Rejected Change Staff Requirements Slightly

[KaleSplat]

Sometimes, some extra restrictions should be applied when looking for staff members. You want the best you can get, not someone who hasn't matured fully and someone who doesn't know the community well. There should be some more restrictive guidelines for applications.

● Have been registered on the website for at least a week

This is far too short for someone to consider hiring. The person may act "nice" for a week, and then absolute chaos can wreak over if they are promoted. My suggestion is to raise this to two months. This would make it possible for the future applicant to get to know the community well.

● Have at least 25 forum points

Following subject on that. It is rather easy to get 25 points, and is not worth to consider hiring someone as a staff member right away. It should take longer than 25 points, around 100 (Random number) would possibly work, or any reasonable number to achieve by 4-6 months of being on forums.

● Be at least 13 years old

There are far too many people who do not have the responsibility to become staff at 13 years of age. Maturity starts out at around age 16 in most people. Some staff (Some of them ex-staff), for I will not name for obvious reasons, were just not mature. Sixteen year olds typically are more mature than thirteen year olds, so why do we have moderators that are young and possibly don't have the right maturity level?

● Be well liked by the community

This is something that should be required. The staff are interacting with the community, so they should be well liked by the community itself before initiating people.

I figure I'll stop here.

TL;DR - Make it take longer to get staff, increase age to 16, favorable stance with community.

 

[ArrayLists]

Sometimes, some extra restrictions should be applied when looking for staff members. You want the best you can get, not someone who hasn't matured fully and someone who doesn't know the community well. There should be some more restrictive guidelines for applications.

● Have been registered on the website for at least a week

This is far too short for someone to consider hiring. The person may act "nice" for a week, and then absolute chaos can wreak over if they are promoted. My suggestion is to raise this to two months. This would make it possible for the future applicant to get to know the community well.

● Have at least 25 forum points

Following subject on that. It is rather easy to get 25 points, and is not worth to consider hiring someone as a staff member right away. It should take longer than 25 points, around 100 (Random number) would possibly work, or any reasonable number to achieve by 4-6 months of being on forums.

● Be at least 13 years old

There are far too many people who do not have the responsibility to become staff at 13 years of age. Maturity starts out at around age 16 in most people. Some staff (Some of them ex-staff), for I will not name for obvious reasons, were just not mature. Sixteen year olds typically are more mature than thirteen year olds, so why do we have moderators that are young and possibly don't have the right maturity level?

● Be well liked by the community

This is something that should be required. The staff are interacting with the community, so they should be well liked by the community itself before initiating people.

I figure I'll stop here.

TLR - Make it take longer to get staff, increase age to 16, favorable stance with community.

I agree I noticed that the community will apply for helper as soon as they're thirteen. It just shows how desperate people are. So yes sixteen would be a good age to be the minimum. As for the other three nags they're fine. This should be implemented

 

[aullie]

I was 13 when I applied but like 2 weeks before my 14th birthday lol but I do agree with the amount of time you should be registered on forums to be honest.

 

[allgoodstoobler]

But most of our 13-15 year old staff do a great job and not everyone matures at a certain age.

 

[DemonWolf_]

I like this as you should be liked by the community, but the thing is some people liked by the community can be troublemakers which we don't want as they aren't mature enough and once someone becomes staff they pretty much get liked by the community already. I do like your idea on that we should be registered on the website for at least a month or two because it lets that person get known by the community more and we don't want some person who just got registered who has lots of maturity but barely know's little about the forums, as their are forums punishments also. Also the forums points pretty much go with being registered for at least two months and being liked because it helps them get known. Now I don't like the idea of that you have to be 16 to become staff because then we wouldn't have lots of staff. Plus the mods are at the age range of 14-17 maybe a little bit more, but the thing is some helpers and mods under the age of 16 do show maturity and are very great staff. In my opinion I think it should be moved to at least 14 because some 13 year old's aren't mature *cough* me *cough* xD but all joking aside I know some 13 year old's are at that range of acting like 12 and 14 because 13 is a number that is more like the middle and I feel like most 13 year old's go the 12 route which isn't the best because they act childish then a mature teenager sometimes. As it should probably be based off maturity and 14-15 at least to be able to apply in my opinion. These are some great ideas and I really like them.

 

[Mishiaa]

I can understand where you're coming from, but remember that each applicant is looked at thoroughly before acceptance. Meeting the requirements is just one small step of becoming a staff member - not everyone who meets the requirements and applies will be accepted.

I feel that your points on the age limit are a bit extreme. Maturity does come with age, but every person is different and develops maturity at different rates. If the age limit were raised to 16, for example, a good chunk of our current moderation team wouldn't be there, including myself. There are some incredibly mature 13 year olds that are accepted and become fantastic staff members. I will agree, 13 is a pretty young age, but if it were to be raised to 14/15 a lot of potentially great staff members wouldn't have a chance to start and would instead have to wait a few years, and by that time they could've lost interest. Again, not everyone who applies is accepted, and each applicant is thoroughly considered on all levels. Age isn't a very accurate way of measuring maturity in my opinion.

 

[KaleSplat]

But most of our 13-15 year old staff do a great job and not everyone matures at a certain age.

Although true, more people have matured by the age of 16 rather than 14.

I like this as you should be liked by the community, but the thing is some people liked by the community can be troublemakers which we don't want as they aren't mature enough

Remember that there are multiple requirements to become staff, and those troublemakers would probably be weeded out by staff.

Once someone becomes staff they pretty much get liked by the community already.

Nobody wants to go against staff members I see it everywhere where staff get liked because they're staff. This by no means should be how someone becomes liked on a server, or anywhere else in particular. It should take effort to become liked (Or hated, but that's FAR easier...) on a server.

But most of our 13-15 year old staff do a great job

I came back to this one to say that the current staff members should not be demoted due to the age/forum restrictions I suggested. If you're doing a good job as a staff member, you should be part of the staff team.

 

[ArrayLists]

But most of our 13-15 year old staff do a great job and not everyone matures at a certain age.

Most 13 year olds aren't mature. At around the age of sixteen is when they mature (Varies on person)

 

[KaleSplat]

I feel that your points on the age limit are a bit extreme. Maturity does come with age, but every person is different and develops maturity at different rates.

I agree with the point where people become mature at different rates. However, a significant chunk of people have matured by then, compared to the <5% of when they are 13.

There are some incredibly mature 13 year olds that are accepted and become fantastic staff members. I will agree, 13 is a pretty young age, but if it were to be raised to 14/15 a lot of potentially great staff members wouldn't have a chance to start and would instead have to wait a few years, and by that time they could've lost interest.

I can see this being a problem, if implemented. I'm sure there's a few sixteen year olds who are willing to become staff, and help the server.

Age isn't a very accurate way of measuring maturity in my opinion.

Age is not very accurate around thirteen, but a bit more accurate around sixteen. Also, if it's not a very accurate way of measuring maturity, why do we have a minimum age limit of 13 then?

Most 13 year olds aren't mature. At around the age of sixteen is when they mature (Varies on person)

Hence why I suggested 16 to be the minimum age.

 

[yuc KK y]

I agree with most of this, accept the age part. Just to assume that everyone becomes mature at age 16 is kind of ridiculous. Everyone matures at different times, and to raise the age to 16, less people would apply to be staff, because they're not old enough. I joined this server when I was 11 and I want to apply for staff when I am 13, and most people don't even play minecraft when they're 16. So with the age limit being raised, some staff would get demoted and sometimes others who have waited a while to apply, wouldn't get to apply for three more years. Some staff members might not be that mature, but hey, most of them are still under 16 years old and have a bit of 'kid' left in them.

 

[Unstitched]

The largest Minecraft network (you know who) has their age limit for Helper set at 16 so perhaps they're doing something right. However, if we were to do this we'd lose the majority of our applicants and have a drought on staff applications; then you'll all make posts complaining about the lack of moderation and hackers like on said network.

Just a thought for consideration.

 

[Mishiaa]

I agree with the point where people become mature at different rates. However, a significant chunk of people have matured by then, compared to the <5% of when they are 13.

Many staff members applied at 13, including myself. I personally know around 8 staff members (two of which have resigned) that applied at age 13. One of my closest friends on the team just recently turned 14.

Age is not very accurate around thirteen, but a bit more accurate around sixteen. Also, if it's not a very accurate way of measuring maturity, why do we have a minimum age limit of 13 then?

Age limit for obvious reasons. I had already explained why a low age limit would make sense in my previous statement. Adding on to said statement, Unstitched has a good point regarding the lack of moderation leading to more hackers and complaints.

 

[KaleSplat]

Some staff members might not be that mature, but hey, most of them are still under 16 years old and have a bit of 'kid' left in them.

In my opinion, staff should not have any 'kid' in them. You need a lot of responsibility if you want to be a staff member, as far as I'm concerned. Any 'kid' in the staff members may reduce maturity. Sure, staff should have some fun, but not as a 'kiddish' kind of way.

However, if we were to do this we'd lose the majority of our applicants and have a drought on staff applications; then you'll all make posts complaining about the lack of moderation and hackers like on said network.

Just a thought for consideration.

I have to agree with this.

 

[MariTheVillain]

Like unstitched said

However, if we were to do this we'd lose the majority of our applicants and have a drought on staff applications; then you'll all make posts complaining about the lack of moderation and hackers like on said network.

So while the idea is great and all, I think until the playerbase kicks up a notch or two, it shouldn't be implemented. Great idea, bad timing. That being said I would like to add a bit of a "grandfathering" rule, where if/when this does take place, active staff members below 16 will still maintain their role until otherwise demoted or their resignation

 

[Jebb]

I also, along with many others, applied at the age of 13. The majority of the staff team is around the ages of 13-15. If they were to raise the age requirement, PartyZone would lose more staff members.

 

[Aluux]

I do not seen any of this to be necessary, I know many 13 - 15 year olds who are extremely mature for their age, I even know some 11-12 year olds who are, and I find that raising the age limit to 16 because they aren't "mature enough" will probably come off as offensive to those who are mature and responsible for the role, as people have stated there are currently a lot of staff who are 13-15 on the staff team.

Also on the said server who's age limit is 16, yes they are looking for mature people but as they are a big network they are also looking for experienced people and experience with things comes with age.

 

[_LaserKiller3000_]

Sorry to go against everyone here, but the age limit of 13 probably should be raised. I know a lot of 13 yr olds will be up against me here, sorry guys But on a network where our main players are 11-15 on average. I feel having 13 yr old staff to moderate older and younger players isn't that great. They may be mature and nice but having them manage older players doesn't always work. I you all anyway whatever your decision is.

 

[Timelord]

Sorry to go against everyone here, but the age limit of 13 probably should be raised. I know a lot of 13 yr olds will be up against me here, sorry guys But on a network where our main players are 11-15 on average. I feel having 13 yr old staff to moderate older and younger players isn't that great. They may be mature and nice but having them manage older players doesn't always work. I you all anyway whatever your decision is.

Younger people can moderate older players. Just because they are younger doesn't give them anything less. Just because they are older doesn't give them anything more.

You first state you don't want them moderating younger kids and older kids and then state you don't want them moderating older kids. Don't know if your point was only for moderating older kids yet it appears that way.

Last thing... We all first start young and inexperienced I was there when I started murder for my quest for rank 1. That's one of the first things I said when I started enjoying murder. "I was going to be rank 1" I have gotten close (rank 52) and had that whole rank thing change and now I'm at rank 157. I'm still going after that dream and I have improved a lot. At the beginning people didn't believe in me because I was so in experance guess what I'm close so all those people were wrong. Same thing applies to helpers who are 13 just because you don't think they can do it they can.

Probally sounds horrible sorry too many things on my mind too many things to do.
@_LaserKiller3000_ age is but a number right?

 

[_LaserKiller3000_]

Younger people can moderate older players. Just because they are younger doesn't give them anything less. Just because they are older doesn't give them anything more.

You first state you don't want them moderating younger kids and older kids and then state you don't want them moderating older kids. Don't know if your point was only for moderating older kids yet it appears that way.

Last thing... We all first start young and inexperienced I was there when I started murder for my quest for rank 1. That's one of the first things I said when I started enjoying murder. "I was going to be rank 1" I have gotten close (rank 52) and had that whole rank thing change and now I'm at rank 157. I'm still going after that dream and I have improved a lot. At the beginning people didn't believe in me because I was so in experance guess what I'm close so all those people were wrong. Same thing applies to helpers who are 13 just because you don't think they can do it they can.

Probally sounds horrible sorry too many things on my mind too many things to do.

Err ok, so you obviously didn't get the memo. Raising the age would be a good thing. It would give the younger community time, time to think and learn. Raising it would help them. I know a lot of people who applied at 13 and got denied, its due to maturity and experience. Younger players don't have that kind of experience, so raising the age limit would give them a chance to gain it.

Maturity also comes with age. Nobody, can be mature at 13, sorry to say but maturity takes time. Look I know I'm not even that mature yet and I'm almost 17, who doesn't laugh at a "poop" joke? Mentally Mature people.

I would like to ask we do something about this thread before it gets out of hand, as I can already see views clashing, and that is not what us as mature people want.

 

[Timelord]

memo. Raising the age would be a good thing. It would give the younger community time, time to think and learn. Raising it would help them. I know a lot of people who applied at 13 and got denied, its due to maturity and experience. Younger players don't have that kind of experience, so raising the age limit would give them a chance to gain it.

Maturity also comes with age. Nobody, can be mature at 13

But doesn't it matter? We can go through tons of math Matic stuff and rules yet we have players that are 13 and fit for the job. I know sometimes age is a need yet for some situations it's but a simple variable or number. This is not one of them. No one has experance in moderating getting older doesn't give experance either. I see where your coming from yet we have 11 year olds and they can learn and develope.