we got mods and they do a dang good job on that issue ...

flirtation ??? where

I'm not comfortable with minors being on this site, mixing and mingling with adults.

PurpleCharm said:

as long as no one becomes or show predator beheaviour i don't see an issue. it's not like that can't hear or see worse somewhere else.

ehuffnsd said:

But that doesn't mean the Org shouldn't be aware and set policies regarding minor Orgers.


I'm surprised many times when I found out an Orger is 15 or 16 years old.

When school starts they'll find other things to do with their time and eventually forget about this place, young people have short attention spans. I cannot wait!

If there was an 18yr age limit...people could lie about there age when they join

Yep I get underagers in the chatroom. Most will have their age in their profiles (or not); or it comes out in some form during chat discussion that it's obvious.

When there are adults in the chatroom having "adult" discussion (sometimes a sexual topic for example), I tend to alert the adult crowd that there is/are underagers in the chatroom and the convo changes. There was one underager that had stated to the adults "you can continue with your sex talk, I'm "mature" enough to be included in the discussion".

There have been people as young as 12 who are disrespectful to adults in the chatroom. A 12 year old told an adult to "fuck off" (no joke).

As for for the forums, it's not too hard to spot underagers.

Remember there are underagers all over the net on all kinds of sites out there. Do they have rules regarding underagers?

Should there be an age restriction for the org?

Should there be an age restriction for the chatroom?

The org does have underagers who are into Prince.

RhondaB hit upon my point: A lot of interaction with the minors here is incidental. Until someone includes their age in their profile or says they're underage, the general assumption is that an Orger is an adult.

Think for a moment about the flirting that goes on between adult Orgers, the attachments that often develop, as interactions increase. It can be weighty for adults -- imagine the potential attachment issues for a kid.

There's also a safety issue. The "photowhore" threads are popular enough for adults. But should minor Orgers be allowed to post their pics? Myspace has run into enough issues, where that's concerned. And, we all know the lurkers-to-Orgers ratio can be fairly substantial here sometimes. Who knows who's viewing their pics?

Once I know the originator of a thread is a minor, I steer clear; and I generally don't talk to them. I suspect many other Orgers follow similar policies.

I know I'm being rather alarmist, but I think there's room for caution. Just my .
[Edited 8/27/07 16:27pm]

Calligraphy said:

yep, yep

I think that the Org should cover its ass an set some sort of policy regarding age even if its just a warning when you sign up that there are Orgers of all ages, please watch your language or whatever but that you are responsible for...blah, blah, blah. With all of the myspace/facebook crap, I think the Org can't be so naive to think that all orgers have the best interest of the younger orgers at heart and Ben should just cover his ass on this.

Rhondab said:

Watch your language on a Prince site is just ridiculous to me.

Lothan said:

But I didn't say watch your language per se.

I said that there just should be some statement about minors being on the site so that Ben, being the owner, can cover his ass.

Rhondab said:

Oh. I was getting the impression that we should watch what we say because kids are here.

I am just shocked at the amount of time some of the minors spend on this site. I have even seen some posting during hours they should be in school.

Do their parents know about the amount of adult interaction that they are engaged in?

There is one teen in particular that is deep in the mix of some of the more mature content on this site.

PurpleCharm said:

That's the parent(s) responsibility to supervise their underager. It is not the responsibility of the org to "babysit" underagers. Some internet services provide "parental controls" or there is software such as "Netnanny". Or parent(s) can put a password on the computer so the underager cannot gain access while the parent(s) are away from home.

Some have access at school. Schools can block access and only have links to sites they use for teaching purposes.

luv4u said:

Hold up. Did I say that it was the responsibility of the org to babysit? I made a comment, not a judgment against the org.

If anything, my comment says more about the parent than about the org.
[Edited 8/28/07 17:49pm]

I've always thought of the Org as a grownup playground and discussion space. Certainly, with Prince's resurgence in popularity, younger fans are liable to be drawn here.

But I'm uncomfortable with the level of interaction some younger Orgers pursue. They more than adults feel the pressure to belong and to be taken seriously.

I think the Org should be limited to people who are 18 and older, given the nature the discussions that take place, the extreme degree of flirtation (and worse).

But how how would such a policy be enforced, if agreed upon? How do similar sites handle this demographic issue?

I generally doubt the actual ages of some those posting under 16.....the type of posts, the maturity, ability to spell, vocabulary.....not all, are the age they say they are.

xplnyrslf said:

I agree with you on that.

Any adult "pretending" to be an underager must have a few screws loose upstairs.