This is a quiet lament for two apparently under-age users Benny & Nyuszika7h whose accounts have been temporarily suspended.

It would be nice to mark their accounts as "temporarily grounded", as they haven't actually done anything 'bad'.

It would also be nice for the team to "add a nice word or two, maybe that this has legal reasons, and that they're welcome back when they're thirteen" (if that hasn't been done already).

For those who aren't aware, the terms and conditions stipulate that users should not be under 13. For some reason, this subject must have come to the fore, and these two users (maybe others) got nobbled. I'm guessing that it's because they self-identified as really being under 13 in other contexts than just their user profile, because there are plenty of users here who aren't suspended.

More here.

[It is mildly ironic that by suspending Nyuszika7h, SO also unwittingly disclosed his date of birth (he gets unsuspended on his 13th birthday :)]

(Some more retroactive irony in xiaohouzi79's suggestion to Benny in his penultimate paragraph here).

  • 1
    Somehow, and I'm not quite sure how, SO / SE could become a positive influence for these kids given parental consent. I'm not really expressing an idea, more like a wish. – Tim Post Mar 15 '11 at 7:53
  • 7
    Looks like the age field in the user profile no longer accepts input that would make the user younger than 13. This seems like a remarkably elegant solution - "we don't care how old you really are, but you have to tell us you're at least 13". Puts the site in the clear, but doesn't really prevent underage users from using the site. It's too bad about Benny and Nyusika7h though. – Kyle Cronin Mar 15 '11 at 8:11
  • @TimPost. I agree. Some kind of mentoring thing. How about kids.stackoverflow.com? – Benjol Mar 15 '11 at 8:15
  • 1
    Thinks: it would be interesting to plot wc T&C against VC$ with time :) – Benjol Mar 15 '11 at 8:36
  • 1
    Why does age come it to it at all? – Ian Ringrose Mar 15 '11 at 9:05
  • 7
    @Kyle: I've heard that recruitment officers for World War I used to tell recruits to re-apply with the "correct" age if they were under 18. – Andrew Grimm May 11 '11 at 22:59
  • Refunding your bounty, Benny - this isn't going to happen, as implementing it for violating our ToS in this manner would violate both the spirit of the ToS and our privacy policy! – Shog9 Mar 12 '12 at 1:08
  • @Shog9 Sorry, thanks. Also why has this question finally received a official source nearly one year after? – Benny Mar 12 '12 at 2:06
  • @Benny: short answer? It was a low priority and was simply forgotten about. There was another, nearly identical proposal (linked in my answer) that got addressed fairly quickly, and this one just slipped through the cracks until you bumped it today. – Shog9 Mar 12 '12 at 2:19
  • Closed as TL as suspension is no longer a valid approach for dealing with users that are under 13 years old. The process involves informing Stack Exchange, at which point, they perform a set of actions to comply with US law regarding children under the age of 13 on the network. – casperOne Jan 25 '13 at 14:56

When these accounts are suspended (and please note, this is extremely rare - you have to go out of your way to volunteer personal information in order for this to happen), it is done because they have violated the site's Terms of Service:

1. Access to the Services


Subscriber certifies to Stack Exchange that if Subscriber is an individual (i.e., not a corporate entity), Subscriber is at least 13 years of age. No one under the age of 13 may provide any personal information to or on Stack Exchange (including, for example, a name, address, telephone number or email address).


So the correct reason is, suspended for rule violations.

  • I am just wondering has this always been on the ToS? – Benny Mar 12 '12 at 2:05
  • Since at least June 26 of 2010 - possibly before then, but I can't remember if that URL changed. – Shog9 Mar 12 '12 at 2:11
  • Thank you, sorry to be a pain – Benny Mar 12 '12 at 2:12
  • No worries. Welcome back... ;-) – Shog9 Mar 12 '12 at 2:17
  • @Shog9, did you see Tim's first comment on my question? It's an interesting idea to debate. – Benjol Mar 12 '12 at 6:28
  • If you pay careful attention to the wording of the ToS, you'll note that it doesn't prevent this... – Shog9 Mar 12 '12 at 6:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .