I initially preferred our current situation to the old way of picking staff, but after seeing how it's going this would be a far better way for staff to decide who to choose than our current situation.

 

the reason for fewer good applicants applying i believe is not due to the new system but due to the good applicants realizing that the staff team is not worth being on in its current state

 

they also came with the staff team having more corrosive users on it

 

The drop of quality staff picks has been a problem for a while now, it's why I had absolutely nobody I could pick for the last 3 rounds(and only 1 or 2 in per round since like early 2014), while I had 20+ do-not-picks.

The drop in number is basically going from 30 applicants to 20, negligible. Not that it really matters, because 30 bad picks is not much better than 20 bad picks.

I think the problem is caused by the average maturity of the userbase steadily declining. And seeing ex-staff complaining about how bad it was on staff is surely not going to increase the applicants either. I think what should be done is making staff consistent, and making punishment in-depth public punishment guidelines. At least the job of moderator can be low-entry if the exact guidelines are laid out.

Because as it is now, good people don't want to get on staff.

 

I think anyone under the age of 16 should just be banished from applying in the first place.

 

That's great and all, but to be quite honest, you'll just have age lying situations like we always have.

 

I wouldn't say that. Some of the best moderators can be 14-15 years old.
@ModEdit
@KooJo (plz dun kill meh)

 

I was a bit skeptical about this new system, but now seeing it in full effect has eased my mind. I like how the staff application process is now It has it's downsides just like anything else we implement. It's a work in progress but to say we should just get rid of it I think is a bit over the edge.

 

+1

The old system worked much better plus we don't have as many inactive staff applicants.

 

As for this suggestion, it was on my to-do list @ModEdit :p I would have gotten around to it at some point.

But, I'm in support for aforementioned reasons. +1 :)

 

I was 15 when I first got staff. Also I've seen multiple occasions of people lying about their age to be considered for staff anyway. (jetscat, sksoccer, someone else whose name I forgot)
Limiting it to age won't do a thing.

 

Yes and anyone under the age of 16 usually tend to be very, if not mildly immature. However in some rare cases younger teens can tend to have the maturity level of those years older. Rarely though.

 

Maturity largely depends on the person itself, not the age. You can have many players be very mature that you'd never realize their true age and some who are really immature that you'd think that they're younger than they actually are.

 

Brain development happens with the aging process and that is the contributing factor to if you are mature, or if you are not.

 

Someone's height generally happens with the aging process too. Does that mean that someone who is older than me is necessarily taller than me? No, absolutely not.

As I've said, it largely depends on the person - we see immature older players and mature younger ones.

 

Some develop sooner than others - 16 is a nice guideline, but it shouldn't be set in stone.