27

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).

Improve this question
10
  • 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, 2011 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, 2011 at 8:11
  • @TimPost. I agree. Some kind of mentoring thing. How about kids.stackoverflow.com?
    – Benjol
    Mar 15, 2011 at 8:15
  • 1
    Thinks: it would be interesting to plot wc T&C against VC$ with time :)
    – Benjol
    Mar 15, 2011 at 8:36
  • 1
    Why does age come it to it at all?
    – Ian Ringrose
    Mar 15, 2011 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, 2011 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, 2012 at 1:08
  • @Shog9 Sorry, thanks. Also why has this question finally received a official source nearly one year after?
    – Benny
    Mar 12, 2012 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, 2012 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, 2013 at 14:56

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6

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.

Improve this answer
6
  • I am just wondering has this always been on the ToS?
    – Benny
    Mar 12, 2012 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, 2012 at 2:11
  • Thank you, sorry to be a pain
    – Benny
    Mar 12, 2012 at 2:12
  • No worries. Welcome back... ;-)
    – Shog9
    Mar 12, 2012 at 2:17
  • @Shog9, did you see Tim's first comment on my question? It's an interesting idea to debate.
    – Benjol
    Mar 12, 2012 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, 2012 at 6:44

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