You can't judge people by their age. Im 16 and there are plenty of users on this server who are more mature than I am.
That is a contributing factor not the contributing factor. I do believe age should defiantly be taken into account. That being said, there are some younger players who are amazingly mature and should not be discredited simply because of their age.
I understand your point of view, but if someone is deemed to be immature they simply won't be picked, no harm done - a restriction isn't necessary.
I don't think the lack of applications is due to the new system. Correlation does not always mean causation. However, I do see how this can have side-effects. I would imagine since applications aren't deleted/closed, nobody changes them or does not really improve their application. They probably would not improve their behavior either. They could have grown inactive since they applied. On the flip side, with this system andrew does not have to wait a week or so for applicants, they can pick when needed. However I really don't see how a revert to the old system would greatly increase the quality of applicants and staff.
I've seen 13 year olds show a higher level of maturity than 50+ year olds. Also brain development isn't the same as emotional development. (which again, varies wildly per person)
/sarcasm on You are absolutely correct US2002 and I agree 100% Nobody under 5 foot tall should be able to be moderator either /sarcasm off I personally have seen far too many mature "young" players that have done a fantastic job as moderator. Age may be a factor of course, but, maturity is mostly a matter of choice.
Haha, I was looking for an example - anyway, yeah, I've seem many moderators younger than 16 who have done a great job at moderating.
To Frank: I understand your point, and I definitely have seen some immature people under 16. However, I have also seen really immature people over the age of 16. I joined the server when I was 10, and I don't think that I acted nearly as mature as I do now. By the way, I'm 13. To Ryan: Very well said.
To be fair, many users under 16 have been great staff. In fact, I wouldn't say that we have seen a clear correlation between age and quality of staff as to this date (on ECC).
30+ bad picks is not any better then 20+ bad picks, enough said, doesn't matter the system. (Too lazy to scroll back and quote kukes message, essentially, I agree with him)
Who says that the extra 10+ picks will be bad? With more people applying, we have a greater chance of getting someone good applying.
Who says there will be 10+ picks if we change it back? I am not to fond of some of the staff, and everyone who comes off it just says its heck.
There's no guarantee we'll have extra picks, but it seems to be the likely scenario - it doesn't hurt to try either. Also I'm aware that many ex-staff had a crap time, myself included - but solving that issue is not the goal of this suggestion.
I agree with that. But the point of saying the staff had a crap time is that it would drive other players away. Everyone who would be good for staff knows not to waste time applying.
People have been saying that they have a bad time on staff before the system changed, I was warned by many people that being a staff member would just end up being a bad time, but I still did it, and so have many others. I don't believe it's really affecting applicant numbers, but it's hard to tell.
I've seen staff members younger than that age and they were successful, I was first staff at the age of 15. Age is just a number.
