Request for Further Review of Age Verification Concern

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ayushh

New member
I am submitting this complaint because I still believe there are unanswered questions regarding the age verification of the user "Drunker."

The explanation provided in the previous thread does not address the main concern. Multiple members have stated that this user has claimed to be 17 years old for several years. If those claims are accurate, it is reasonable to ask how the user can still be considered 17 after such a long period of time.

I understand that staff may not be able to share private account information. However, simply stating that an administrator determined the user is 17 does not explain how the concern was investigated or why the repeated reports have been dismissed.

I am respectfully requesting that administration review the matter again and clarify, to the extent possible, what process was used to verify compliance with the site's age requirements.

This complaint is not intended as a personal attack on any user. It is a request for transparency and consistent enforcement of site policies.
 
I have personally seen this user being referred to as 17 for several years. If that is incorrect, please clarify why members keep receiving the same age information over such a long period. I am requesting a detailed review because the current explanation does not resolve the apparent inconsistency
 
Apologies let me clarify.

It wasn't an administrator it was The Administrator who is the owner of the site.

He has the final day on all subjects on this site as it is his property. As such when Rhea the admin said the administrator said that dunker was seventeen then she is saying that the owner of the site looked into it and made a decision that no one can overture no matter what.

There is nothing you can do except contacting administrator personally and asking him yourself
 
Hi TJ,

You mentioned that if I have further questions, I should contact the owner directly.

Could you please tell me how I can contact the owner? Is there a forum conversation feature, email address, or another method I should use?
 
Ayushh said:
Hi TJ,

You mentioned that if I have further questions, I should contact the owner directly.

Could you please tell me how I can contact the owner? Is there a forum conversation feature, email address, or another method I should use?
Click to expand...
You can send him a direct message by clicking his name/ping below and clicking "Send Direct Message"

@Administrator
 
Basically, in order for any action to be taken, Dunker would have to directly admit he is overage on site.

Also if your thread is locked by an admin, do not make another one on the same topic.

And I wouldn't bother going to administrator unless you have direct proof that Dunker is overage.
 
butt beofre the admins were saying they have investigate and now you are saying he has to admit and is it possible I mean like a user is 17 from last 4 years and you are saying we need proof , does it make sense ?
and the admin didn't calarify clearly that's why I have to make another thread
 
Ayushh said:
butt beofre the admins were saying they have investigate and now you are saying he has to admit and is it possible I mean like a user is 17 from last 4 years and you are saying we need proof , does it make sense ?
and the admin didn't calarify clearly that's why I have to make another thread
Click to expand...
What they said was there was an age check performed and they verified he was 17.

What I'm saying is, he would need to make the admission on site before anyone could take action. That's the owner's policy.

So unless he straight up admits it, there's nothing to be done.
 
sooo basically if he get 69 years old he can be still on the site like wtf is this it is just a normal thing he should not be here

Symphonia said:
What they said was there was an age check performed and they verified he was 17.

What I'm saying is, he would need to make the admission on site before anyone could take action. That's the owner's policy.

So unless he straight up admits it, there's nothing to be dones
Click to expand...
 
I am a little confused by the explanation.

On one hand, staff have said that an age check was performed and the user was verified as 17.

On the other hand, I am now being told that no action could be taken unless the user admits to being overage on site.

If an age check was already performed, then why would a future admission be required? These two explanations seem difficult to reconcile.

I am not trying to argue with staff. I am simply trying to understand how the policy works and why the concern has been considered resolved
 
Ayushh said:
I am a little confused by the explanation.

On one hand, staff have said that an age check was performed and the user was verified as 17.

On the other hand, I am now being told that no action could be taken unless the user admits to being overage on site.

If an age check was already performed, then why would a future admission be required? These two explanations seem difficult to reconcile.

I am not trying to argue with staff. I am simply trying to understand how the policy works and why the concern has been considered resolved
Click to expand...
So let's see how good I am to explain.

An age verification was performed by Administrator who "confirmed" that Dunker is currently seventeen {17}.

What Symphonia meant was that unless Danker said something like "I'm 37" ECT and it was caught and reported with staff online {screenshots are not accepted especially with the rise of editing and AI} then actions will be taken.

That rule was implanted by the owner/Administrator to combat people who say "User A is overage" without proof.

Meaning unless it is reported or a staff member sees a message where Dunker explicitly says something to the ability of him being over age there's nothing that can be done because the highest authority {administrator} determined that the user was 17.


TLDR: Unless Dunker explicitly states that he is an age that is over age there is nothing that can be done as per administrators rules to combat false age checks.
 
Last edited:
I think my confusion comes from the timeline.

When was the age verification performed?

If the verification was recent and Administrator determined that the user is currently 17, then I understand the position.

However, if the verification was performed several years ago when the user was 17, then naturally the user's age would have increased since then.

Could you clarify when the verification took place?
 
Ayushh said:
I think my confusion comes from the timeline.

When was the age verification performed?

If the verification was recent and Administrator determined that the user is currently 17, then I understand the position.

However, if the verification was performed several years ago when the user was 17, then naturally the user's age would have increased since then.

Could you clarify when the verification took place?
Click to expand...
I am not at Liberty to establish a timeline. That is for the person who implicated the timeline in the beginning.

I'll ping Rhea but do note that it is up to her discretion if she decides to reveal when it happened.

@0X0XRhea

{I'm quite intrigued as well as when this took place whether it was current while I'm not on the site or this happened while I was on the site which is a whole different matter in it's entirety}
 
As I said before and I will say no more on the topic. Administrator has determined he is 17, so I nor the other site admins will not go against what he has said. If you want to continue ranting on about this topic then you can dm him personally on site or forums.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top