Yes, of course, but using the name of a child in a quiz doesn't expose him/her to risk, danger or to physical or psychological harm.

Precisely this. There's a difference between protecting children from online content as per the rules and regulations of COPPA (or TV and Movie ratings or the ESRB with video games or what have you) and protecting(?) children with historical significance by not writing out their name on a fact-based trivia website.

I understand the concerns posted here for the wellbeing of the missing child and I understand the discomfort it places in some players, but saying 'Child x went missing in year z.', in my opinion, has less tabloid 'appeal', scandal, and shock than a Wikipedia article.

Does this mean I can write a 10 question quiz on children who either went missing or were killed in the last, say, 20 years?

No.

To answer the inevitable follow-up, we still do not accept quizzes about Kidnappings/Serial Killings.


The question that's under discussion here is about three people who were lost at sea and one who wasn't. While the odd one out is a missing child (for which we don't know the complete truth about), the question and info go over the details in a very matter-of-fact way which does not actually delve into the story, the history behind it, or anything else.

To me, asking to replace this would be very similar to asking us to remove any questions referencing the capture of Anne Frank in WWII. Maybe we omit questions about the origin of the Amber Alert too. As I jokingly said earlier, questions about WTC should be on the radar. Maybe anything about plane crashes as well.

As GG already said, there are questions not facing similar ire about Jonbenet Ramsey on the site; she went missing (and was found dead) nearly twenty years ago. Does this mean we're in the clear in another ten years? Doesn't that seem like an odd thing to ask? A moratorium of that length seems weirdly arbitrary to me, especially when we've had questions in the past three or four weeks mentioning Robin Williams, Joan Rivers, and other people confirmed to be deceased (who aren't children obviously, but hopefully one can see the point in my diatribe) which also haven't sprung any concern, even when mentioned in topics with no real relevance to them.


I'm probably stoking a flame by making these comments, but the editor who placed the quiz online did not see it as contentious, nor did the editors in this thread, nor have some of the players mentioning it here. I find this to be an issue blown very much out of proportion-- not the missing child aspect of it, but the concern of her being referenced in a quiz about historical disappearances. If and when she's found won't alter the fact that she went missing just like mentioning Joan Rivers in a general quiz today won't alter the fact that she is now deceased. If I found it tasteless, I'd mark the quiz as Very Poor and hope others do the same-- the lower it's rated, the more it tanks to the bottom of the list and the less everyone else can see the name appear whenever they play the quiz, whether it be three weeks from now, three years from now, or three decades from now...however long into the future they still consider it unacceptable for the name to be seen as a fact of trivia.


I feel like I've pushed this enough; excuse me while I recede back into the shadows.

It is not about the child to some of us. I note that all who favor the question tell us it is about discussing the child.

My point is to defend the FT reputation about only presenting Q&As that can be verified. That this person was 'not lost at sea' cannot be verified.

If you can verify it, the constabulary would like a word with you.

She went missing from a hotel/resort room. Even if, God forbid, she perished in the ocean, she did not go missing while at sea.

There is a missing girl case going on in Virginia right now. Normal police procedure is to not take a missing person case until 48 hrs has elapsed. This case began differently and that time delay did not happen. The girl made a call to her college dorm roommates that she had gotten drunk and was lost on foot. Could they do something to help her get back? They called the police who acted immediately out of a concern for her safety. In their investigation to find her, they identified a man who bought her drinks at a restaurant (she is underage). He found out the police wanted to talk to him when they showed up at his house where he was found with two male friends. He later went to the police station and asked for a public defender (lawyer). One was being arranged when he took off from the station at a high, dangerous speed and after a brief time of police pursuit, the police withdrew from the chase in the interest of public safety.

As the case stands now, and if no further changes develop, that man will be on the books as a suspect in her disappearance. Forgotten is that initial phone call when her statements imply that no man was holding or assaulting her. If she was an inexperienced drinker and some sedatives had been added to her liquor (a prosecutable action and reason for him to run), she may well have sought shelter from the cold behind a dumpster and passed out and became asphyxiated on her own vomit. We all pray for her safe return. If I recall the Portugal case correctly, there were other bits of evidence that were contrary to the two men fleeing evidence. So now we come to the future and those other bits of evidence are tossed aside or ignored just to make the statement "was not lost at sea" a valid one. Bits of evidence that lead to a conclusion should be allowed such as 'two men fleeing' and the police capture two men in a swift pursuit. But when 'two men fleeing' leads to no conclusion. Monsieur Perot might quip that the grey matter prevents going from a to d without the connecting b&c. He might speculate that dogs were seen, that one man was seen twice. that the men did not actually continue to flee or that there were no men at all and the evidence is a false memory or contrived to mislead authorities.

In the future if the Virginia girl gets included in a question, it would be wrong to assign either of the two possibilities (abduction or accidental death) since there now is no veracity to either assumption. And that is the situation of that girl gone missing in Portugal. Her true story is not known and should not be speculated on (even as a NOT condition). This is where other question objectors here add their voice. It does a disservice to her family to speculate one way or another as to her actual manner of disappearance. I must here apologize to the current missing girl's family for using her case as an example and expressing two possibilities I have no sure knowledge of. I only related what the media has reported.

Would FT allow an "Unsolved Mysteries" quiz that included these three events (see Ramsey to follow)? They shouldn't because it is just as cruel as mentioning the victims of serial killers. Joan Ramsey was never missing. Her body was found destroyed in the family basement. Only the perpetrator of the crime is unknown. There is no parallel to the question situation.

The answer to your question is NO

The answer to the original question, at the start of this thread, is YES.

This thread is now closed.