Subject:
|
Re: How to handel minors in "LUG's" was (Re: NELUG Turns 50!!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Nov 1999 21:50:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2089 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Well I am hopeing that this turns into a very constructive discussion on how
> we can cater to minors in our Local groups. I would be very interested in
> seeing what people have to say on the issue. I would also like to hear any
> experiances that people have had dealing with minors in organized groups.
>
> Seeing that this is a good discussion for all of the local groups I have set
> followup's to lugnet.org.us.
Well, I've been involved with a non-profit society focused on live gaming,
which has some similar issues with minors and social stigma, so I've got some
useful experience. Relevant to note that I'm in Canada, though, so legal
issues may vary.
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, David Eaton writes:
> > I'd have to agree for the most part with what's been said-- I'd like to see
> > NELUG cater to a wider audience... However, this is really where the purpose
> > of NELUG gets called into question.
> I would have to agree that I would like to cater to minors in some form.
> Hopefully this discussion will create ideas on how to do this.
It's not all that tricky, actually. Not with the 12+ range of minors,
anyway. I've got limited experience with younger groups, but the legalities
are generally similar.
> > Plus it would probably mean that if anything DID happen (accidental injuries,
> > etc., someone falls down the stairs at someone's house, whatever), I DON'T
> > want NELUG to be held responsible. Things like that get tricky when you're
> > dealing with minors.
AFAIK, you only really have two options:
1:Don't be a 'real' organization. If you don't exist on paper, you can't be
liable. Note, however, that even if the group isn't liable, the people are
still valid targets for the sue-happy.
2:If you are a real organization, you need liability insurance, which is
expensive.
> I would agree that for our current standard NELUG meetings I would not want
> children running around. I think that these meetings should remain Adult
> only.
I'd say keep the meetings open, but children must be accompanied by an adult.
That's the easiest way of keeping a lid on the rambunctious. Parents who care
will keep their kids under control, and parents who don't care won't go with,
meaning the kids can't be there either.
> Although this also brings up the question of what I consider "tweeners" those
> young adults that are say between 16 and 18 that might have their own form of
> transportation and are mature and want to attend. How do we handle that. Do
> we just say sorry can't help you? I would hope not because these are probably
> the people that most need a "support group" at the moment. They probably
> don't have many freinds into LEGO and they probably don't want to hang around
> kids 5 years younger that they are.
I would say that the best way to handle this age group would be to treat them
just like members, except that in addition to whatever form they need to fill
out, you also get parental permission for them to be a member.
> So do we have some sort of "permission slip" that clears us of any
> responsibility?
Any kind of waiver or permission slip to clear you of liability is a legal
fiction, pure and simple. Unless NELUG exists as a legal entity (i.e.
register as a NPS with your state or federal government), then NELUG can't be
sued or held liable, and memberships and waivers made out regarding NELUG are
useless. In other words, it won't stop the parents of little Bobby, who
choked on a Lego piece from suing the owner of the Lego, the company, and
everyone in earshot for negligence. It can (if it's well written) stop them
from suing NELUG, but to the law, NELUG doesn't exist, so can't be sued anyway.
> Does that mean that we would have to refrain from having alcohol at events
> (we havn't been drinking much at meetings but hypothetically we might want
> to).
Probably not. If the meetings are in a private residence, then minors or no
minors is irrelevant. If the meetings are in a public place, then alcohol
needs a liquor licence - check your local laws.
> > However, I don't think that's the sole purpose behind NELUG. Another aspect
> > of NELUG is informational. We have a mailing list (although not highly used
> > at the moment, now that the Mindfest has died down, etc) that gets sent out
> > informing our members of events in the area, etc, etc. Here, being a minor
> > doesn't present a real problem. Sending out a newsletter via email (no
> > addresses or phone numbers being given out or anything) is pretty safe, I'd
> > say. The only possible problem that it might have would be irresponsible kids
> > using the mailing list for trivial things... but that can be controlled, I'd
> > say.
>
> I would say that the mailing list could probably be open to all just like
> LUGNET is open to all. For the most part if someone wanted to know about an
> event all they would have to do would be look on LUGNET anyway.
Or another idea - make Lugnet the mailing list. Ask Todd for a
lugnet/org/us/nelug group, and everyone subscribes by mail. Saves duplication
of effort. :) It's certainly not the first mailing list to be ported over.
> Irresposible kids are a relatively easy thing to control with a mailing list.
> You just remove them from it and block their us of it. Of course there would
> have to be some sort of sliding scale because one infraction is not
> necessarily grounds for dismissal.
Using Lugnet has the added benefit of enforcing the Lugnet TOS - assuming of
course, you like them. (I do)
> > The other big purpose to NELUG is to help sponsor larger events. We haven't
> > really done anything YET that's been strictly NELUG, but it's certainly in
> > our future (I hope). Here's where it can also get tricky. If we do something
> > like take a trip down to Enfield, it's probably similar to a "regular"
> > meeting-- kids would need transportation, parental approval, and there are
> > still liability issues... However, if we get a huge confrence room for a day
> > (or something like that) and decide to sponsor a building event, I think I'd
> > like to welcome kids... it's also something that parents probably wouldn't
> > mind attending, even, if it's only for a few hours-- and that helps address
> > the other problems... and to help with liability, etc, we could have an
> > application form for parents/guardians to sign with the appropriate legal
> > information. Doing that for things like trips to Enfield/Regular meetings
> > seems like a lot more effort, though-- more trouble than it's worth.
>
> I would agree that as we grow the likely hood of a larger self-sponsored event
> becomes more and more likely. For public events I think anyone should be
> invited, hence the name public. We may require parental supervision for
> minors or those under 16 but that is easy. I would agree that anything
> requireing travel or related to regular meetings is a bit tougher.
Any group which holds its own public events pretty much has to have a legal
identity and liability insurance. Otherwise, you will find that 98% of venues
are closed to you, and the other 2% are questionable at best.
> Another idea would be that if say a parent wanted to have meetings between
> their kids and other kids we might be able to help them with getting in touch
> with each other and maybe having some sort of "NELUG Jr." that is run by the
> parents of the kids. We could then maybe even have joint NELUG Jr. and NELUG
> events where both kids and adults can share their ideas.
>
> > Hence, it's tricky. I'd LIKE to have younger audiences be able to use us in
> > the informational sense, but that even brings up problems. If a 9 year old
> > gets an email that there's a NELUG meeting, and doesn't understand that it's
> > going to be us mostly talking about lego, displaying models, etc., rather
> > than sitting down and building/playing games, etc., and s/he shows up to the
> > meeting-- well.. that's a problem.
>
> It always comes back to the out-of-control 9 year old doesn't it :-).
Yes. :)
> I think this problem can possibly be solved using some of the ideas I have
> stated above. Have clear cut Adult only meetings and invite kids to more
> public all ages meetings.
I would suggest that it's easier (and possibly better all around) to simply
have all ages meetings, but make it clear that children have to be accompanied
by an adult.
$0.02
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
35 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
