What would a quota establish? Having 55% of the staff team be over the age of will not benefit the server anymore than if only 50% was. Disallowing a younger member of our community from joining the staff team because "rules say we need someone 18+, apply again when someone 18+ is demoted/resigns" is ridiculous alongside this idea in general. There are 15 year olds who should never be on the staff team but there are also 15 year olds that would make a better moderator than many adults, age is an arbitrary thing to base staff aptitude off of and due to this, we shouldn't create staff guidelines around this.
I'm not going to go into whether or not younger kids can or cannot be mature and skip straight to the -1. The only thing that this would do is make people lie on their staff apps and all the younger kids that were "mature" enough to not lie don't have a chance anyways because they aren't in the minimum age requirement.
When I made this suggestion I assumed that people wanted the best possible staff. Im not saying that the current staff is bad its even better than when I start playing but it can be even better. In my experience with different multiplayer games the best staff is gathered with age restriction+a good staff application which will describe the applicants personality and knowage of the game (something ECC TRIED to do). I bet you with a better staff app you won't need an age restriction as a rule to have 16+ or 18+ majority and if a 5 year old writes a good staff application and is chosen for staff member I will accept it no problem. In my opinion the current standarts for staff are too low which explains why there are children in staff or cases of bad 16+ and 18+ staff members. In the end its not about the people who wish to become staff members its about the rest of us who just want to play so don't say an age restriction will limit you in some "unfair" way based on age when there are many other ECC rules that limit everyone in a unfair way just to protect a group of people.
I agree with this to a certain extent. Some people that are younger are very mature for their age. They can navigate forums, they play well in game. On the other hand, users who are aged 13 and under shoudn't be allowed to be staff. Like @AgentHare said, they could have to deal with something inappropriate, and they may or may not know the correct meaning for it, in this case they would not be able to work as staff to their full potential.
Age predicts maturity, but age does not define maturity. It is true that the majority of people mature as they get older, but the rate at which this occurs is different for each person. A person might be as mature as a 18 year old when, in reality, he is only 13. This is just because that young person happened to mature faster than the average person. Rene Descartes finished his first law degree when he was 20, which meant he probably started attending college when he was around 15. I could list people like Descartes until the end of time, but I think the point is clear... maturity is really something unique to the person. So, I oppose any age limits for staff applicants.
+1 Most people here are saying no because they are younger than that age. Age does not define maturity but age matters. A server ran by 11-16 year olds will not work out very well.
Just because we allow 11-16 years old apply doesn't mean they will end up running the server. There will most likely be people older than just 16 on staff team and the server hopefully will never have a 15 year old owner.
@silencedterror - Personally, I was 15 years of age when I became a GameAdmin. Among many staff much older than I, it was myself and my friend @nicit6 who were picked. Frankly, I don't think the staff would even function with an 18+ age requirement, as most applicants are around 13-15. I may not always act mature, but everyone can have little outbursts from time to time.
I see what yo are getting at, and I would agree with 13+ for staff, but like Dewsy said, it should be determined on how mature you act. I know 11 year olds more mature than some 16 year olds.
I think you are wrong on this. If you can handle a situation then what does your age matters. If you can do the work load, there is nothing against you because of your age. Anyway, ANYONE CAN SET THERE AGE OLDER THAN WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS! Just saying. It's that easy. Nicholas R. Barrow @imtheking444 President of Delaxia
(Haven't read the entire thread... and I know it was lasted posted on Wednesday.) Maturity is not what should be considered with picking Staff. What should be considered is the exposure and situations you put the person in, then their experience with life situations (that happen in-game), and lastly their intelligence. Maturity is in a different category when it comes to picking Staff. The reason tons of websites, servers, and games all have an age restriction (usually 16+) is to prevent exposing and "forcing" younger users to deal with sticky situations. Imagine if someone in-game was breaking the rule of inappropriate subjects, by roleplaying something sexual with another user in local somewhere. Users who get picked for Staff need to understand and have experience with those types of things so that they can not only handle them properly, but not be scarred or learn things where it is inappropriate to learn them. It is not our job to indirectly teach younger users about those things, or put them in the situation to handle them. I've seen younger Staff here and in many other places struggle because they simply do not have the life experience, knowledge/intelligence, or mental/emotional maturity to handle some of the things they have to moderate. Lastly, I have also seen older Staff struggle because they are not the type of people who ever wanted to - or simply haven't - seen/heard those things. (Non-Staff have the choice to leave game, turn off chat, etc. Staff do not.) Life experience + knowledge and intelligence + exposure. Mental AND emotional maturity are not the major factor, they are a part of the whole thing. I am +1 for a "16 or older" requirement (for any future applicants) and a new question/field stating that people realize and agree to what they are "signing up" for.
@MoofinK I couldn't agree more. After hearing what you just said, I too am +1! Nicholas R. Barrow @imtheking444 President of Delaxia
To be entirely honest, there are 11-13 year olds who I would, and have, chosen to be mods over applicants who are 21+. That being said, the server is not run by mods. Phys, jakey, dewsy and I are all over 21, and if necessary we can handle any problems with the younger mods. All of the younger mods (under 14-15) that we have chosen have done their jobs exceedingly well, and I am glad I have had a chance to work with them.
In my opinion, you don't need to have a ton of life experience to ask a player to stop spamming or ban someone for advertising. Every other thing that the mods handle is discussed with smods, gas, and sa+. So while life experience/ decision making is important, it's not the most important thing in a mod.
Alright so I read/skim read/glanced at most of this thread so I apologize if I beat the dead horse any... In my experience working around younger individuals who have been placed in a position that holds some more substantial power or privileges I have found that often times they step up to the responsibility. Now there are always the ones who will abuse the power or uses it to troll and what not, but that is what the application process is for. Plus, once of the staff team, that position is not permanent. If it becomes apparent that an individual is not acting in a fashion that would be appropriate for moderating the server, that issue will be handled by higher ranking staff members. Any how, to completely throw out anyone based on age whether the limit be 17 y.o, 13 y.o, or whatever would not solve anything. First off, there is no way to enforce the age limit. There is nothing to stop someone from lying on their application and as Delucaco (I think) already stated this happens even now. Back to what I said earlier. You'd be surprised how younger individuals can step up to the maturity level required by a role such as being a moderator. Flat out assuming that no one under the age of 13, 14, or whatever is not capable of handling the position is an absurd opinion. It's like telling someone who is under 5' 7" that he or she cannot play basketball because he or she is too short. While I do agree that the older we get the more mature (hopefully at least) we get, I disagree that assuming that a younger member should be stereotyped as immature with no evidence that that individual is indeed immature. Overall, age and maturity should be considered as to separate animals. While there may be a correlation between the two, I do not feel that it is a strong enough correlation to have a role in deciding an individual's eligibility as a staff member.
