Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-3485828-20140722174414/@comment-25142104-20140729132231

Datadragon Odahviing wrote: To put things in perspective, this is what I am reading. Correct me if I am wrong:

''Those people for banning all the under 13s for chat are all gushing about how mature topics are discussed on chat and how kids should be insulated from such topics, because they are children are immature. The only rationale from such would be to avoid potential lawsuits from parents who would obviously sue Wikia if they found out about their kids viewing said mature topics and getting "scarred" because of these topics. As well, some editors sure wouldn't want to talk to a child they deem as immature and childish, as we all know, since I hate childish people actually, like most of you all.''

Problem with such, though, is you can't tell what is true and what is false, neither can I (Really, someone who claims to be a hot chick could very well be an old fat man). I'm way beyond the age limit of 13 (I can play most games on the market legally without a guardian, BTW, don't bother guessing my age, it's obviously between 17 to 21, I don't want to risk violating policy by giving an exact number) and a guy (Yes, I am a male!), but then again assuming you didn't know my age or know me (for the sake of making a point), I could be any one of the following (I'm not them in any way, but I need a context XD):

''1. An 8 year old prodigy who is very mature, converses regularly with adults and who will not talk with people below two times his current age. Such a person will never be scarred by a mature topic in any way. Ban him or her? Why would you?''

''2. A creepy 65 year old man in a diaper and bonnet, sucking my thumb as I write. We should keep such people off the internet anyway.''

''3. An average fat nerd in thick specs enjoying my Skyrim. Nothing wrong with these, many of us are such (or skinny geeks or blah blah blah ordinary people)''

''4. A random female gamer. No offense meant to women who play games.''

5. A online white knight and prince charming (or the female version), again, nothing wrong with such people.

6. A sentient computer (maybe not).

If I told you I was any one of the above, would you believe me (the last option is obviously impossible)? Assume you never ever heard of me or interacted with me in any way before online or IRL before making said judgement. How would you tell? Therefore, in the same vein, how would a age gate or age restriction work?

Another problem is, how will the wiki go about enforcing any bans on under 13 users without a ridiculously autocratic system that does not mess up a section of the wiki using community? The point has been restated again and again, but nobody gets it. Plus, you can read threads even if you are an AWC. You just can't chat, but much of the "mature content" is on threads. So, banning kids on chat changes nothing, if you block of the forums so that only users like me and you can use them, what are you going to do about the 100s of 13 and above AWCs who need advice??? (I sure wouldn't create an account just to post one post.) I agree with the dragon. also piont out that Wikia is sposed to be freely edited by anyony an age gate whould destroy that whould it not.