So, let me begin by saying what my problem is, because I don't want to play around it — the age limit change from 15 to 18 has been, in my eyes, a bad change that not only has done nothing but give staff a lot of work they would simply not have to do, not only actively make the userbase of SCP smaller, but also does not actually accomplish its initial goal — that being the protection of minors from potential predators. But let me elaborate.
1. What am I even talking about?
(context reading — staff vote regarding policy change)
Following a staff vote hosted on 05command on 09/05/2020, SCP Wiki staff implemented a change within its age policy, raising the age requirement to 18 from the previous age of 15 which had been the limit for more than a decade. Drafted as a response to the permanent harassment banning of wiki users Gabriel Jade and Eskobar for sexually explicit behavior involving minors, this change has been implemented without any input from the outside community. Having been a discussion topic for a long time, staff decided that following the update of this policy the SCP Wiki will be a much safer place after this implementation, actively stopping all further potential sexual harassment of minors on the Wiki.
Implemented shortly after, the new policy expects a grandfathering process, gradually changing the age requirement to 18 by 2023, allowing for all users that were already allowed on-site to remain as users whilst still maintaining the growing requirement. This in-turn would allow to obtain total safety of potential minors on-site, as there would not be any of them to protect by 2023 — but this change doesn't actually fix the root of the issue — that root being the existence of extremely dangerous individuals within the community of the SCP Wiki, but temporarily fixes the symptoms of this issue, those being the harassment that ensues. But let's get to the next point that addresses this in-depth, that being:
2. Why this change actively accomplishes nothing other than accomplishing the exact opposite of the intended goal?
(context reading — NatVoltaic's post regarding this exact issue)
The fact of the matter is that it really is not hard to hide your actual age after the age of 16 — 15 has always acted as a barrier of sorts blocking from this, because most people under that age are simply not able to hide the fact they are under this age due to maturity, naivety, and just an overall lack of care about such situations. And, well, here arises the issue — when you are able to enter a community under its age requirement, and you are actively able to hide the fact you are under this limit with a lie or two, then what really stops you from becoming a part of it? As long as you're good at hiding your age (which most people after 16 are, since, let's not lie, the maturity requirement for the Wiki has never been that high anyway), there is really no reason a person will obey this limit. Has anyone as a young person genuinely ever cared about age limits? The truth is that no, no one has, and that inherently creates a law that people just won't obey, which, well, in-turn creates another problem:
If you actually do go with joining the site when you are under the age requirement, you will never be able to reach out to anyone if someone sexually harasses you. You need to choose to either sit with this trauma and remain on-site, or reach out to someone that could help them and be removed from a site that means a lot to them. Well, of course, you'd say the problem is then solely with people having to simply respect the age requirement, but no one young ever actually cares about these requirements, because they do not think about the potential horrendous hurt on their mental health ignoring this can have. The thing is that with this system, you create a vacuum for silent suffering that only encourages a lack of actual fighting against the predators that unfortunately exist within this community. And thus, the rule that is made especially to protect minors does the exact opposite, endangering them even more, as they are not able to ever get help.
3. Why has this been a bad change for the SCP Wiki's userbase?
(context reading — 2020 Survey Results)
Let's face it — the SCP Wiki's actual audience is young. As 2020's Survey Results show, more than 65% of the actual, active userbase, visiting the wiki, is beneath the soon-to-come 18-year-old limit. 65%. By changing this requirement to a totally higher one, you are actively not allowing more then half — half! — of the people interested in the wiki to actually participate in it in any way. Let's not lie to ourselves — SCP, just like creepypasta, by its nature, attracts teenagers. If you look at any community outside of the mainsite, it is filled with young people, and the old age of 15 was able to nicely separate those mature enough for the site but still interested in it from those that aren't mature enough to be in it but are still interested in the Site — the new policy limits almost all people that will find SCP attractive and interesting from ever participating with this community, only leaving less than 35% to ever be able to participate in it.
I mean, hell, some of the most prolific authors — such as Rounderhouse, IHP, DarkStuff, Communism Will Win, DrClef — or even SCP Wiki moderators — such as LilyFlower, Yossipossi, and ProcyonLotor — joined before the age of 18. This is just an objective fact that shows that limiting more than 65% of your community — that being a part of the community that can bring a ton of fantastic things into the community — from participating with the actual community is a bad move that simply limits SCP and it's potential growth, making it even decline.
4. Why has this been a bad change for the SCP Wiki's staff?
(context reading — Generic 17 Ban Thread)
Looking at the recent posts on 05command on a daily basis, I've started to notice a bit of a pattern — that pattern being that a lot of age bans happen on a daily basis. Yes, they happen, they happen because people near the age in which they are most likely to fall interested in this community want to join, and are banned because they don't meet the age requirement, which in turn creates tremendous work for staff which they simply would not have to do if not for the change. And it's not even like this work is necessary to keep the Site good — it's simply banning people whose only crime was pursuing their passion, which are the people that keep this site alive.
5. Closing thoughts
I realize that this entire comment might have ended up sounding slightly negative and possibly aggressive — that's not its purpose. I've been on the Wiki for a larger portion of time now, and this site really means a lot to me, and it deeply hurts to see hurtful changes being implemented to a site I love. It's by no means supposed to be a "gotcha!" moment to site staff, but a comment from someone that genuinely cares for the site.
I realize that this probably won't change anything, mainly because I realize that having to admit that changes and bans you've been implementing for a year have been possibly bad is… well, hard, to say the least, and that the chance of someone actually listening are not so big, but I really want staff to reconsider this choice. Please remember that this entire comment comes solely from a place of care, and not malice.
And, finally, thank you for listening and giving me a moment of your time.
