Scratch

demosthenes wrote:

Lucario621 wrote:

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.

While I agree age has little to do with maturity, I don't without certain experiences (which, of course, come with age), someone can develop a mental security that can help them to act maturely and responsibly when a rather distressing situation (such as the aforementioned spam attack) occurs. If someone younger and less mature than Wolfie who had never seen such images as were being posted, I believe, things would have gone much worse and gotten out of hand quickly.

Exactly. So you usually need age to have maturity, but just because you have age doesn't mean you have maturity. Can we all agree on that and stop being kinda like a broken record?

I'm the most immature person I know 
However, this topic is for the Mod elections, so I will now proceed to make this on-topic:
Even if a very mature nine-year-old runs, I would still think twice about voting for them, because, seriously, despite their maturity, they shouldn't be exposed to some of the situations a mod may have to (But hopefully won't) face.

iCode-747 wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

I'm the most immature person I know 
However, this topic is for the Mod elections, so I will now proceed to make this on-topic:
Even if a very mature nine-year-old runs, I would still think twice about voting for them, because, seriously, despite their maturity, they shouldn't be exposed to some of the situations a mod may have to (But hopefully won't) face.

This.

... Is why you can't become president when you're 26. 

Does that mean you disagree? 

Last edited by rufflebee (2010-09-11 16:51:53)

Aidan wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

iCode-747 wrote:

This.

... Is why you can't become president when you're 26. 

Does that mean you disagree? 

No, you have to be 35 to be president.

So, it means he agrees?
Lolwut?

Posted a speech. Mostly for me to become a candidate. I'll write a longer one if I'm accepted.

rufflebee wrote:

Aidan wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

Does that mean you disagree? 

No, you have to be 35 to be president.

So, it means he agrees?
Lolwut?

You said:

I'm the most immature person I know   
However, this topic is for the Mod elections, so I will now proceed to make this on-topic:
Even if a very mature nine-year-old runs, I would still think twice about voting for them, because, seriously, despite their maturity, they shouldn't be exposed to some of the situations a mod may have to (But hopefully won't) face.

It's exposure, stress, and unknowing. Read the opening of Executive Orders. 

... By Tom Clancy.

rufflebee wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Yes, I agree that certain ages should not be allowed to be a moderator, due to situations and such that would arise. We don't want anyone to lose their innocence. I think that the age limit should be 11. Partly because that is the current youngest moderator, and partly because most eleven year olds are, mature, and levelheaded by that age.

I say 12.

Could you explain why you think that year makes a large difference in maturity level? Right now you seem like you're just trying to get the last word in.

soupoftomato wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Yes, I agree that certain ages should not be allowed to be a moderator, due to situations and such that would arise. We don't want anyone to lose their innocence. I think that the age limit should be 11. Partly because that is the current youngest moderator, and partly because most eleven year olds are, mature, and levelheaded by that age.

I say 12.

Could you explain why you think that year makes a large difference in maturity level? Right now you seem like you're just trying to get the last word in.

No? Being eleven, I do not believe that someone my age could handle the position, but thats just me. There are probably plenty of people who are eleven that can, and possibly will, be able to handle being a moderator, though. And one year can be a very big difference, but I guess it is pointless for me to argue about it. However, I still say it should be twelve.

rufflebee wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

I say 12.

Could you explain why you think that year makes a large difference in maturity level? Right now you seem like you're just trying to get the last word in.

No? Being eleven, I do not believe that someone my age could handle the position, but thats just me. There are probably plenty of people who are eleven that can, and possibly will, be able to handle being a moderator, though. And one year can be a very big difference, but I guess it is pointless for me to argue about it. However, I still say it should be twelve.

That is the most invalid argument I have ever heard.
You said "There are probably plenty of people who are eleven that can, and possibly will, be able to handle being a moderator, though."
Yet, you still say there should be an age limit of twelve? o_O

Eh, I have changed my mind. There should be no age limit, but the voters should keep in mind the age of the candidates before voting. How about that?

Last edited by rufflebee (2010-09-11 17:39:44)

rufflebee wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Could you explain why you think that year makes a large difference in maturity level? Right now you seem like you're just trying to get the last word in.

No? Being eleven, I do not believe that someone my age could handle the position, but thats just me. There are probably plenty of people who are eleven that can, and possibly will, be able to handle being a moderator, though. And one year can be a very big difference, but I guess it is pointless for me to argue about it. However, I still say it should be twelve.

That is the most invalid argument I have ever heard.
You said "There are probably plenty of people who are eleven that can, and possibly will, be able to handle being a moderator, though."
Yet, you still say there should be an age limit? o_O
Eh, I have changed my mind. There should be no age limit, but the voters should keep in mind the age of the candidates before voting. How about that?

Um, yeah, ruffle, you posted that.     

Anyway, yeah, you should definitely keep in mind their age when voting, but an age limit is a no-go.

Lucario621 wrote:

I personally don't think there should be an age limit, and instead it should just be judged by the personality and scratch experience of the user. People could be too judgmental because of age. And some people are more mature than others at different ages, so it really depends on the person - thus there shouldn't be an exact rule on it.

At first I would agree with you, but after the spam attack my mind has changed I think that, although age matters little, but it is still a decent way to "filter" candidates, and I believe the Scratch team may take age into consideration and if there is a limit, it is a good way to avoid raising hopes of younger members just to dash them when they aren't selected to be in the candidate lists.

Why can't someone argue with themself without being laughed at? D:
My final word on this side-debate:
Age limit: MAAAAYBEEE it should be 7+, or lower. If not, then none at all.

Last edited by rufflebee (2010-09-11 17:46:23)

demosthenes wrote:

Lucario621 wrote:

I personally don't think there should be an age limit, and instead it should just be judged by the personality and scratch experience of the user. People could be too judgmental because of age. And some people are more mature than others at different ages, so it really depends on the person - thus there shouldn't be an exact rule on it.

At first I would agree with you, but after the spam attack my mind has changed I think that, although age matters little, but it is still a decent way to "filter" candidates, and I believe the Scratch team may take age into consideration and if there is a limit, it is a good way to avoid raising hopes of younger members just to dash them when they aren't selected to be in the candidate lists.

I don't really think so. Although the Scratch Team should take it in consideration, they shouldn't focus on it, and put a limit on it. You guys are over-reacting to these situations.

Besides, it's kind of mean disallow certain users to participate in certain activities just because of their age, especially in a place like the Scratch community.