Should Teens 17 and under be allowed to do business- Cast your vote now.

[DotComGod]

I will find a way to by adding an age verification system to the site.

There are many pay services that make people go through a process.

-=DCG=-

[DNGeeks]

You may not vote on this poll <- I guess I don't count

I'd say no, unless there was a way to verify who they are and receive parental consent of responsibility for any wrongdoings. But that's not likely to happen.

[ddaybofb]

Im so out numbered, lol

I think it would be a good idea though

[smashfactory]

maybe you would be grandfathered in chris- i am guessing a bunch of kids paid for memberships, before the new rule would take place, so my guess is you would all get your money back or get grandfathered in- and if they go with the parent thing, then you could still be fine, if your not making your millions behind their backs

[DomainMagnate]

Originally Posted by DNGeeks

You may not vote on this poll <- I guess I don't count

Same here, strange

[gobrightwork]

I just tried and it works now.

[BILLBO]

On a pure point of contract law then 'No'.

However, if the parent/s were to sign up and they accepted the minor as acting as their agent and they posted such, then there would be no harm in dealing with the under 18 year olds. The risk would obviously then be taken by the parent/s.

[tristanperry]

Yes.

Although I can't vote for some reason.

We should judge members on maturity, not age.

I know some really mature teenagers (myself included), just as I know some quite immature/unprofessional adults (who can't seem to spell despite English being their first language).

[draggar]

Originally Posted by tristanperry

We should judge members on maturity, not age.

I know some really mature teenagers (myself included), just as I know some quite immature/unprofessional adults (who can't seem to spell despite English being their first language).

I fully agree with that but unfortunately you can set rules upon age and not maturity unless you want to open another legal can of worms.

[Duncan]

DCG!

Yes! I am 17 but I started a while ago. Without this forum I would never have even gotten into this business. Now, due to the information I have read in this forum over the past few years I am looking to advance my career in pursuit of this direction.

[trader]

Poll does not work for me. I never voted before but it acts like I already voted and displays results.

[Duncan]

Agreed; the poll looks as if it were closed. If you enforce the 17 & under not allowed it will be a huge mistake and take away from the creativity that looms around the forums.

[DotComGod]

I am working on the voting issue with the poll, permissions look right so I'll keep playing with it. In the meantime please vote in this string.

-=DCG=-

[Duncan]

I am working on the voting issue with the poll, permissions look right so I'll keep playing with it. In the meantime please vote in this string.

-=DCG=-

Does this mean that people such as myself will be barred from conducting business if this were to go into effect.

[pcproffenno]

Originally Posted by DotComGod

I will find a way to by adding an age verification system to the site.

There are many pay services that make people go through a process.

-=DCG=-

I really think you should make each and every new/non-verified member (platinum-exclusive) scan/fax in their photo ID. Yes, it's a bit more work, but it sure is worth it. That way you can both verify age and personal details. I think you would reduce the amount of scammers that way, or you might even get totally rid of them.

DNF verification should not be optional.

Of course the scammers can still use a stolen ID, but it would make it a lot harder than simply registering with an e-mail address and a phony name. They would also need a utility bill which matches the stolen ID.

The scammers would most likely choose another forum instead of going through all this "trouble".

[GUA]

It is a difficult one, as all those under 18 will say No, and those above 18 will say yes.

A couple of things however. Some under 18s are good/great businessmen/women. Preventing them from conducting business may make legal sense but does it make business sense?

If hypothetically all the 1 word/LLL .com were owned by under 18s, then this poll would have a completely different set of results.

Tristan has 42 TR, I have 34 TR. We are both under 18, but good, honest traders. Recently I have been completing $x,xxx transactions at least once a month with well reputed members here, and I would think they would say I was a pleasure to deal with, and more mature, proffesional, and well mannered then some of the over 18s.

On the basis of the above I would say under 18s should be allowed to do business here, because if they cant you are reducing opportunities. Perhaps simply MAKE under 17s get parental permission etc

Luckily for me I am nearly 18 so I sont feel my opinion is in any way bias.
Thanks
T

[draggar]

IMO - Part of the registration process should be verification especially for platinum and exclusive members.

If someone is under 18, they do business with them at their own risk but the forum monitors those transactions so if someone who is under 18 and is mature enough, maybe even monitor the iTrader rating closer (under 18 - needs 10 positive monetary (non DNF$) transactions to be treated as us over 18?

If that makes sense...

[pcproffenno]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Does this mean that people such as myself will be barred from conducting business if this were to go into effect.

Since it's a new rule; existing, trustworthy, longtime members should not be affected by it IMO.

[alexsimon]

Yes.

I dealt with mature teenager members in domaining. And on the other hand there are many immature members who are above 18.

however I understand this is a legal question. Maybe if their age is displayed in their profile other members can judge whether they will or won't do business with that person.

[BGray]

Originally Posted by BILLBO

On a pure point of contract law then 'No'.

However, if the parent/s were to sign up and they accepted the minor as acting as their agent and they posted such, then there would be no harm in dealing with the under 18 year olds. The risk would obviously then be taken by the parent/s.

I would say no because of the potential contractual issues but I agree with BILLBO here.