Scratch

I would like to know whom you agree with in this response I gave to Paddle2See.

soupoftomato wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

Just straight out asking for a Yes/No answer is a pretty dangerous move sometimes...but I see that you have gotten the feedback you requested. 

Now, perhaps, you might want to expand your question and ask why or why not people feel as they do.  That might be more useful to you as it would help you identify areas that you might want to work on 

One last thing, before you spend a lot of time deciding whether or not to run:  There is a possibility that there will be a minimum age requirement for Community Moderators in the next election.  You might want to wait for the official announcement to see if you are eligible before you worry about whether you should run.

I see we are bringing age discrimination in this time. Something the Scratch Team once said they never do in selecting moderators. There shouldn't be an age requirement, you should just do it like last time, the Scratch Team chose the final candidates for it anyway, so why disallow people from trying?

Unless of course it's something like no 8 year olds, which I would agree with.

andresmh wrote:

In selecting these members, age, gender and location are not important. What is important is the level of maturity, respect and mentoring role that people have played in the community.

I will lose my faith in you if you discriminate an unfair age.

I think age is not a fair means of determining maturity level and ability. What do you think?

soupoftomato wrote:

I would like to know whom you agree with in this response I gave to Paddle2See.

soupoftomato wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

Just straight out asking for a Yes/No answer is a pretty dangerous move sometimes...but I see that you have gotten the feedback you requested. 

Now, perhaps, you might want to expand your question and ask why or why not people feel as they do.  That might be more useful to you as it would help you identify areas that you might want to work on 

One last thing, before you spend a lot of time deciding whether or not to run:  There is a possibility that there will be a minimum age requirement for Community Moderators in the next election.  You might want to wait for the official announcement to see if you are eligible before you worry about whether you should run.

I see we are bringing age discrimination in this time. Something the Scratch Team once said they never do in selecting moderators. There shouldn't be an age requirement, you should just do it like last time, the Scratch Team chose the final candidates for it anyway, so why disallow people from trying?

Unless of course it's something like no 8 year olds, which I would agree with.

andresmh wrote:

In selecting these members, age, gender and location are not important. What is important is the level of maturity, respect and mentoring role that people have played in the community.

I will lose my faith in you if you discriminate an unfair age.

I think age is not a fair means of determining maturity level and ability. What do you think?

Ehh.

I agree. Short and to the point, it's the maturity level that counts.

soupoftomato wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

I think age is definitely something that should be considered while electing moderators.
After all, if we elect a nine-year-old moderator, wouldn't it feel wrong to be directing them to inapropriate things by reporting bad posts? Age shouldn't be a way to determine their ability, but they might not really be able handle some of the situations a moderator may have to deal with.

Like I said, I thought that 8-9 would be strange.

Exactly, which is why there should be an age restriction/whatever.

Last edited by rufflebee (2010-09-11 15:37:51)

rufflebee wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

I think age is definitely something that should be considered while electing moderators.
After all, if we elect a nine-year-old moderator, wouldn't it feel wrong to be directing them to inapropriate things by reporting bad posts? Age shouldn't be a way to determine their ability, but they might not really be able handle some of the situations a moderator may have to deal with.

Like I said, I thought that 8-9 would be strange.

Exactly, which is why there should be an age restriction/whatever.

Whenever I saw the post I thought he was going to put it somewhere from 14-15 which would exclude most people, and that age isn't very popular on Scratch.

I guess the age restriction might have been brought on by the spam attacks that happened just after the last election... I'm thirteen and fairly mature, but the first spam attack that I saw really freaked me out. I was really angry that someone would post that on a kids' website, and scared because it kept happening. I know that I wouldn't be comfortable with letting, say, my 11 year old brother deal with things like that - it doesn't seem right to me...    I'd say the age limit should be 12 or 13...

I am not running anymore.

Wolfie1996 wrote:

I guess the age restriction might have been brought on by the spam attacks that happened just after the last election... I'm thirteen and fairly mature, but the first spam attack that I saw really freaked me out. I was really angry that someone would post that on a kids' website, and scared because it kept happening. I know that I wouldn't be comfortable with letting, say, my 11 year old brother deal with things like that - it doesn't seem right to me...    I'd say the age limit should be 12 or 13...

I agree with you - there was some pretty horrific stuff that was posted. And since the moderators are the ones who clean it up, we're generally some of the only people who see it, and we really should be looking at it because it's our responsibility. Also a lot of the discussion that goes on between moderators involves what to censor and we have a lot of discussions only fairly mature people should be having... Also the fate of some particular features of the website are left up for discussion, and it takes a reasonably mature person to understand the pros and cons of keeping or discarding that feature, rather than just saying "This feature needs to be removed... I hate it." Brainstorming alternatives to certain issues in the community, and how to fix it, takes a pretty mature mind, as well. So I'd say a 11- or 12-year-old age limit or something similar ought to be put into effect, if not older than that. Of course, we generally judge you on your maturity level, so an age limit may not be necessary.

Last edited by coolstuff (2010-09-11 16:17:18)

Aidan wrote:

Sunrise-Moon wrote:

Aidan wrote:

I am not running anymore.

Why not? You'd make a pretty good moderator  .

Look at my topic.

'Tis bookmarked.

gettysburg11 wrote:

coolstuff wrote:

Wolfie1996 wrote:

I guess the age restriction might have been brought on by the spam attacks that happened just after the last election... I'm thirteen and fairly mature, but the first spam attack that I saw really freaked me out. I was really angry that someone would post that on a kids' website, and scared because it kept happening. I know that I wouldn't be comfortable with letting, say, my 11 year old brother deal with things like that - it doesn't seem right to me...    I'd say the age limit should be 12 or 13...

I agree with you - there was some pretty horrific stuff that was posted. And since the moderators are the ones who clean it up, we're generally some of the only people who see it, and we really should be looking at it because it's our responsibility. Also a lot of the discussion that goes on between moderators involves what to censor and we have a lot of discussions only fairly mature people should be having... Also the fate of some particular features of the website are left up for discussion, and it takes a reasonably mature person to understand the pros and cons of keeping or discarding that feature, rather than just saying "This feature needs to be removed... I hate it." Brainstorming alternatives to certain issues in the community, and how to fix it, takes a pretty mature mind, as well. So I'd say a 11- or 12-year-old age limit or something similar ought to be put into effect, if not older than that.

That's a pretty good point.

As to the whole age limit/maturity thing, I think it's a one-way street. Usually, you have to be 12+ to have maturity, but just because you're 12+ doesn't mean you automatically have maturity; it's something you have to show you have.

Absolutely - I added something to my previous post oblivious to the fact that this particular one existed. It was that the Scratch Team will decide whether or not you qualify based on your maturity level.

Okay, on the topic of age. I believe age is a pretty useless fact if you are looking at someone's maturity. If people were selected by maturity then the ages would sort themselves out. So, that was my original stance on the topic.

After reading Wolfie's post, however, I took a new outlook on the subject. I am now of a mind that there should be some sort of minimum age (12-13). At this age you have probably been exposed to the worst kind of stuff that could appear on Scratch, and are able to handle it without any sort of "loss of innocence" (I use that phrase for lack of a better one). I now believe there should be a minimum age of 13.

The problem with my thought, however, is how it would affect two of our current moderators (illusionist and Dazachi) who are both younger than 13 (I believe). I'm not sure exactly how this would work, so I'm open to anyone else's ideas on the subject.

I think age isn't much important - more of maturity. In this case, maturity usually somewhat relates to age, with the exception of trolls; so we just want to focus on that.

I'll post my speech when I get to a computer. (30mins)

Alright, I've decided to post a little snippet, just to get my name out there.

As some of you may know, I'm Telemachus. I started Scratch nearly 3 years ago while watching others program, and since then I've developed a great appreciation for the program, the website, and for those that make Scratch possible for all of us. During the time I've been on Scratch, I've gathered marginal acclaim on the forums, helping lost users in All About Scratch, and expressing opinions on a wide variety of topics ranging from programming to particle physics. I have also recently created a few games which have been relatively successful on the main site, which has gotten my name out to many scratch users. Given the volume of this election, I'd like to tell you why I am unique from the others who have applied for this position:

-Personality: I'm constantly upbeat, ready, and focused on tasks ahead. When given a job, I will complete it, and try to maintain the smile no matter how murky the waters may be. 

-Understanding: I've worked a lot over the years with children younger than me, both in volunteer hours and in clubs, and I know how easily an argument can blow up. These experiences have given me valuable mediation skills, and empathy for those who are in need of help. I always try to look at both sides of an argument, no matter how one-sided it may appear.

-Age: Along with years, comes wisdom. I do not doubt for a moment that there are smarter kids who are younger than me on this site, but these children have experienced a different way of life than I have at 15 years of age. What is the point of keeping Scratch a child friendly environment if these children are exposed to unsavory topics while moderating?

-Experience: I've been working with Scratch for a while now, and I have certainly developed a feel for the way it works and operates. I feel qualified to (and in many cases have) given help to new or confused users.

-Intangibles: I have read the TOU numerous times, and have become very aquainted with how the website is run. Because of this, I have never to my knowledge run afoul of the Scratch Team, and have never been given a ban.

Thank you very much for reading, and I hope you will consider me for the position. For now, good luck to all, and Scratch on! 

Last edited by Telemachus (2010-09-11 16:34:07)