So, I saw this on a server I used to play on and I really liked the idea. On that server the requirement was 13 years or older. Personally on here I think 14 years old should be the minimum, but I understand that there are mature 13 year olds on the server, so this suggestion doesn't set an age. I think having this requirement would have generally more mature people applying for mod, and older people tend to make better decisions. Plus, older players are usually more experienced and responsible.
Tbh even though there's going to be many no supports to this I personally thought this was a good idea for a really long time now. Yes there is such thing as a mature 11 year old but you can literally see the amount of hate they receive causing them to lose confidence and resign, therefore making other children around that age group cautious before applying. Having an age requirement would show other servers our level of maturity, because you can't convince everyone that 12 year olds are mature. My only concern is that people might lie their age aha
It's not going to stop having immature applications though. Age doesn't equal maturity; yes I can see where you're coming from, but honestly it's the internet, people lie about their age and people no matter their age will act immature or mature. On another Crew/Cyp owned server, we've had a nine year old mod before. From what I've heard they were a really good mod too. Or take @Agentdogzrule - she was ten when she got mod on Skyblock (the server I'm talking about!!) and she's a hot great mod. I'm not sure about here but I'm assuming we've had a fair share of mods under 14. If this requirement does go into play, what happens to all the existing mods under 14? Do they just get demoted because of how old they are? tl;dr age doesn't equal maturity and there's a such thing about lying on the internet woah!
Some Mods we've had here, who were under 13, were extremely capable and long-serving. I really don't like the idea of an age requirement, especially since it's so easy to lie.
I see where you're coming from, but many mods that are/were under 14 have proven themselves to be very mature and beyond capable of moderating.
Age really don't have much to do with maturity. Some of the staff members 13+ have been immature and some of the staff members younger have been very mature. We shouldn't miss out on good staff because of an age. Also, it is easy to lie. Anyone can say they are one age but really be another, there really isn't a way to prove you are how old you say you are.
Wellllll, I was gone for a hour and this suggestion got ripped. Another point I'd like to make is that being a staff member can be stressful, I think any staff member here would say that. Yes, lying can and will happen, because it did happen. I know there are exceptions, which I've seen, but is the stress of staffing good for younger members? From what I've heard is moderators receive a lot of threats and hate in general. And another point, if there were older staff members, people would be more likely to take them seriously than someone who is younger.
I receive a bit of hate every now and then, but it's very little hate. Moderating can be a bit stressful at times, but that's when your brain is telling you to turn off your computer and do something else. I don't see why a 10+ year old couldn't handle it, maybe 9 and under is a bit too young. That's just from my point of view and opinion, though.
this is a good point. Younger people are less aware of the internet and the foul people on it. But, I do not support this due to the pros outlying the cons on this idea. Think about it this way- We can have lot's of great yet young moderators like me, Linux, Blue, and many more that were able to uphold the responsibilities of moderators. I mean these guys were able to moderate, and look past the hate they received. Doesn't this prove that the applicants we are promoting can "control" themselves?
No support, age has nothing to do with Moderating. We see 11 year olds all mature and some 13+ year olds being all toxic... Age is irrelevant.
Most teenagers that moderate have their hormonal ups and downs - children have their moments as well. Despite of this everyone other than Linux has been a fantastic moderator thus far. MaxNinja10 was even promoted to Sr. Mod. If we allow age to influence the moderator position then it would be 18+ only, as you could also argue that teenagers can barely manage their position. But it seems that they're doing fine, right? We as a community have seen evidence that people under the age of 13 can be a proper moderator. Age is always a concern and children/teenagers are unpredictable. But yeah you get my point no support dumb suggestion.
I just turned 13 a month before I got accepted and I don't think I did that bad as a mod, There's also many other cases when younger mods have performed better than most moderators over the age of 14,
