such behavior just harm a game.

And as for restrict - it would only work as a way to avoid responsibility in lawsuit. It could work, but it could make a blowback. I vote no.

If you wish avoid any lawsuit, then just put some info, that this game can have any sexual or abusive language context and you play on your responsibility.

Doug R. wrote:Interesting that in an attempt to cover our asses, the GAB may have made the ice under its feet slicker.

It should be no surprise. Similar rules were debated many times in the past and always rejected, not least by Jos, because they are both unenforceable, and generate liability for staff.

This goes as well for other types of rules 'clarifications'. The CR is vague for good reason, as applying it individual cases can be quite complex. As another example, when people were told they had to rp language learning for X number of days, many became fluent in X+1 days. Hard rules only help those who wish to avoid them. And nobody wants PD to monitor rp.