I've been reading some of the applications for potential GM's recently and ive noticed a trend developing, a distinctive saturation of children and teenagers. Nothing screams incompetence, potential misconduct and subsequent poor community relations more than a child behind the reins of server staff. Just a personal opinion that stems heavily from past experiences, especially with private servers, so please feel free to complete disregard this feedback if you feel necessary.
I disagree. Just because they apply does not mean they will be accepted, so I don't think we should rule out potentially good candidates just because of their age.
I can only hope that their applications are met with higher levels of scrutiny, there's a reason that people under the age of 18 cannot vote.
I think that they shouldn't be ruled out entirely. From what I've seen, the staff are very picky when it comes to new GM's. The existing hiring processes almost certainly take into account "maturity". And I don't think they'd have different maturity expectations for somebody who is 14 vs somebody who is 20.
As an (ex) server owner I can agree with you to an extent. However, one of the best GMs I've ever had (MIKEH IF YOU SEE THIS DONT KILL ME) was 14 at the time.
Age is a factor, but just a number. Someone who is 30 could be less mature than someone who is 14. It always depends on the person.
Back when I played Neopets, one of the most helpful people in my guild was just 9 years old. She became the guild's youngest forum moderator, and was consistently reliable. And she was great at CSS and HTML coding. Age isn't everything!
The answer is, it depends. In the vast majority of cases, you are right by saying that the maturity level of the applicant is not at a level that would make them a good GM. But in the same vein, we have had successful cases in the past where we hired someone younger than 18 and they were definitely one of the more mature members of staff. As others have stated, there's a reason you see a large number of applications in that board and very few actually chosen/promoted. We heavily scrutinize the application itself as well as try to find out what the applicant is like on the server outside of GM presence (on the forums, in game actions/attitudes, etc.) With all of those factors in mind, I like to think that we can form an accurate assessment of each applicant and choose whether to move forward with their application regardless of their age.
I disagree, I'm a teen and I have different standards for myself when it comes to management. I would never do some things that some of the GMs are currently doing. When I'm on a job, I know how to handle people, I understand why showing emotion can be a bad thing to do in some cases and cause a situation to get out of control. Please take that into consideration, you cannot target out an age group as we are all at different levels of development. What should be done is a series of tests for these under age applicants to decide if they are ready for such a role.
No, a GM isn't chosen based on their age solely. That factor has little to almost no difference if the person is actually good at doing their job but does make a difference is that person is being immature and irresponsible. Simple as that.
Age is just a number. If they can act up, then they should be able to apply. It's useless to have age restrictions if the candidate is mature.
my cousin is 16 and hes in dual enrollment and he only needs 2 more year of college done until he gets his degree in computer science -.- age doesn't matter. btw i'd love to welcome our newest gm's into the game. WELCOME MANNY AND TOMMMYyYYYYYYY
Generally with age comes maturity and wisdom. We all mature at different rates, as you can probably tell by looking at your peers. Wisdom comes from experiences, which some people experience more in their first 15 years than some in 30 years.
If I had to guess, I'd say a great deal of people on this server don't know my age. Based on feedback I've had from players and my colleagues alike, I can conclude that I'm doing my job well enough. I fail to see the importance of age based on that premise; if I told people my age, would their opinions on me change? Maybe. I once had a conversation with a player ages ago that was on the importance of school. When I told him my age, he disregarded everything I had said previously, ever point he had agreed with and understood my meaning. Before that, it was a meaningful conversation between two mature individuals. After, it was an older person looking down on a younger person. My point is the same as many before me; age is not the important factor, maturity is. If you have a problem with the maturity of ANY of the members of staff here, I urge you to PM me directly so we can discuss your concerns in a manner that may help benefit you and us alike.
don't think its right to apply the standards to everyone I've seen couple of teens do some great thinking that I learn from sometimes
No offense to anyone who is young in the GM section, but I don't think I have ever met a young moderator with good wisdom. Knowledge, yeah sure. Kids can be smart. But they weren't exactly wise enough for the job. Most always went for their emotions and not with their mind's judgement. Everyone is seeming to forget that kids have school as well, so whose to say they will last long as a staff member? Maybe they need to quit the position and focus on school work. If that's the case, then they shouldn't try being a GM in the first place. And since it's summer, the majority of the kids who actually become mods will do this. Just my two cents.
And that is exactly why we look at things such as commitments outside of the internet, involvement in the community and so forth when choosing GMs as well. There have been many GMs that we glossed over in past because they have had a history of being temperamental as a player, and people who would likely disappear on us; why should we give these people a role of power? Their ages, once again, have varied from young to old. If you're curious, the average age of our staff is around 20. Your point is fair and understandable, but age alone is NOT a reason to disclude someone from consideration as a GM.
Some of the best GM's are/have been below the age of 20, so facturing in age would rule out some potential gold coins in the crowd. Becoming a GM is difficult enough, but maintaining your position is even more difficult. Hard work doesn't always suffice.
