Your first sentence made me laugh.

I'm not going to even try to argue with you because you're right. The truth is that we (CTF Group) are guilty of making a decision based solely on your age. I wouldn't call that "judging" someone though, just a decision based on the facts at hand. Okay, maybe that's judging. Where's my dictionary? Oh well. Let's move on.

Sometimes it's easier to look at a situation by looking at the extremes. If a 10 year old child wanted to visit a live sex show and it was your decision whether or not to allow the child to visit, would you allow it? Given just that information, my answer would be 'no' and I hope your's would be too. I can't imagine any circumstances that would lead me to answer 'yes' to that question. The 10 year old is simply not mentally mature enough to handle such.

You are not 10 years old and CTF is not a live sex show (at least not yet), but looking at the extremes brings the middle ground into clearer focus. You ARE the middle ground, at least in the minds of the folks on CTF.

You touched on so many of the issues that have been bought up in the past day, particularly the slippery slope idea. I want to quote for you a couple of threads that occurred on the group regarding your situation so that you can see what I'm talking about.

This first one is an exchange that went on between three people. I'm taking there names off, because that's just the way I am. You've got to read from the bottom up.

--quote--
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 8:49 PM, :
Yabbut, when some idot invites them, I would feel a little guilty. I don'tlike feeling guilty.
- Hide quoted text -

----- Original Message -----From:To: <crimsontidefans@googlegroups.com>Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:12 PMSubject: RE: So here's whut I'll tell her...>> My point exactly. WE shouldn't need rules to protect THEM - that's their> parents job. Finally, someone gets it.>> >>> -----Original Message----->> From: >> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 2:42 PM>> To: crimsontidefans@googlegroups.com>> Subject: Re: So here's whut I'll tell her...>>>>>>>> If one of 'em finds us by accident, and they jump right in, or get all>> flustered at the forum, then maybe their parents aren't watching their>> child's online activity enough.>>
--endquote--

Next is from a guy who has been arguing vehemently in your defense. The slippery slope. This post happened before the ones above.

--quote--
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:11 AM, xxxx wrote:
Okay, I'm wrong. So tell me, Decider-For-All-Of-Us [since we don't havemoderators, and you need a title if you are going to make the decisions]what is our age limit?18 [old enough to elect a president and die in a war]? No wait, we talkabout alcohol a lot...So, maybe 21 [old enough to drink in the US]? Of course, I know some veryimmature and innocent 21-year-olds...way more immature than this girl is[based on her blog].Maybe we better make it 25 to be on the safe side - we want to make sure themodera^H^H^H^H^H Decider-For-All-Of-Us is comfortable with the cutoff.

You can dress it up and slap lipstick on it, but it is still being amoderator. I don't really care which way you decide, but stop smuglytelling yourself there is no moderator and no rules on this list if youdecide to ax her because *you* are uncomfortable. If the decision to stayor leave is not hers, then the decision is, de-facto, moderated.

I'm trying to decide if I should point out the obvious solution...ok, I'llsuck it up [although I've enjoyed this whole moderator discussion]]. She'sstill legally a minor; get her parent or guardian to join for a week and letthem decide if she can join. No moderator, no Decider-For-All-Of-Us, andstill no rules. And let's face it, her guardian knows best what she isready for (and if he is her father there is no way in hell he lets herjoin!).
--endquote--

I hope you can see that this is not an easy thing. It's a good thing, makes everybody think. Most good things are not easy things.

Have a good day and Roll Tide!