Disclaimer: This thread will be WAY too TL;DR, no1curr for the feeble-minded. Close this thread and move on if you find it distasteful. No1curr about your no1curr and TL;DR. This thread is for adults and well-informed youth. Inspired by the thread about the new free nob thread by KaW_Community, this thread will open a new discussion on the issue. In an article in the New York Times, author Arthur Brooks describes victimhood quite succincly: Now, the new ads that offer free nob in exchange for taking surveys and etc has opened a can of worms. Where do we draw the line between exposing your child to becoming a victim and being a responsible parent? On the one hand, some argue that ATA should screen its advertisers for content to protect children from gambling and identity theft. On the other hand, few have argued that parents should hold themselves accountable for making sure their children aren't exposed to these things in the first place by preventing them from having unfettered access to the open internet. I believe that if you give your kid an internet-connected device, you automatically expose them to anything on the web, and it is up to you, as a parent, to make sure that you have a mature discussion with your kid about the dangers of the web. You must educate your kid about how to protect themselves from becoming a victim. Others will have you believe that ATA and Apple should be responsible for protecting your kid and if they fail, ATA and Apple are to blame. I think that it's time to stop blaming other people for your problems and to take ownership of your kids! I'm not a parent, so, maybe I have no room to speak, but if I did have a kid, I would be a fool gave them a cell phone with unsupervised internet access if I didn't want them to see all the web had to offer. Some of you think I'm wrong and crazy for feeling this way. Please educate me!
No one saying that apple and ATA are SOLELY responsible for your child. Neither was anyone saying it was all ATAs fault for whatever website your child signed up to. The discussion was centered around whether encouraging gambling and betting is sensible on a game that has a 9 age requirement.
Is this thread aimed at discrediting caitlyn Jenner?? After everything she has done for the transgender community! U r a bigot and a hater of us transgender men and women cheese!
It's about the free nob thread by KaW and Cheese made reference to supposed arguments in that thread. I don't agree with it. I believe I'm entitled to my opinion and interpretation of the thread, as are you.
The parents responsibility is to check what the child is doing. So, they check the app out, check the rating, 'alright it's 9 plus' let little Jimmy download the app because he's 13. A better parent is going to look in the app to see if it looks okay - given it is multiplayer and social. If they decide it's okay, alright good - go have fun Jimmy. Even if a parent gets to that stage, what parent (of the current generation) is going to go to the oracle, click on "Free Nobility" and start checking all the advertisements? ATA have the liability to provide age appropriate material, the parent has done the right thing by approving the app. No parent would assume Apple and ATA would rate an app 9 plus, that has advertisements actively encouraging the child to download and make deposits on a betting platform. The advertisements are not something that are obviously located, nor is it made apparent to a parent that they are contained in the app. Arguing that the parents should know is ridiculous. They are not obvious, no one is warned they may be here and they are in a discreet part of the game that takes play-time to locate. Besides that children may not have a concept of the intricacies of the offers, such as the surveys that incur recurring payments, etc. You cannot advertise gambling (let alone gambling for a reward) on prime-time children's TV in my country. Why is a 9 plus app any different?
And Cheese with this slightly black and white attitude be sure to blame yourself if your child ever becomes sick from touching another sick kid at school, or breaks an arm climbing a tree. You have yourself to blame for that.
It's the parents responsibility, however I believe ATA has a responsibility to protect its child players (9-18) from potentially damaging content. They do this with chat filters, forum filters, name resets etc, it is no different. All it requires is a disable 3rd party app button in settings and you're done, parents can disable the content on their children's devices, ata would be being a responsible company, adults can still see and benefit.
1-ATA doesnt care about children. - Look at PIMD 2-ATA doesn't care about non-leaderboard customers, so they implement ways for whales to get free currency - Look at KaW and PIMD 3-ATA doesn't care about customer's personal information or if customers identity is stolen - Look at Ads Its clear that Apes care about nothing but extra bananas. They claim to have "listened to the community", yet ignore game inflation, calls to limit premium ebs, focus on osw/battle list... They have no direction for the game other than slave away at ebs and hte.
1. PIMD is rated 18 plus. 2. I don't think RedStar needed free offers to get where he did. Nor would he be bothered doing them if he could spend that much, 3. Fair call, guess as an adult that's your decision though. Not that any of this is really relevant to this thread.
It was inspired by that thread, not necessarily to continue that discussion. But you're welcome to share any relevant thoughts here. To your comment, though, I will concede that the ads should match the age rating. The feature hasn't made it to my device yet, so I haven't seen the new ads yet.
You hit the nail on the head. The NYT article makes the case that as a society, we sometimes blame others for our misfortune. I'm saying it's the opposite of black and white. I think a reasonable parent would look at the risks of an Internet connected device and make an informed decision about what risks that presents as well as how much risk I'm willing to expose my kid to. One extreme is the helicopter parent. The other extreme is the negligent, absentee parent. I think good parenting lies somewhere in between. The aim of this thread is to disarm the negligent parent from blaming ATA for their kid seeing stuff they shouldn't. I agree that exposing your kid to gambling sites is bad, but I don't think it's fair to blame ATA for that. If parents accepted more responsibility, rather than assigning blame for their oversight, then parents would have a serious talk about the kinds of things they might see on the web and help your kid prepare to react to those things in a way that meets your expectations of their behavior.