Moderator questions.

[Hystericallify]

Me and Zeno (not really, he's 15 in a few days) had this problem with age once. Our applications were proven to be acceptable and 'accepted-worthy', however the only hinder was our age.

 

[Zeno]

Me and Zeno (not really, he's 15 in a few days) had this problem with age once. Our applications were proven to be acceptable and 'accepted-worthy', however the only hinder was our age.

In my opinion (though it may no longer be trustworthy as I am, as you said, turning 15 in a few days and this doesn't really apply), the 15 year old age limit is a necessary rule, even though it may mean that some exceptional apps are ignored. The majority of apps and potential mods presented by members under the age of 15 will be rather shoddy, that's pretty much a fact of life. Maturity, for the most part, comes with age, and most kids simply don't have it before they're 15 (or considerably older).

It would require a whole lot of work for the ten or so Sr. Mods and Admins to look through the several dozen, if not hundreds, of apps that would be submitted by younger members, and with not very much of a reward for this work. The majority of these apps would be denied for one reason or another, but the senior staff would still have to look at each one and consider them carefully. Thus, they would receive a whole load of extra work when they are already quite busy, and would reap no benefits from doing so.

Now, the next obvious topic is that of the exceptions. Of those people who have an astounding application, and would have been accepted immediately if not for their age. And here is where it gets tricky. A rule is required to save the senior staff from going through hundreds of shoddy applications from underage applicants, but that same rule prevents possibly amazing moderators from making it on to the team. For a rule to be strong, it must be upheld, and that means making no exceptions, yet it is difficult to say whether the negatives outweigh the positives of that upheld rule.

In my opinion, the strength to which this rule is upheld should be lessened, even though it may cause the senior staff to have a bit more work on their hands. I am not arguing for a lower age limit, for I do believe keeping it at 15+ is both reasonable and necessary, but I do think that exceptions should be made. I don't think that an exception should be made for every decent application that comes from an underage applicant, far from it. I think that, if an application from a younger member is to be considered, it should be amazing, not just decent. However, as the current ruling stands, no underage apps will even get that consideration, but rather just be denied off the bat for the applicant being too young. Again, I am not arguing for a younger age limit, but just for the consideration of truly astounding applications, whether the applicant happens to be 15+ or not.

 

[Sammoko]

Zeno was going to try argue your points but then read it over and found it that I agree with you on every point...

 

[Zeno]

Zeno was going to try argue your points but then read it over and found it that I agree with you on every point...

Lul.

#Dem2AMParagraphs

 

[Hystericallify]

In my opinion (though it may no longer be trustworthy as I am, as you said, turning 15 in a few days and this doesn't really apply), the 15 year old age limit is a necessary rule, even though it may mean that some exceptional apps are ignored. The majority of apps and potential mods presented by members under the age of 15 will be rather shoddy, that's pretty much a fact of life. Maturity, for the most part, comes with age, and most kids simply don't have it before they're 15 (or considerably older).

It would require a whole lot of work for the ten or so Sr. Mods and Admins to look through the several dozen, if not hundreds, of apps that would be submitted by younger members, and with not very much of a reward for this work. The majority of these apps would be denied for one reason or another, but the senior staff would still have to look at each one and consider them carefully. Thus, they would receive a whole load of extra work when they are already quite busy, and would reap no benefits from doing so.

Now, the next obvious topic is that of the exceptions. Of those people who have an astounding application, and would have been accepted immediately if not for their age. And here is where it gets tricky. A rule is required to save the senior staff from going through hundreds of shoddy applications from underage applicants, but that same rule prevents possibly amazing moderators from making it on to the team. For a rule to be strong, it must be upheld, and that means making no exceptions, yet it is difficult to say whether the negatives outweigh the positives of that upheld rule.

In my opinion, the strength to which this rule is upheld should be lessened, even though it may cause the senior staff to have a bit more work on their hands. I am not arguing for a lower age limit, for I do believe keeping it at 15+ is both reasonable and necessary, but I do think that exceptions should be made. I don't think that an exception should be made for every decent application that comes from an underage applicant, far from it. I think that, if an application from a younger member is to be considered, it should be amazing, not just decent. However, as the current ruling stands, no underage apps will even get that consideration, but rather just be denied off the bat for the applicant being too young. Again, I am not arguing for a younger age limit, but just for the consideration of truly astounding applications, whether the applicant happens to be 15+ or not.

Brb getting cocoa

 

[Zeno]

Brb getting cocoa

Mmmmmmmm dat sounds good right now. Mebbe for mah burfday....

 

[RC_4777]

In my opinion (though it may no longer be trustworthy as I am, as you said, turning 15 in a few days and this doesn't really apply), the 15 year old age limit is a necessary rule, even though it may mean that some exceptional apps are ignored. The majority of apps and potential mods presented by members under the age of 15 will be rather shoddy, that's pretty much a fact of life. Maturity, for the most part, comes with age, and most kids simply don't have it before they're 15 (or considerably older).

It would require a whole lot of work for the ten or so Sr. Mods and Admins to look through the several dozen, if not hundreds, of apps that would be submitted by younger members, and with not very much of a reward for this work. The majority of these apps would be denied for one reason or another, but the senior staff would still have to look at each one and consider them carefully. Thus, they would receive a whole load of extra work when they are already quite busy, and would reap no benefits from doing so.

Now, the next obvious topic is that of the exceptions. Of those people who have an astounding application, and would have been accepted immediately if not for their age. And here is where it gets tricky. A rule is required to save the senior staff from going through hundreds of shoddy applications from underage applicants, but that same rule prevents possibly amazing moderators from making it on to the team. For a rule to be strong, it must be upheld, and that means making no exceptions, yet it is difficult to say whether the negatives outweigh the positives of that upheld rule.

In my opinion, the strength to which this rule is upheld should be lessened, even though it may cause the senior staff to have a bit more work on their hands. I am not arguing for a lower age limit, for I do believe keeping it at 15+ is both reasonable and necessary, but I do think that exceptions should be made. I don't think that an exception should be made for every decent application that comes from an underage applicant, far from it. I think that, if an application from a younger member is to be considered, it should be amazing, not just decent. However, as the current ruling stands, no underage apps will even get that consideration, but rather just be denied off the bat for the applicant being too young. Again, I am not arguing for a younger age limit, but just for the consideration of truly astounding applications, whether the applicant happens to be 15+ or not.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say in long, amazing format (not sarcasm). I just don't have time for these posts.

 

[Porkstorm]

In my opinion (though it may no longer be trustworthy as I am, as you said, turning 15 in a few days and this doesn't really apply), the 15 year old age limit is a necessary rule, even though it may mean that some exceptional apps are ignored. The majority of apps and potential mods presented by members under the age of 15 will be rather shoddy, that's pretty much a fact of life. Maturity, for the most part, comes with age, and most kids simply don't have it before they're 15 (or considerably older).

It would require a whole lot of work for the ten or so Sr. Mods and Admins to look through the several dozen, if not hundreds, of apps that would be submitted by younger members, and with not very much of a reward for this work. The majority of these apps would be denied for one reason or another, but the senior staff would still have to look at each one and consider them carefully. Thus, they would receive a whole load of extra work when they are already quite busy, and would reap no benefits from doing so.

Now, the next obvious topic is that of the exceptions. Of those people who have an astounding application, and would have been accepted immediately if not for their age. And here is where it gets tricky. A rule is required to save the senior staff from going through hundreds of shoddy applications from underage applicants, but that same rule prevents possibly amazing moderators from making it on to the team. For a rule to be strong, it must be upheld, and that means making no exceptions, yet it is difficult to say whether the negatives outweigh the positives of that upheld rule.

In my opinion, the strength to which this rule is upheld should be lessened, even though it may cause the senior staff to have a bit more work on their hands. I am not arguing for a lower age limit, for I do believe keeping it at 15+ is both reasonable and necessary, but I do think that exceptions should be made. I don't think that an exception should be made for every decent application that comes from an underage applicant, far from it. I think that, if an application from a younger member is to be considered, it should be amazing, not just decent. However, as the current ruling stands, no underage apps will even get that consideration, but rather just be denied off the bat for the applicant being too young. Again, I am not arguing for a younger age limit, but just for the consideration of truly astounding applications, whether the applicant happens to be 15+ or not.

Stop writing lectures not everyone has a long attention span

 

[TheRandomMan1000]

In my opinion (though it may no longer be trustworthy as I am, as you said, turning 15 in a few days and this doesn't really apply), the 15 year old age limit is a necessary rule, even though it may mean that some exceptional apps are ignored. The majority of apps and potential mods presented by members under the age of 15 will be rather shoddy, that's pretty much a fact of life. Maturity, for the most part, comes with age, and most kids simply don't have it before they're 15 (or considerably older).

It would require a whole lot of work for the ten or so Sr. Mods and Admins to look through the several dozen, if not hundreds, of apps that would be submitted by younger members, and with not very much of a reward for this work. The majority of these apps would be denied for one reason or another, but the senior staff would still have to look at each one and consider them carefully. Thus, they would receive a whole load of extra work when they are already quite busy, and would reap no benefits from doing so.

Now, the next obvious topic is that of the exceptions. Of those people who have an astounding application, and would have been accepted immediately if not for their age. And here is where it gets tricky. A rule is required to save the senior staff from going through hundreds of shoddy applications from underage applicants, but that same rule prevents possibly amazing moderators from making it on to the team. For a rule to be strong, it must be upheld, and that means making no exceptions, yet it is difficult to say whether the negatives outweigh the positives of that upheld rule.

In my opinion, the strength to which this rule is upheld should be lessened, even though it may cause the senior staff to have a bit more work on their hands. I am not arguing for a lower age limit, for I do believe keeping it at 15+ is both reasonable and necessary, but I do think that exceptions should be made. I don't think that an exception should be made for every decent application that comes from an underage applicant, far from it. I think that, if an application from a younger member is to be considered, it should be amazing, not just decent. However, as the current ruling stands, no underage apps will even get that consideration, but rather just be denied off the bat for the applicant being too young. Again, I am not arguing for a younger age limit, but just for the consideration of truly astounding applications, whether the applicant happens to be 15+ or not.

I strongly agree with all of this. Although I wouldn't be upset if the 15+ rule dissapeared, I realize that we'd need alot more Sr.Staff to hold off the flood of "I haz been OP on my own srver b4 and banned tree peopel becuz they were saying bad words, and being meen." apps. If they would want to the lower the application age, Chad and the admins would have to begin a spree of promoting moderators to Senior mod, just to have enough force to check all the apps. Lowering the application age also means that the apps that are on the edge of declined/interview are given less attention in favor of time, this means that a good person with a decent application is hastily declined without much thought, even if said person may blow the mods away in an interview.

A few days ago, I was considering making an application. Months and months ago I posted an application that was horrible. FavorLock (remember him?) reviewed it, and told me I was to young. I argued a bit, because last I checked the rules, the application age was "Preferably 18, but younger applicants will be considered with a good app" this changed to 15 or older the day I posted it. Anyway, I notably matured quite a bit since then. I'm just below the age limit, my account age is a year off, and really think I'd make a good mod. I was even told to post an app when applications were reponed by a moderator. I asked him about it recently, and he told me it was best to wait. Though I don't want to, I will :/.

I'm honestly lucky, I will only have to wait about 10 months, and I'm confident MCSG will still be around then. But what about all the 12 and 13 year olds, they have almost no chance of ever getting mod, because although it's possible, 2 or 3 years later these servers may be gone. All of this "too many apps" stuff aside, I feel like there could be a solution to the younger mods issue. Many of the forum posters are consistantly mature, Zeno, for example, have proven time and time again that they are a "Spec of light". I feel like if this aditude it picked up on by a moderator, and the player shows intrest in moderating, they should have there application marked. Unless someone is posting an app, they generally don't pretend to be mature online, so just noting some who is constantly mature makes sense.

I doubt that would ever happen, but it's just my philosiphy on the subject of age and maturity.

 

[Krafty]

Okay I'm starting to think people are forcing themselves to write long posts right now.