[NA] Orphan players looking for a 18+ only community

[Mosha]

A minor catfishing isn't going to land you in jail if you're not doing NSFW activity in your 18+ FC.

They're still extremely unlikely to land you in jail even if you were since chat records would show the minor engaging in the catfishing. The courts aren't going to hold you responsible when it wouldn't be reasonable for you to think that the person you were talking with was anything other than what they told you.

Specifying 18+ also doesn't stop it from happening. It makes it more likely to happen because if minor wants to know what's going on in and be a part of an 18+ space.

What people should be doing is saying they want to be part of a SFW FC if that is what they're looking for instead thinking that a NSFW FC is always going to list itself as NSFW. Listing an age requirement isn't going to do much when you have no guaranteed way to catch a lie.

Even in a strictly SFW FC I wouldn't want to deal with minors. IMO children should be sent to the coal mines until they are of legal drinking age.

[LianaThorne]

A minor catfishing isn't going to land you in jail if you're not doing NSFW activity in your 18+ FC.

True.

They're still extremely unlikely to land you in jail even if you were since chat records would show the minor engaging in the catfishing. The courts aren't going to hold you responsible when it wouldn't be reasonable for you to think that the person you were talking with was anything other than what they told you.

This is heavily dependent on state as not all allow for the "mistake-of-age" defense, meaning the fault will fall entirely onto the adult. If the person in question happens to be under the age of 14, then there is no defense at all. You'll have to do your own research further on what your state/country specifically allows.

[

Specifying 18+ also doesn't stop it from happening. It makes it more likely to happen because if minor wants to know what's going on in and be a part of an 18+ space.

I have no idea what FCs you've been in but I've personally never had an 18+ FC evolve into this massive sexual experience with minors banging down the door to get in.

What people should be doing is saying they want to be part of a SFW FC if that is what they're looking for instead thinking that a NSFW FC is always going to list itself as NSFW. Listing an age requirement isn't going to do much when you have no guaranteed way to catch a lie.

Or you can join an 18+ FC and if it doesn't fit your tastes, you move on to another. Again, I don't know when 18+ automatically started equaling sex but in my perspective, it's just saying you want to be around people who aren't children lol. I'd feel more awkward asking some random person with an ad "Hey...is this a sex based FC?" lmao.

Do normal nightclubs put 18+ or 21+ on the door because there's sex going on? No. It's because they serve alcohol and the club will literally be shut down if a kid decides to come in with a fake ID, get drunk and either hurt themselves or have their parents report it to the police. It is an 18+ or 21+ venue (depending on country) for that reason, not because there is sex happening (the couple of venues in Vegas being an obvious exception here). Shockingly enough too, most people when they go out for a night with their friends don't want to drag their little brother or sister around everywhere or be in an atmosphere with screaming children. So...why can't the same idea be applied to FCs that list as 18+? Why can't they just not want kids around either because...in a manner of speaking...they can be extremely annoying? XD I also don't wish to take on the role of babysitter for a parent who can't be bothered to do it themselves and judging by some previous threads on this forum, some people literally expect the internet to parent their kid for them.

[ZavosEsperian]

They're still extremely unlikely to land you in jail even if you were since chat records would show the minor engaging in the catfishing. The courts aren't going to hold you responsible when it wouldn't be reasonable for you to think that the person you were talking with was anything other than what they told you.

Within the US Federal Court system, a person would have to prove to the court (as using the age defense causes the defendant to be the one to bear the burden of proof) that they believed the person they were interacting with online was 18 or older, with the burden of proof being held to the 'preponderance of evidence' level of proof (in English, this means the evidence the defense provides would have to be enough to convince both Judge and Jury that the person they were reasonably convinced they were interacting was 18 or older is stronger than the evidence the state has against the person either not knowing or knowing the individual was under the age of 18). This particular law is rather broad in terms of its application and without knowledge on what the minimum sanction is, it would be difficult to say what would happen if conviction was not averted. I am unsure how well a message from the minor stating they are 18 within a rated T game would hold up against whatever the state is able to produce.

State law is obviously significantly different and, depending on the laws, this defense does not exist.