this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
301 points (91.7% liked)
Games
16959 readers
709 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh absolutely. My point is that supervision should be as low-touch as possible. Let kids screw up when the stakes are low so they don't screw up later when the stakes are higher.
As a kid, I got into things I shouldn't have online, mostly because we only had dialup so I would wait until everyone was in bed to use the computer so I didn't disrupt phone calls coming in. I ended up getting caught, had a productive talk, and learned what to avoid. That was really effective for me, and the lack of firm guardrails got me interested in learning to computers worked, so I taught myself basic webdev as a teen, which launched me into a software dev role.
If we had strict rules preventing computer use, yes, I probably wouldn't have gotten into things I shouldn't, but I also wouldn't have had the freedom to teach myself software dev and probably wouldn't have gotten interested in it.
Oh, and I certainly do, but I use a carrot and stick approach rather than a "guardrails" approach. I tell them what the rules are, but put nothing in place to prevent them from breaking the rules, and when they do (and they will), I'll completely remove access for a time after a discussion about why the rules exist. For example:
That's how I was raised, and I found it incredibly effective. I almost never had things taken away as well, because once they showed they were willing to, I tended to listen and follow the rules.
Sure, but you also don't instill healthy eating habits by not letting them make poor choices either. Let kids fail and fail hard (i.e. don't catch them), but be there to help them back up.
For example, let them eat as much Halloween candy as they want for one day, and then when they inevitably get a stomach ache, they'll learn why moderation is important. Likewise with money, if they waste it all on something stupid and don't have enough for what they really want, they'll learn the value of delayed gratification.
The more natural and immediate the consequence, the more effective it is at teaching them self-discipline.
Obviously, protect them from the worst harms (e.g. we don't let our kids play w/ knives or fire), but let them try and fail while the stakes are low.