It is the issues that are unlikely but incredibly sensitive that I would question their ability to handle.

So I guess the question would be,

Is the risk high enough for age to be considered a barrier for being a moderator?

 

My answer to that would be no. In my experience moderating here, there were rarely issues that someone younger couldn't handle. It's mostly just kicking spammers, banning advertisers, etc. Of course, there were some situations that were a bit iffy, but nothing that couldn't be solved.

 

A valid opinion I'm definitely on the more cautious side of the fence, in that no matter how low the risk, it's still something to consider. If a change prevents the 1/1000000 event from happening, it would be worth it.

 

Depends on maturity levels. There are some 20-year olds that are as mature as a preschooler.

 

I find it difficult to support the applications of those under the age of 13. Age does mean maturity in the vast majority of cases. It's one thing to type well and say one is mature, and another thing to actually be able to be mature.

Yes, there are a few who beat the standards, but they are few and far between.

I think there should be an age limit of 13 years old. Anyone below that age needs to seriously prove themselves and request from Cyp/Crew permission to submit an application.

 

And you're absolutely right to still consider it. With age typically comes maturity, responsibility, and many other qualities one must possess to moderate. But this just returns me to my original argument that it's the person, not the number of years they've been breathing. You have some good points, and I'm not 100% against an age barrier.

 

To be honest, what we have now seems to be good. If a person is not mature and they apply its easy to spot. The way the applicant may write and the way they may take feedback is extremely important to deciding if one is mature and if they are not they are usually told "no support". People have spotted these immature applicants fairly easily in the past and the current times.

 

Indeed, that is quite true. Typing, grammar, and everything is one thing, another is that you need to prove it, prove you're mature enough. As some others said, 16 year olds may act like 10 year olds, while 10 year olds may act like 16 year olds. In my opinion, there should be no limit, everyone has a right to prove themselves, if they're worthy enough. I was promoted before the age of 13, in which I was 12.

 

A majority of the young applicants have difficulties with their logic and reasoning and I agree with you on that point. But there have been moderators that did an AMAZING job at only, like, 11 or 12 years old. So I don't think there should be an age limit.

 

Very true, however the 20 year olds who are as mature as preschooler would be unlikely to get past the initial stage of applying to be a moderator. Yet they would possibly be more equipped to deal with problems of a sensitive nature than a preschooler applying, just though being older and being aware of the problems that are around.

My view is that no matter how mature a 9 year old may be, I don't think they have the life experience nor knowledge to deal with such issues. Yes there may be exceptions, but overall I do think there should be an age barrier.

 

Yeah, but the deal is it will be harder for the younger ones to prove themselves to be worthy of that position, as most younger ones are stereotyped into that category. Although it may be a statistic, it is also a stereotype.

 

In my opinion a well founded stereotype.

Overall I've enjoyed reading the comments, it seems most are more open minded towards younger people. I have a feeling this may be due to most being of a younger age, not something I can really argue with

 

Hopefully my entire point hasn't been covered by a previous post in this thread, I don't really feel like checking to make sure.

I can agree with you that it's hard to put faith in the moderation abilities of some of the younger people in this community. A lot of younger kids do have a harder time with objective reasoning than someone with a few more years under their belt. Hell, I would've been a much better staff member had I been staff now and not however many years ago it was that I was staff (I think 2.) Maybe it's not even that long, it's all a blur. That said, I believe in age gating to a certain degree. That is to say, I don't like reading an application, seeing "Age: 12" and saying "nope, denied" without reading the whole thing. I would, however, want to see a more exceptional application from someone in this age range. I'd also want to examine their behavior and try to estimate exactly how they'd function as a staff member. Ultimately, the age gate would act as a "proceed with caution" warning rather than an "authorized personnel only" type thing. My standards would be set higher for younger applicants.

Why is this? Like I said, I have doubts in the abilities of some younger people, but I'd never rule out the possibility that there are children who are capable of the same things as you and me. I recall making a rant back when I was staff about ageism and how it's a bad thing. I still believe that young people are incredibly capable individuals, but in the time since I wrote that I've realized that caution should also be exercised with the kind of power you give them. Any way you slice it, kids are less experienced. They're more likely to encounter situations they don't know how to handle, and more likely to react inappropriately to them.

TL;DR proceed with caution on fetus mods.

Edit: Irrelevant, but I'm 16 if that means anything to you.

 

salamander9o was promoted when she was 10/11 and Flippy at 8/9 I think

 

Remember, when you're younger you can take things in better and you can learn more.
Also it has been mentioned, if you're mature enough, your age wouldnt be considered due to the fact that you're mature.
Blind people who I have met thought I was 15 by the way I was speaking to them with my vocabulary.
So I don't really think that age should matter. Only if you're like 16 and all you talk about is SE (sex education) then age should be considered into it affecting your role in becoming a moderator.

 

Age is actually a massive factor of moderator's maturity and effectiveness, but it is not a label to judge the candidates by. I've witnessed young, but yet great and adequate staff members on other servers, but I can't say that all of the young players would become fantastic staff. In my opinion, age is something that must not be mentioned in the applications in order not to create a negative opinion about the candidate already.
Sure, it is something that must be considered during the staff promotions to full mods or super mods, but never when the candidate is applying. The support team should look up to the ability of player to handle difficult situations, not the number of the application.

 

this topic comes up quite often, no need to say more cause others said it all.

and nope, age dosent really play a factor. im 20, would still be a horrible mod
yet some 12-16 year olds would be and are great mods.

just remember they are applications for a reason, we weed them out and pick who we think are best.

applications get spammed though... about what, 90 pages of applications (more than half need archiving because way to old and clogging up that section)

 

People would lie about there age.
Age doesn't matter, it's maturity. I have a friend who is 16 and he acts like he's in third grade. There's probably a third grader out there acting like a 16 year old.

 

Age has nothing to do with it, it's whether you have what it takes or not. I'm not involving myself anymore in this thread.