You could restrict it based on the "National Identification Numbers" most countries use this number and it is tied to a DOB, birth place location and last used.
You could then enter this into your PSN and XBL account. This could limit the age limits of the Game consoles and Games, thus reducing the risk granted it will not remove all the risk.
First of all, the US has no "national identification number" that could be used to identify the ages of individuals. And I think there would be a certain level of outrage if someone tried to implement one, especially for this. There are people who think privacy online is a good thing, even if they have less of it than they think.
But perhaps there should be an age limit. If so, I'd put it at 18. A minimum age limit, that is. Nobody under 18 should be allowed on XBox Live. It would solve that problem (well, if you think that any age limit could be enforced). If there weren't any little kids on XBox Live, then there wouldn't be any predators looking for little kids. And unlike in your scheme, where paying customers would have their access to the services they pay for limited, this would keep out the non-paying customers (aka little kids) and keep the paying ones (adults), which would seem to be the most practical approach for any company.
So your idea of XBL as an environment consisting primarily of children and a handful of predators is, in fact, wrong. Way wrong. The children are the minority (and due to credit card requirements, children paying for their own accounts an incredibly small minority) and no sane company would prevent the majority of its customers from using its services to cater to the minority. Willie Sutton famously claimed he robbed banks because that's where the money is; Microsoft sells XBL to adults because that's where the money is. They're certainly not going to stop doing that.
And ratings are done based on the level of violence, sexual content, etc., in a game. Just because something is (or is considered to be, anyway) appropriate only for people of a certain minimum age does not mean that is the only thing that is appropriate, or of interest, to them. People over 18 do, in fact, enjoy playing games other than GTA. As much as I shudder to think of it as a game, consider the demographics of the players of Candy Crush. I don't think you'd get very far telling a bunch of middle-aged women "You can't play Candy Crush anymore, you're older than 10." The rating (in the US anyway) is "E for Everyone" not "E for young children only." I've been playing Tetris for years; because that contains nothing offensive to the parents of young children, should that be limited to only young children? Or how about chess? Would you prohibit essentially all chess players (since most of them are teenagers or adults) from playing chess online because it's suitable for any age?
Incidentally, I think you'll change your tune rather radically in a few years. You think a rating of "Everyone" should mean "young children only" -- which is fine as long as you're a young child and that's the game you want to play. But when you get older, and still want to keep playing that game, the "young children only" requirement would be pretty onerous. I'm over 18 and I play Minecraft. Sure, I've played M-rated games (console and PC), but, honestly, I generally find them too twitchy, and my reaction times aren't what they could be. I'd be pretty peeved if someone told me that was all I'm allowed to play!
Think about, by way of comparison, me. How old am I? Where do I live? Am I male or female? Don't waste too much time trying to find out -- you can't. I don't make that information public, not here, not anywhere -- the most you can get is that I'm older than 18 (probably). Why is this? Because, very simply, I don't tell people. Not because I have any reason to keep it a secret -- but because nobody else has any reason to know. So if some predator knows that a given person is a child, who they are, where they live, how to contact them outside of XBL, etc., they know this for one reason: that person told them. That points directly to a solution to the problem: prevent such people from telling them. And that lands square on the people who don't want to, but should, be the ones dealing with it: the parents. The people who don't teach their children not to announce this information far and wide. The people who don't teach their children that the Internet is a medium for adults, not a playground for children. The people who want someone else (or everyone else) to take care of their children for them because they're too all-fired lazy to do it themselves.
You can't make the entire world a safe place for your child. The only thing you can do is teach your child to be safe in the world.
The only thing i will add is if you see any behaviour that could endanger young members of this forum, please hit that report button. I will not tolerate it.
The only thing i will add is if you see any behaviour that could endanger young members of this forum, please hit that report button. I will not tolerate it.
Quoted for emphasis.
That is something that the forum staff is very hardcore about. If you see something that even looks suspicious, report it and the staff will investigate. Don't worry about being wrong -- nothing will happen to either you or the poster if you are. I know from my time on staff that we'd much rather investigate false positives than miss the real thing.
My statement was not an accusation or to say that older people are a threat. It was to simply ask a question, and from these answers I do believe the file complaint should include some sort of predatory complaint feature under the communications.
This game has allot to offer to all age groups
I was not flinging links around, to create a riot. It was to get peoples opinions.
So why should parents that buy the 360, the game, the mashups, etc not be able to play? Perhaps minors shouldnt be playing.
Any fault would be on parents that let their minors go online without supervision. Yes, there are pervs but at the same token parents need to teach their kids never to give any info over the net without parental consent. They do so, then they are setting themselves up for potential disasters.
I'm a 40+ yr. old father of 2 boys, I started dabbling with Minecraft merely out of the interests and curiosity of what made it so appealing to my kids. It seemed to consume their life; their thoughts; pretty much everything, lol. So I watched some youtube vids with them, played with them, and watched them interact with the game.
At the end of the day, it became a point of connection to my kids and a heap of fun for us together, leading me to create my own world, and enjoy the game myself.
I'd rather there on be any limits on a game designed to be enjoyed in almost limitless possible ways, if that makes sense?
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
12/7/2014
Posts:
273
Member Details
To answer your question, no. There should not be any age limit (except a minimum age for Xbox live usage) to play minecraft.
the question of "are they players or predators" is a question that parents should consider before allowing their children contact to random players, yes; but if we use that approach to say the older people can not play the game, we are proclaiming they are guilty before proving it. Where I'm from, people are innocent until proven otherwise. I do not want to live in a world where this is reversed.
do I want random people coming up to my kid while I'm not around. Hell no. Can that random person go play a video game? Sure. But my kid will be playing al his online games with me, and I will secretly be screening his online friends much like a server host screens for griefers.
the responsibility is on the parents. It's almost as if that little blurb of words saying "online play is not rated" actually means something.
on an alternate note, I'm hate how some games (not minecraft, it's the wrong catagory) are Babied and made less violent because kids might play them.... Screw the kids, Im the one paying for it and I have I be punished because of lazy parents... Sigh.
The only thing i will add is if you see any behaviour that could endanger young members of this forum, please hit that report button. I will not tolerate it.
That is something that the forum staff is very hardcore about. If you see something that even looks suspicious, report it and the staff will investigate. Don't worry about being wrong -- nothing will happen to either you or the poster if you are. I know from my time on staff that we'd much rather investigate false positives than miss the real thing.
I'm with KioriBug and Akynth. If something suspicious is posted, report it.Bug Even if it is not a predator, at least we can catch it that way and verify. As for age limits, NO. There should not be an age limit specifically for playing a game. I myself am in my upper 20's, and I love playing around on minecraft, seeing what I can come up with. But I'm no predator, as a matter of fact, you can see I'm a moderator here, and I love it. I like making sure no one is bullied, picked on, or God forbid, preyed upon by some sicko. I'm glad to see the community organized and maintained, and I'm sure any staff here would agree with KioriBug, Akynth, or myself. But no age restriction, maybe limit the age someone of a particular age range could play/communicate with but not completely ban them from a game because of age. To me, it's nonsense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Minecraft Forum Moderator of Console Sections, MCPE, and Other Platforms
Such age limits as you propose would be almost impossible to enforce. The age ratings for games work very similar to the age ratings for movies, and for some time now, movie theaters have encountered difficulties "banning" under-aged attendees because, basically, the parent can "override" the rating and insist (legally) on bringing their own under-aged child into a movie. On the internet, the problem is compounded because the companies really have no real way of knowing whether or not the child is acting with or without the parents' consent. To prevent an adult from playing would be impossible.
If you are a parent, then PLEASE supervise your children while they are online. Instill in them safe online practices and be sure that you don't give out personal information about yourself OR your child online at any time. Screen EVERYONE on your child's friends list and on your own list, particularly if you are friends with your child. At least in my country, it is the parents (or legal guardians) who are ultimately legally responsible for their child's welfare, including keeping them safe online.
As others have indicated, if you suspect predatory behavior going on through this website, report it to the admins here. If you strongly feel that the behavior is criminally predatory, report it to the police (or other agencies) tasked with investigating internet crimes in your country. Adults playing video games is not a crime. Adults preying on children is... regardless of the method they use to do so.
Adults playing video games is not a crime. Adults preying on children is... regardless of the method they use to do so.
In conjunction with that, I would like to point out that the largest group of adults preying on children are not computer game players, church leaders, teachers, some creepy guy with a white van, or any of the other stereotypes. They're family members, relatives, and friends of the family. Incidents involving games may make the news more, but they're a minuscule minority of actual cases.
In conjunction with that, I would like to point out that the largest group of adults preying on children are not computer game players, church leaders, teachers, some creepy guy with a white van, or any of the other stereotypes. They're family members, relatives, and friends of the family. Incidents involving games may make the news more, but they're a minuscule minority of actual cases.
And according to that rather interesting link, 90% of perpetrators of child abuse are family members, family friends, babysitters, childcare providers, neighbors, etc. So all strangers, from that creepy guy with the white van to video game players, are just 10% of the total.
In 2012, there were 62,939 cases of child sexual abuse in the US. Going by those figures, and assuming that all of the perpetrators under 18 fall into the family/friends/babysitters category, that's still a maximum of 6,294 victims of strangers, online acquaintances, etc. That same year, there wer 240,400,252 people older than 18 in the US, and roughly 50% of those people played computer/video games. So 120,200,126 adult gamers. For the sake of simplicity, we'll round the numbers to 6,000 victims and 120 million adult gamers, and assume only one victim per perpetrator (there are often multiple). So, we're looking at approximately 20,000 innocent people per victim.
The OP is seriously proposing penalizing 20,000 innocent people to try to prevent every 1 crime. The key word being "try to" because even punishing those 20,000 people for something they didn't do wouldn't stop the dedicated creep. They'd just buy or steal accounts (how many "my MC account got stolen, help" posts do we see in a week on the main Discussion board?) and keep right on doing what they're doing. It wouldn't stop the creeps; it would only affect the honest people, like the middle-aged ladies playing Candy Crush. So limiting millions of people to playing games they have absolutely no interest in playing (I can't see your typical Candy Crush player wanting to play GTA, for instance) because children are permitted to play the games they do want to play will do no good at all. All downside, no upside.
Think about it, OP: It's a few years in the future. You're still having a great time playing Minecraft, just like you always have. Then one day, on your 18th birthday perhaps, a notice pops up on your screen saying "Statistically there is a 0.005% chance you will molest a child. Because of this, you are hereby banned forever and will never be allowed to play Minecraft again."
Sound fair?
The creepy guy with the van could physically grab a child and drag them into the van. But the creepy guy playing computer games has no weapon at his disposal but words. There is a way to protect children from that guy, and to do so far more effectively than (and without the innate unfairness of) banning tens of millions of people from playing video games, and that way is to make his only weapon useless. He can't do anything to someone who doesn't give him any information, who doesn't engage with him, and who reports him to the authorities (the mods, in this forum). He needs, absolutely depends on, the cooperation of his victim to give him information, to agree to meet him, to keep his secret. Teaching children not to enable online creeps to become offline creeps absolutely will stop them. Prohibiting innocent people from playing video games will not.
Should there be a maximum age limit to the Xbox 360 version and how would it be enforced.
Are they Players or predator's?
How do you know or even spot them quickly in time
Here are some examples links to some credible sources below
These are just a few the list goes on and on
Example One
Example Two
Example Three
Example Four
Project Aztec Server Stats: Rage Quits - 132 Deaths - 311 Survivors - 13, 11:36
Imposing an age limit won't do anything; teaching people not to give out personal information online will.
Stay fluffy~
if you could what do you think the age limit should be..
Project Aztec Server Stats: Rage Quits - 132 Deaths - 311 Survivors - 13, 11:36
I don't know bob, Good answer.
You could restrict it based on the "National Identification Numbers" most countries use this number and it is tied to a DOB, birth place location and last used.
You could then enter this into your PSN and XBL account. This could limit the age limits of the Game consoles and Games, thus reducing the risk granted it will not remove all the risk.
Project Aztec Server Stats: Rage Quits - 132 Deaths - 311 Survivors - 13, 11:36
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffFirst of all, the US has no "national identification number" that could be used to identify the ages of individuals. And I think there would be a certain level of outrage if someone tried to implement one, especially for this. There are people who think privacy online is a good thing, even if they have less of it than they think.
But perhaps there should be an age limit. If so, I'd put it at 18. A minimum age limit, that is. Nobody under 18 should be allowed on XBox Live. It would solve that problem (well, if you think that any age limit could be enforced). If there weren't any little kids on XBox Live, then there wouldn't be any predators looking for little kids. And unlike in your scheme, where paying customers would have their access to the services they pay for limited, this would keep out the non-paying customers (aka little kids) and keep the paying ones (adults), which would seem to be the most practical approach for any company.
You want to throw some links around? Okay, here's one: http://www.bigfishgames.com/blog/2015-global-video-game-stats-whos-playing-what-and-why/
And here's another: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/dudes-38-xbox-users-female-51-kids/
So your idea of XBL as an environment consisting primarily of children and a handful of predators is, in fact, wrong. Way wrong. The children are the minority (and due to credit card requirements, children paying for their own accounts an incredibly small minority) and no sane company would prevent the majority of its customers from using its services to cater to the minority. Willie Sutton famously claimed he robbed banks because that's where the money is; Microsoft sells XBL to adults because that's where the money is. They're certainly not going to stop doing that.
And ratings are done based on the level of violence, sexual content, etc., in a game. Just because something is (or is considered to be, anyway) appropriate only for people of a certain minimum age does not mean that is the only thing that is appropriate, or of interest, to them. People over 18 do, in fact, enjoy playing games other than GTA. As much as I shudder to think of it as a game, consider the demographics of the players of Candy Crush. I don't think you'd get very far telling a bunch of middle-aged women "You can't play Candy Crush anymore, you're older than 10." The rating (in the US anyway) is "E for Everyone" not "E for young children only." I've been playing Tetris for years; because that contains nothing offensive to the parents of young children, should that be limited to only young children? Or how about chess? Would you prohibit essentially all chess players (since most of them are teenagers or adults) from playing chess online because it's suitable for any age?
By the way, OndAngel, regarding "30, maybe 40 year olds playing Minecraft" -- the oldest player I've met IRL was about 70. There are members of this forum in their 60s. There have been several threads about it, the current one being http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/discussion/2125268-what-do-you-think-about-old-people-playing . (someonethinks anyone over 16 is "old")
Incidentally, I think you'll change your tune rather radically in a few years. You think a rating of "Everyone" should mean "young children only" -- which is fine as long as you're a young child and that's the game you want to play. But when you get older, and still want to keep playing that game, the "young children only" requirement would be pretty onerous. I'm over 18 and I play Minecraft. Sure, I've played M-rated games (console and PC), but, honestly, I generally find them too twitchy, and my reaction times aren't what they could be. I'd be pretty peeved if someone told me that was all I'm allowed to play!
Think about, by way of comparison, me. How old am I? Where do I live? Am I male or female? Don't waste too much time trying to find out -- you can't. I don't make that information public, not here, not anywhere -- the most you can get is that I'm older than 18 (probably). Why is this? Because, very simply, I don't tell people. Not because I have any reason to keep it a secret -- but because nobody else has any reason to know. So if some predator knows that a given person is a child, who they are, where they live, how to contact them outside of XBL, etc., they know this for one reason: that person told them. That points directly to a solution to the problem: prevent such people from telling them. And that lands square on the people who don't want to, but should, be the ones dealing with it: the parents. The people who don't teach their children not to announce this information far and wide. The people who don't teach their children that the Internet is a medium for adults, not a playground for children. The people who want someone else (or everyone else) to take care of their children for them because they're too all-fired lazy to do it themselves.
You can't make the entire world a safe place for your child. The only thing you can do is teach your child to be safe in the world.
And, yeah, maybe prohibit kids on XBL.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Forum AdminThe only thing i will add is if you see any behaviour that could endanger young members of this forum, please hit that report button. I will not tolerate it.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffQuoted for emphasis.
That is something that the forum staff is very hardcore about. If you see something that even looks suspicious, report it and the staff will investigate. Don't worry about being wrong -- nothing will happen to either you or the poster if you are. I know from my time on staff that we'd much rather investigate false positives than miss the real thing.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
My statement was not an accusation or to say that older people are a threat. It was to simply ask a question, and from these answers I do believe the file complaint should include some sort of predatory complaint feature under the communications.
This game has allot to offer to all age groups
I was not flinging links around, to create a riot. It was to get peoples opinions.
Project Aztec Server Stats: Rage Quits - 132 Deaths - 311 Survivors - 13, 11:36
So why should parents that buy the 360, the game, the mashups, etc not be able to play? Perhaps minors shouldnt be playing.
Any fault would be on parents that let their minors go online without supervision. Yes, there are pervs but at the same token parents need to teach their kids never to give any info over the net without parental consent. They do so, then they are setting themselves up for potential disasters.
Perpetually negative
my 2 cents:
I'm a 40+ yr. old father of 2 boys, I started dabbling with Minecraft merely out of the interests and curiosity of what made it so appealing to my kids. It seemed to consume their life; their thoughts; pretty much everything, lol. So I watched some youtube vids with them, played with them, and watched them interact with the game.
At the end of the day, it became a point of connection to my kids and a heap of fun for us together, leading me to create my own world, and enjoy the game myself.
I'd rather there on be any limits on a game designed to be enjoyed in almost limitless possible ways, if that makes sense?
To answer your question, no. There should not be any age limit (except a minimum age for Xbox live usage) to play minecraft.
the question of "are they players or predators" is a question that parents should consider before allowing their children contact to random players, yes; but if we use that approach to say the older people can not play the game, we are proclaiming they are guilty before proving it. Where I'm from, people are innocent until proven otherwise. I do not want to live in a world where this is reversed.
do I want random people coming up to my kid while I'm not around. Hell no. Can that random person go play a video game? Sure. But my kid will be playing al his online games with me, and I will secretly be screening his online friends much like a server host screens for griefers.
the responsibility is on the parents. It's almost as if that little blurb of words saying "online play is not rated" actually means something.
on an alternate note, I'm hate how some games (not minecraft, it's the wrong catagory) are Babied and made less violent because kids might play them.... Screw the kids, Im the one paying for it and I have I be punished because of lazy parents... Sigh.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffI'm with KioriBug and Akynth. If something suspicious is posted, report it.Bug Even if it is not a predator, at least we can catch it that way and verify. As for age limits, NO. There should not be an age limit specifically for playing a game. I myself am in my upper 20's, and I love playing around on minecraft, seeing what I can come up with. But I'm no predator, as a matter of fact, you can see I'm a moderator here, and I love it. I like making sure no one is bullied, picked on, or God forbid, preyed upon by some sicko. I'm glad to see the community organized and maintained, and I'm sure any staff here would agree with KioriBug, Akynth, or myself. But no age restriction, maybe limit the age someone of a particular age range could play/communicate with but not completely ban them from a game because of age. To me, it's nonsense.
You know, the very same can be said about cyber bullies and an age minimum.
Perpetually negative
Such age limits as you propose would be almost impossible to enforce. The age ratings for games work very similar to the age ratings for movies, and for some time now, movie theaters have encountered difficulties "banning" under-aged attendees because, basically, the parent can "override" the rating and insist (legally) on bringing their own under-aged child into a movie. On the internet, the problem is compounded because the companies really have no real way of knowing whether or not the child is acting with or without the parents' consent. To prevent an adult from playing would be impossible.
If you are a parent, then PLEASE supervise your children while they are online. Instill in them safe online practices and be sure that you don't give out personal information about yourself OR your child online at any time. Screen EVERYONE on your child's friends list and on your own list, particularly if you are friends with your child. At least in my country, it is the parents (or legal guardians) who are ultimately legally responsible for their child's welfare, including keeping them safe online.
As others have indicated, if you suspect predatory behavior going on through this website, report it to the admins here. If you strongly feel that the behavior is criminally predatory, report it to the police (or other agencies) tasked with investigating internet crimes in your country. Adults playing video games is not a crime. Adults preying on children is... regardless of the method they use to do so.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffIn conjunction with that, I would like to point out that the largest group of adults preying on children are not computer game players, church leaders, teachers, some creepy guy with a white van, or any of the other stereotypes. They're family members, relatives, and friends of the family. Incidents involving games may make the news more, but they're a minuscule minority of actual cases.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
As a further note on this, the US Department of Justice website (http://www.nsopw.gov/en/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1) also reports that in about 23% of reported cases of child sexual abuse, the perpetrators are under 18 years of age.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffA certain "reality" TV star comes to mind.
And according to that rather interesting link, 90% of perpetrators of child abuse are family members, family friends, babysitters, childcare providers, neighbors, etc. So all strangers, from that creepy guy with the white van to video game players, are just 10% of the total.
In 2012, there were 62,939 cases of child sexual abuse in the US. Going by those figures, and assuming that all of the perpetrators under 18 fall into the family/friends/babysitters category, that's still a maximum of 6,294 victims of strangers, online acquaintances, etc. That same year, there wer 240,400,252 people older than 18 in the US, and roughly 50% of those people played computer/video games. So 120,200,126 adult gamers. For the sake of simplicity, we'll round the numbers to 6,000 victims and 120 million adult gamers, and assume only one victim per perpetrator (there are often multiple). So, we're looking at approximately 20,000 innocent people per victim.
The OP is seriously proposing penalizing 20,000 innocent people to try to prevent every 1 crime. The key word being "try to" because even punishing those 20,000 people for something they didn't do wouldn't stop the dedicated creep. They'd just buy or steal accounts (how many "my MC account got stolen, help" posts do we see in a week on the main Discussion board?) and keep right on doing what they're doing. It wouldn't stop the creeps; it would only affect the honest people, like the middle-aged ladies playing Candy Crush. So limiting millions of people to playing games they have absolutely no interest in playing (I can't see your typical Candy Crush player wanting to play GTA, for instance) because children are permitted to play the games they do want to play will do no good at all. All downside, no upside.
Think about it, OP: It's a few years in the future. You're still having a great time playing Minecraft, just like you always have. Then one day, on your 18th birthday perhaps, a notice pops up on your screen saying "Statistically there is a 0.005% chance you will molest a child. Because of this, you are hereby banned forever and will never be allowed to play Minecraft again."
Sound fair?
The creepy guy with the van could physically grab a child and drag them into the van. But the creepy guy playing computer games has no weapon at his disposal but words. There is a way to protect children from that guy, and to do so far more effectively than (and without the innate unfairness of) banning tens of millions of people from playing video games, and that way is to make his only weapon useless. He can't do anything to someone who doesn't give him any information, who doesn't engage with him, and who reports him to the authorities (the mods, in this forum). He needs, absolutely depends on, the cooperation of his victim to give him information, to agree to meet him, to keep his secret. Teaching children not to enable online creeps to become offline creeps absolutely will stop them. Prohibiting innocent people from playing video games will not.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints