Why aren't underaged posted banned for the duration it takes

I always figured it was because there was a combination of the rule being there "just because" and also the chance that they could just be fucking around, moreso the latter.

>>408058
That makes sense for things like "I'm 12 and what is this" or just general shitposts, but what about painfully obvious posters who simply don't read the rules and post their info on /soc/?

File: 1449882748557.jpg (262KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 720x720px

>>408052

How would they know their age OP?

How would they even be able to figure it out, would you ask them?

This is fucking stupid, your picture is a perfect example of what I'm talking about because there is no actual age posted in any way.
Hence there is no way to ban for the duration it takes for them to reach 18.

>>408111
TRIPS are correct

It was a dumb question too op

>>408111
>>408115
See >>408075
A lot of underaged posters post their actual age plenty.

>>408123
What if they're doing it just to get their university/work connection permanently banned?

>>408125
Sucks to be them, then.

>>408111
They look twelve; six year ban. It's not nearly as hard as you are making it for yourself.

they used to be. underage b&s mostly post from dynamic ips now, so extra-long bans usually end up inconveniencing other posters more than the offender.

Is the mod retarded? Judging from the quality that photo was been taken during the 90s

>>408052
I remember there was a thread on /fit/ or /lit/ or something asking people how many hours they worked each day

Someone replied like "16 here, life sucks etc" and got banned

There's another one of them on /mu/ that's one of those things where anons collaborate and recreate a picture, I think it was of Taylor Swift and people were going to send it to her as a joke and split the pic up into pieces, and people made pics and replied with like "14 here" (meaning the box labeled 14) got banned as well