14 year old girl wants to join my game

[cougent]

Benjamin Franklin preferred to state it that it was better to let 100 criminals to go free than to send one innocent man to prison.

Benjamin Franklin was wrong.
You let 100 criminals go free, you are condemning all their "innocent" future victims.
Therefore the correct phrase would be it is better to let numerous innocents suffer than to send one innocent to jail.
That math does not work for me.

 

[fanboy2000]

People who have had kids in their games, is it worth it?

Depends on the minor. Just a few years ago, when I was in my mid-20s instead of my early 30s, I had minors in my game. The only reason there aren't any minors in my game anymore is that the minors all turned 18. One is even old enough to drink now. I started gaming with him when he was 15. Wow it's been a long time.

My situation is a little different from yours though. For one thing I work at a game store, and I don't run mature games. Also, I only game in public spaces. Currently, I'm gaming in a pizza place with large picture windows where everyone can see what's going on.

On the subject of minors, some of them have been really annoying. Some of them have been great people and led to long friendships. But yeah, it's worth the effort to teach people the game and to get a view of the game from someone who isn't set in their gaming ways like I am now.

With all of that said, I think not inviting her was the right decision. You, your wife, and your players wouldn't have been comfortable with her there and really that's all you need to go on.

I figured I'd get that in before this thread gets closed.

 

[billd91]

Well now we really are getting into politics.
The point of letting 100 criminals go free to protect the one innocent man who gets unfairly locked up is a brake upon the power of the state to arbitrarily imprison people... and we can still see, if you happen to hold to a lot of democratic values, it's a pretty important one.

Removing that underlying principle in a democratic justice system gets people into all sorts of trouble. I can guarantee that more people have been harmed by arbitrary imprisonment than by unimprisoned child molesters. But in doing so, I would be Godwining the thread... which is already getting too political.

 

[Nifft]

Benjamin Franklin was wrong.
You let 100 criminals go free, you are condemning all their "innocent" future victims.
Therefore the correct phrase would be it is better to let numerous innocents suffer than to send one innocent to jail.
That math does not work for me.

IMHO this is a fallacy of commutative responsibility.

I am not responsible for the acts of a murderer. Even if I'm on the jury that sets him free on a technicality right before he murders someone else. The dude who did the deed gets all the responsibility.

IMHO the very idea that we as a group are responsible for the actions of all individuals is a subtle and terrible poison.


That said, it's also my opinion that protecting innocent adults and innocent children should both be very high priorities. It'd be great if there were an obviously optimal balance, but so long as we're all aware that we are balancing between two (wrong) extremes, we can at least work towards that goal.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dire Bare]

Hey, as long as you know you're letting the molesters free. Have fun having kids.

As an aside, you make an interesting choice comparing Bismarck to Pol Pot. Quality, that is.

I just gotta echo wingsandsword . . .

Wow, just wow!

I too am baffled by the premise that it's okay if a few innocent folks end up with their lives destroyed all in an effort to pander to society's paranoia regarding molestation.

Molestation is a very serious crime that needs to be dealt with in a serious and effective manner by our society. However, allowing the justice system to catch both the innocent and the guilty in a wide net is beyond misguided. It's un-American.

 

[Umbran]

Well now we really are getting into politics.

Yes, you are, collectively and expressly against The Rules of this place - no politics. You, collectively, should not need multiple warnings. You, collectively, will now stop with the politics, and it will not appear again. If this is somehow not clear, please e-mail me.

Please take it back on topic - discuss how to integrate a 14 year old girl into the campaign in an intelligent manner. Leave the politics of criminal justice and punishment off these boards. Next person who cannot abide by this will get a vacation.

 

[Jeysie]

Please take it back on topic - discuss how to integrate a 14 year old girl into the campaign in an intelligent manner.

Now that I step back and think about it, this whole brouhaha makes me think of the benefits involved in the fact that I have an online group I RP with. Far, far fewer issues involved, since nobody has to go over anyone else's house. In fact, you may not even know a person's age/race/gender/etc. unless they decide to tell you. Gathering together an online group is based almost entirely on personality and gaming styles.

And if someone ends up not working out and causing problems... you pull out the Channel Ban stick.

Peace & Luv, Liz

 

[Thurbane]

Unfortunately, this is another general statement. I know kids who were as sensible at 14 as others are at 17. I’m the father of two sons, the youngest is now 17. The eldest could cook his own breakfast at 14, the youngest still can’t, though he’s outstripped his big brother in tests at school. I’ll accept that most 14 year olds are less good at decision making than most 17 year olds, but this all boils down to the fact that you can’t be specific, a 17-year-old may, or may not work. The original poster has made his choice, for reasons that seem best to him, but that doesn’t mean that there is only one answer.

There are exceptions to every rule, but unfortunately we can't have a different rule or law for every person out there. If I'm going to err one way or the other, it will always be to err on the side that protects children and young people, even if it's from themselves.

Obviously, I can't make a blanket statement that every 17 year old is more mature than every 14 year old. I also can't say that closing my eyes and walking into heavy traffic will always get me killed or injured. Guess what? I'm going to play the percentages, in both examples.

 

[prosfilaes]

Do you not permit women in your group? One women among a group of men is opening yourself up to the same sort of false accusations.

Give me a break. It's not the fact the young woman is female that is the problem. It's the other word, "young", that is the issue.

I stand by my statement; if you're concerned about false accusations, there's no reason the age should make much of a difference. People of any age can make false accusations of molestation.

And I don't believe that it would be no different if the person was a young man. 14-year old boys surrounded by adult males (possibly with a few adult females) happens all the time in our society, like the Boy Scouts. 14-year old boys surrounded by female adults happens occasionally. However, 14-year old girls surrounded by a mostly male group of adults doesn't happen, ever, and people would be concerned about a situation where that could occur.

 

[fusangite]

I stand by my statement; if you're concerned about false accusations, there's no reason the age should make much of a difference. People of any age can make false accusations of molestation.

And I don't believe that it would be no different if the person was a young man. 14-year old boys surrounded by adult males (possibly with a few adult females) happens all the time in our society, like the Boy Scouts. 14-year old boys surrounded by female adults happens occasionally. However, 14-year old girls surrounded by a mostly male group of adults doesn't happen, ever, and people would be concerned about a situation where that could occur.

I'm quoting this post in case the ban prosfilaes receives also results in his post being deleted.