Moderator Applications are Closed

[evil_gnome123]

I was just giving a friendly tip, sorry if it sounded offensive.

When i do something formal i try to do my best but on something like theses forums i really dont care as much

 

[Pixelatorx2]

When i do something formal i try to do my best but on something like theses forums i really dont care as much

they look at your past forum posts as proof you are making educated decisions, which is why I always type with proper grammar and stuff. Just sayin.

 

[TadpolePvP]

 

[Mayra]

I'm happy we could clear things up

#mexicanz4life

 

[ChargedPVP]

I really think they should look pver the age policy. I can understand that they don't want 10 year olds but you can't tell what kind of mod some one is going to be based on age. They should at least have to consider it. And lets face it. MCSG needs more mods. So they should be less picky. Maybe lower it to 13. But that is not to say MCSG should have to lower the bar for mods. MCSG should have the best mods possible, care less of age.

 

[Niall]

I really think they should look pver the age policy. I can understand that they don't want 10 year olds but you can't tell what kind of mod some one is going to be based on age. They should at least have to consider it. And lets face it. MCSG needs more mods. So they should be less picky. Maybe lower it to 13. But that is not to say MCSG should have to lower the bar for mods. MCSG should have the best mods possible, care less of age.

Yes, I strongly agree with this.

There are a few reasons why I believe that the age restriction should be lowered to thirteen:

• I know some thirteen year olds that a way more mature than some fifteen year olds. Different people grow up quicker than others, only the best thirteen year olds would be accepted.
  
• Thirteen/fourteen year olds have more time to moderate as they do not have to do exams etc.
• Thirteen year olds can understand the younger people in the community and make them feel more confutable when talking to them as they can relate to them and then thirteen year olds can also deal with older people if they have maturity.

 

[Tacoface1234]

They should at least have to consider it. And lets face it. MCSG needs more mods.

We really don't. We have more mods than servers twice our population, so I'd say we are quite well moderated.

 

[Mooclan]

I really think they should look pver the age policy. I can understand that they don't want 10 year olds but you can't tell what kind of mod some one is going to be based on age. They should at least have to consider it. And lets face it. MCSG needs more mods. So they should be less picky. Maybe lower it to 13. But that is not to say MCSG should have to lower the bar for mods. MCSG should have the best mods possible, care less of age.

Yes, I strongly agree with this.

There are a few reasons why I believe that the age restriction should be lowered to thirteen:

• I know some thirteen year olds that a way more mature than some fifteen year olds. Different people grow up quicker than others, only the best thirteen year olds would be accepted.
  
• Thirteen/fourteen year olds have more time to moderate as they do not have to do exams etc.
• Thirteen year olds can understand the younger people in the community and make them feel more confutable when talking to them as they can relate to them and then thirteen year olds can also deal with older people if they have maturity.

Yes, there ARE 13-year olds who are mature. However, there are a lot who can FAKE being mature enough to get Moderator. They can have a friend help write their application, and they can be polite during the interview to appear nice and dandy. But then once they get moderator, they don't uphold the same behavior. Sure, for a month or two they act all good and whatnot, but there are examples of people such as within clans who "Go off the deep end" so to speak.
Also, I hear MCSG has more than 150 mods...? Are you quite sure that we need more that badly? As it is, there are TONS of applications every week. (Except for right now because they're closed.)

 

[Col_StaR]

...And lets face it. MCSG needs more mods. So they should be less picky. ...

I'm not going to comment on the Age Policy here, though I'm the one who is currently in charge of the Age Exception process. I will say that younger-aged moderators pose a series of different challenges, many of which we aren't well-poised to deal with. Furthermore, troublesome people who cause issues for the community are MUCH more difficult to get rid of once they are within the staff, so we would prefer to prevent personnel issues before they have a chance to arise; if this means we have to deny at-risk demographics such as younger people, so be it.

But I am vehemently opposed to this idea of an MCSG mod shortage. According to our staff document listing, we have 157 moderators currently on staff (the number may be slightly more, considering the recent hires since the document was last updated). To compare, other communities of our size or larger have only about 80-100 mods. As I stated before, the Sr. Staff wouldn't have chosen to stop all mod applications if we thought there was a shortage. So Taco is correct with his reply:

We really don't. We have more mods than servers twice our population, so I'd say we are quite well moderated.

All I am going to say is that we have the moderator numbers to field a high number of moderators, but pushing for even more for the sake of having more is going to be a disaster. Instead of pushing for quantity and only quantity, the Sr. Staff agrees to turn our focus towards hiring and training quality mods. That's why we feel justified in shutting down moderator applications in an effort to better our current standards.

 

[Mooclan]

-snip-

I know this is pretty off-topic, but congrats on post #69 on this thread

Also, thank you for putting it so clearly and making it easy to understand.

 

[ChargedPVP]

I'm not going to comment on the Age Policy here, though I'm the one who is currently in charge of the Age Exception process. I will say that younger-aged moderators pose a series of different challenges, many of which we aren't well-poised to deal with. Furthermore, troublesome people who cause issues for the community are MUCH more difficult to get rid of once they are within the staff, so we would prefer to prevent personnel issues before they have a chance to arise; if this means we have to deny at-risk demographics such as younger people, so be it.

But I am vehemently opposed to this idea of an MCSG mod shortage. According to our staff document listing, we have 157 moderators currently on staff (the number may be slightly more, considering the recent hires since the document was last updated). To compare, other communities of our size or larger have only about 80-100 mods. As I stated before, the Sr. Staff wouldn't have chosen to stop all mod applications if we thought there was a shortage. So Taco is correct with his reply:

All I am going to say is that we have the moderator numbers to field a high number of moderators, but pushing for even more for the sake of having more is going to be a disaster. Instead of pushing for quantity and only quantity, the Sr. Staff agrees to turn our focus towards hiring and training quality mods. That's why we feel justified in shutting down moderator applications in an effort to better our current standards.

Ok, i guess i was wrong about the mod shortage. I just don't see many around, but you can't just not even consider a whole large group of people just because or a sterotype that they are immature and can't be trusted. Thats like banning all the baccas from the servers because you think they hack. I'm aware that MCSG has high standards for mods and they do hold up as i nor none of my friends have ever had a complaint about a mod. But there are a lot of people that would be exceptional at mod but won't even be considered because there age makes them a "undercover troll" so to speak. You had some VERY valid points but it's not roght to do it this way. If the Sr. Staff desides to make it harder for a younger mod to become a mod theb so be it. But mcsg tries to create a happy community where every one os treated fair and this goes against that in my opinion. I belive that many people in the communtiy would agree with me.

 

[roguehh]

Ok, i guess i was wrong about the mod shortage. I just don't see many around, but you can't just not even consider a whole large group of people just because or a sterotype that they are immature and can't be trusted. Thats like banning all the baccas from the servers because you think they hack. I'm aware that MCSG has high standards for mods and they do hold up as i nor none of my friends have ever had a complaint about a mod. But there are a lot of people that would be exceptional at mod but won't even be considered because there age makes them a "undercover troll" so to speak. You had some VERY valid points but it's not roght to do it this way. If the Sr. Staff desides to make it harder for a younger mod to become a mod theb so be it. But mcsg tries to create a happy community where every one os treated fair and this goes against that in my opinion. I belive that many people in the communtiy would agree with me.

Persons under the age requirement can actually be considered for moderator. That's exactly what the Age Exception process is for. Also, your characterization of Sr. Staff thinking in stereotypes is incorrect:

As the primary person who deals with Age Exceptions, let me say this:

• I've had a 10 year old seeking a moderator position. He was earnest and enthusiastic, but I doubt anyone would be willing to heed the words of a staff member who's still in elementary school. Plus his communication skills weren't the best.
• I've had 13 year olds turn out to be exemplary mods. Some of them are still members of our staff whom I consider trustworthy. Despite their age, they hold themselves as model staff members and often out-do their elder peers.
• I've had 14 year olds who were accepted when 14 was the age limit, and they did things to hurt the community because they were suffering lapses in judgement. Whether they were going through teenage angst, personal problems, or peer pressure, younger teenagers have demonstrated that they are especially likely to become liabilities to themselves and others; those years are definitely not kind to everyone. Those individuals never realize that what they're doing is wrong at the moment, but some of the actions that many people within that age range have taken in the past is a primary reason why the current staff age limit is 15.
• I've had 13 and 14 year olds of various aptitude and abilities seeking an Age Exception. Few succeed, most fail, but almost all of the failed applicants were not fit or capable of becoming a moderator regardless of their age. The application process for Age Exceptions is very intense, but our regular Moderator Application process is very thorough as well. Whether their application is poorly written or they have a history of bans, many of the applicants fail for reasons other than age.
• I've had staff members 21+ (mostly with other communities in my past) who are nothing short of immature 12 year olds in a 21+ year old's body. They're impulsive, petty, begrudging, and agitating for personal satisfaction. They're smart enough to play the, "I'm older so I'm more mature" card, but they demonstrate that such an adage can be flawed.

I hope my perspective lends some understanding to the staff's approach to moderator age limits and age exceptions.