Will there be an official response about Party Finder advertising?

[MilkieTea]

In terms of the legal side my hot take is if a someone lies about their age to gain access to a bar, or get involved with online interactions that they should not be part of. They should receive the punishment the adult would have have faced if they were guilty. I feel far too many defend children and their actions with the same talking points they did not know the adult should have known better. People that try to ruin the lives of another person for their own personal enjoyment are scum and should be treated as such.

Though our legal system will never do that cause protect the children is deeply ingrained. Yes I am salty, my father had to resign from his teaching position and was forced into early retirement because some female students told their parents without any proof that he touched them and made advances at them. They had nothing on the cameras, no one else expect the girls in questions to corroborate said allegations. Everyone knew it was false but the risk of negative PR was too much for the school so they asked my father to kindly resign. So I have a bias in all of this, protecting the children mindset has great potential to harm innocent people, and I get cases like my old man and others have mentioned in the thread are rare, but personally just one in hundred thousand would be far to much.

Children are not dumb, let us be real often as children we feign ignorance because deep down to knew or age protected us to a degree, that needs to stop if parents cannot teach their children manipulation and lying about ones age for personal pleasure is wrong then maybe society should by treating them like the adults they so desire to want to be like. Ignorance is not an excuse for an adult should be the same for a child.

bad take, dude. bad take.

[Awha]

bad take, dude. bad take.

I get a feeling why you will say it is a bad take, just wondering what I said was considered unreasonable to you and why? From experience those who are against my stance simply have not lived through someone's life being altered by manipulative children.

Kids were not dumb, I knew how to play my parents and adults as a child we need to stop downplaying how manipulative teenagers can be.

[van_arn]

I get a feeling why you will say it is a bad take, just wondering what I said was considered unreasonable to you and why? From experience those who are against my stance simply have not lived through someone's life being altered by manipulative children.

Kids were not dumb, I knew how to play my parents and adults as a child we need to stop downplaying how manipulative teenagers can be.

Your take on what you feel should be is completely unrelated to what is. For age-restricted activities, we always punish the person providing the access; not the child.

This is why erpers are a liability to Square and to themselves.

[Awha]

Your take on what you feel should be is completely unrelated to what is. For age-restricted activities, we always punish the person providing the access; not the child.

This is why erpers are a liability to Square and to themselves.

I know it is unrelated, I was just asking. Just because that is the way something is, and will work does not mean it is not possible to talk about other perspectives. It does not detract or hurt the discussion at hand.

[Kyuuen]

My personal opinion on the matter and how I view this situation will be somewhat of a hot take, but...

This



Should be invalidated by this



If you can't put a rating on what should be considered the lions share of the content of this game due to the volatility of individual personalities, then perhaps kids shouldn't be playing. If parents need be concerned over the possible content of what players are providing, then parents need to do their due diligence and clip these types of games from their children's repertoire of games. Liquor cabinets exist for a reason. Gun cabinets/safes exist for a reason. ESRB exists for a reason and the statement "Online interactions not rated by the ESRB" should be a red flag that should cause parents on some level to pause and wonder 'why?'.

But that's neither here nor there in the focal point of the topic or even by extension the ToS... so.. meh.

[Kaurhz]

My personal opinion on the matter and how I view this situation will be somewhat of a hot take, but...

This



Should be invalidated by this



If you can't put a rating on what should be considered the lions share of the content of this game due to the volatility of individual personalities, then perhaps kids shouldn't be playing. If parents need be concerned over the possible content of what players are providing, then parents need to do their due diligence and clip these types of games from their children's repertoire of games. Liquor cabinets exist for a reason. Gun cabinets/safes exist for a reason. ESRB exists for a reason and the statement "Online interactions not rated by the ESRB" should be a red flag that should cause parents on some level to pause and wonder 'why?'.

But that's neither here nor there in the focal point of the topic or even by extension the ToS... so.. meh.

The reason why is because online interactions are very unpredictable with a wide array of discussions, and conversations taking place. To try and tangibly rate online interaction is just not really pragmatic for this very reason; you cannot predict what will take place, otherwise, any game that exhibits any form of online interaction should be rated as Mature (17+), or Adult Only (18+) just to account for that off-chance that something inappropriate may take place. I'd rather they not do this and just ask those involved in the community to exercise some consideration and caution as to not advertise mature content. Even if not for kids, I certainly don't enjoy seeing some of the advertisements that pop up whilst I'm browsing the PF, be it for temp fill-ins, or static recruitment posts on PF, or someone asking to get a link/preview to a specific piece of gear, or sets. I'm sure a good portion of players feel mutual on this too.

[van_arn]

"Online interactions not rated by the ESRB" is there to cover the ESRB's rear, not the Publisher or Developer.

Square doesn't "have to" deal with harassment (unless a judge waves a paper at them), but the realities of business obligate them to create a community where people want to play a massive game multiplayer.

In the worst case scenario, however, Square does want to have the option to show the press/a judge "look what we do proactively to combat [this issue]" both with minors and with other illicit activity that takes place in their virtual worlds.

In some jurisdictions, especially considering such a wide geographical scope of the game, they inevitably have legal obligations that must be met. This could very well include protecting the minors that play their game.

It's one of the reasons why they can nuke your account for any reason they see fit; the TOS essentially boils down to "don't do these things, but we can ban you anyway if we just don't like you."

[MilkieTea]

I get a feeling why you will say it is a bad take, just wondering what I said was considered unreasonable to you and why? From experience those who are against my stance simply have not lived through someone's life being altered by manipulative children.

Kids were not dumb, I knew how to play my parents and adults as a child we need to stop downplaying how manipulative teenagers can be.

"Ignorance is not an excuse for an adult should be the same for a child."

Children's brains do not yet have the capacity to fully realize their actions and reactions. It is known that young children essentially have the brains of sociopaths - very little empathy, and extremely self-centered and manipulative. From a young age they learn that crying will get them what they want - this being food, baths, sleep, warm hugs, cuddles, toys, etc etc. As children age into teenagers they gain empathy sure, but there is still a HUGE disconnect. There is still a lot of vain, self-centered thought processes and behaviors. Children are not dumb- sure. But they DO lack the ability to properly think through the longterm consequences. Teens and children are motivated largely by what they want in that given moment, with no thought as to how it will impact the future.

"Ignorance is not an excuse for an adult should be the same for a child." It most DEFINITELY is an excuse. The ability to manipulate does not equate to the ability to think through the long term consequences.

[LianaThorne]

In terms of the legal side my hot take is if a someone lies about their age to gain access to a bar, or get involved with online interactions that they should not be part of. They should receive the punishment the adult would have have faced if they were guilty. I feel far too many defend children and their actions with the same talking points they did not know the adult should have known better. People that try to ruin the lives of another person for their own personal enjoyment are scum and should be treated as such.

Just gonna stick my head back in to comment on this since I'm someone who has had experience with teens manipulating men. Not sure if you're unaware but no one ever said that it was okay and I don't think anyone is actually defending teenagers manipulating others. The point is that in the eyes of the law, the adult is the one responsible since they are supposed to be responsible enough to not engage with a minor. Minors and adults are also tried separately in court (at least in the US) because it would be irresponsible to think that an adult and a child/teen think in the same way in any capacity. That's why we have juvy for child/teen offenders because it's also irresponsible to hold a minor in the same prisons that you would hold adults. I'm sorry that you also have experienced this, but you can't be serious with your viewpoint on it.

To put it another way: Children/teens are literally ignorant until they get the experience needed to not be ignorant. Your teen years are meant for fucking up and figuring out how the world works to prepare you for being an adult. You said so yourself, you manipulated your parents and were aware of it, so should you have been held to the same standard as an adult if you had run into legal trouble via you manipulating the wrong person? I really doubt you're going to honestly say yes to that and believe it when it comes to yourself.

Your issue should not be with minors tbh, it should be with the institution considering they didn't help because they wanted to protect their reputation. That's literally disgusting and part of why situations in schools keep happening. Institutions need to start protecting their staff rather than worrying about what investors will think.

[Keramory]

I get a feeling why you will say it is a bad take, just wondering what I said was considered unreasonable to you and why? From experience those who are against my stance simply have not lived through someone's life being altered by manipulative children.

Kids were not dumb, I knew how to play my parents and adults as a child we need to stop downplaying how manipulative teenagers can be.

I worked in a field for a long time where that was a very real threat and seen others fall victim to accusations. That said, one has nothing to do with the other. The fact is there is an overwhelming amount of opportunity and actual perpetration on children from adults. That is why such protections are put into place. One such very obvious, and very minimal method of protection is to not make sex chat hubs wildly available in PF of all bloody things. Using the bar ID as an example, you don't simply remove the need for an ID at a bar. Because now more kids will show up. At least the fake ID takes pre-meditated thought and effort to obtain the fake ID. Much like a kid needing to actively hunt down these ERP groups. The solution to this discussion isn't making it easier for them to enter areas they shouldn't be in.

To discuss a child's punishment for crying wolf is irrelevant to this particular discussion. Yeah it's a horrible reality for some, but it has nothing to do with PF.