If that happened this member would have numerous resources to go to. He or she could go to another staff member or they could simply report the issue on the forums so that another, older staff member would be able to deal with the issue. He or she could also ask for assistance in the Skype group. He or she would be able to simply delete the issue and give appropriate punishment to the involved user if they know that it is inappropriate. There is no necessary interpretation of something of that nature anyway.
Like Sks said, the staff members have many other options they could go by. Also in the way the world is now most kids know much more than they should know about certain subjects.
However, someone make a reference and they may have no idea to even report it. Even then, staff should be capable to handle everything- and I have never seen an 11/12 year old staff member before.
I wouldn't quite say that age is entirely irrelevant to maturity (it certainly plays a factor), however, many 13-16 year olds have been very mature and productive during their time as mod. In fact, I find that in general more people whom are in their 30s and 40s tend to be worse mods than many of the 13 and 14 year old mods that i've seen. In general, the older mods type with more slowly, with worse spelling and punctuation and make more hasty decisions as well. Additionally, there is no real way to "confirm" someone's age without forcing them to show their birth certificate or something else equally ridiculous. In the past quite a few mods have lied about their age/identity and instating this rule would only increase this tenfold. TL;DR: no
I clearly answered the question in a case in which they can act maturely, however can not handle being a staff member.
I was 12 during my first stint on the staff team. I know Joliver was in that range as well. He was on the staff team for an extremely long time and was a valuable member during this time as well.
Yes but the question is assuming that the 11-13 is already mature enough. Tell me why a mature enough 11-13 yr old shouldn't be staff.
What he said was that younger people may not understand certain references and might not know if he/she should report it. Ps. i think this is what he meant. edit* His words. "However, someone make a reference and they may have no idea to even report it. Even then, staff should be capable to handle everything- and I have never seen an 11/12 year old staff member before."
-1. So, you're telling me that because of someone's age, they're not good enough to do something? Or try to achieve something? To me, it sounds like you are limiting a person, based on their age, to doing something. So what, if someone is young, and wants to apply for staff? Yeah, they may not be picked. Maybe they aren't ready for it. But Atleast they tried, and were committed to doing something. I may not be the old enough, smart enough, or good enough to be picked for staff. I am not perfect; this goes for everyone else as well. But, in reality, age doesn't matter. It's maturity that does. What if someone wanted to reach a goal, but others were putting them down because 'they are too young' or that 'they aren't smart enough? That, in my opinion would ruin someone's self esteem. No matter your age, intelligence, etc, you shouldn't be stopped from trying to achieve your goals. I don't see a problem with young people applying for staff, or trying to achieve any kind of goal. People should not bring them down by saying they aren't good enough, not old enough, not smart enough, etc. If they want to achieve a goal, or try for something, so be it. Let them try it. They may succeed and be very satisfied with what they do. Just because some people think that they 'aren't old enough' to apply for staff, does not mean they don't deserve a chance. For all you know, they could be very mature and well-fit for the job. And, personally, I have heard about people lying about their age on staff applications, so that they have a higher chance of getting in. What pleases me is those who are truthful and accept who they really are. Those are the people who should truly be taken into consideration for these types of things. Tl;Dr, All ages should be allowed to apply for staff. Everyone should be given a fair chance, no matter their age, inteligence, or perfection. In reality, I am a 12 year old kid myself, and I strongly believe that I should be able to try new things, and achieve my goals without others bringing me down saying that I'm not good enough, or too young. Sorry buddy, but your opinion doesn't change a thing. If I want to apply for staff at age 12, I will, and I will continue to do so.
Can we stop throwing the word "mature" around so much? It's literally the most redundant word on this server, I'm beyond being sick of it. Personally, it's not so much that all young players aren't professional enough, I know there are a few kids here that would be pretty great in blue. The issue I have is that there are only that, a few, and that unnerves me. I wouldn't want to play somewhere that's being staffed by 11 year olds. Staff should be made of people that can be looked up to, not just by being professional (anyone can act professional, it's not hard really), but by having the wisdom and life experience that they can pass on. Kids don't have this life experience and I don't believe they can handle something like this.
Yes. but this is a GAME. Either way we most likely will have a mix of people in different age groups in staff. Just because anyone can apply doesn't mean all staff will be 11/12 years old. Anyway this is a game and a majority of the server are young kids. You want to not allow them to apply, because their "too young". That's all this suggestion is about anyway. The age of people applying for staff. Well how do we enforce this? How would we know there aren't lying. How are we supposed to prove their age if all we see is a online profile?
Every comment I saw so far was about that it is possible for a child to be mature and responsibe and I agree but this doesn't mean they have enough life experiance to "work" with other people, to be superior in a small way to others, to manage with problems etc. I am not that much older than the people here but I bet on my life I have more experience than ANY 10,11,12.... year old. Age=experience and that is a fact you can't argue. I also see that a lot of the people against my suggestion are indeed between the ages of 12 and 15 (thats what I got from your comments). I never saw a comment " I am 12 and I think that older staff members have [insert pros and cons here], but younger staff members have [insert pros and cons here]." Instead of that every comment was very one sided and blind to the other point of view which shows a lower level of maturity. I am 100% sure that there are 1 or 2 current staff members that are 15- and are doing a great job as a staff member but I am also sure that this doesn't go for all of the younger staff. I am all for equal oppurtunity so there could be a quota: 50% 18- and 50% 18+ and I think a better application format is in order because everyone with some knowage of the game and the server rules can write down a decent application and if you are going for maturity this just doesn't cut it.
I agree with you that pretty much any 10-12 year old is too young for staff. However, this doesn't mean that we should stop them from being able to apply. Is it a possibility that none of them will make it onto the staff team? Yeah. The only reason that the almost exclusively mayor+ guidelines exist it that those users know the server well enough to instruct other users how to preform tasks and enforce the rules. If you can find me a 10 year old who is mayor+, can be impartial in their decisions and is mature enough to handle being on the staff team then I would welcome them.
Yes, we shouldn't stop them from applying and thats why I suggested some kind of quota to be impelmented and a better application form so its easier to determine who is fit for staff.
I would just rather not have an age restriction but either a more difficult application. I fell like the age restriction would still be difficult to verify and a bit unfair Edit* I have looked at both sides of the argument and there are good points to each side. We are just all trying to defend our own points and I might or if someone else doesn't make a pros and cons list based off all the comments so far.
