Scratch

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.

Thank you,  I must say though this:

The age of the scratcher shouldn't judge if they should be a mod.  If you feel you are not mature enough to be a mod, then that's totally your choice.  But someone of the age of 9 is actually possible to be more mature than a 11 year old.  IT's all how the person was taught as they grow up.  IF someone was allowed to do whatever they like, compare it to someone who had strict rules.  Who is going to be more mature?  So anyone should be allowed to run, and it shouldn't be judged by age but by maturity.

soupoftomato wrote:

Anyway, I challenge anyone who wants to be a mod, to do this:

I will consider a high rank in my vote for anyone that can remain a positive, helpful, respectful member until the end of the elections.

Ok, you can count me 

soupoftomato wrote:

Anyway, I challenge anyone who wants to be a mod, to do this:

I will consider a high rank in my vote for anyone that can remain a positive, helpful, respectful member until the end of the elections.

I respect what you are saying and as such if i become a mod i will remain a positive, helpful member for all the time i use scratch!

Lucario621 wrote:

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.

I agree with you in some ways and I wish it could be as you say. But it is difficult to have moderators that young. I have no doubt they could have no problem (and would probably do excellent) moderating day to day activity in the Forums. But what happens when spam bots fill the Forums with pornographic material? Isn't that the kind of thing that we hope to protect people as young as 11 from? It is hard when those whose job is to keep the community safe are endangered because of their role as protector.

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. Of course, we generally judge you on your maturity level, so an age limit may not be necessary.

Cool, 2 mod's posted.  Well, I am 13 and want to be a mod.  To keep some of the bad things away from Young children anyway but that doesn't mean that 9+ shouldn't be allowed to run if they want.

gettysburg11 wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Anyway, I challenge anyone who wants to be a mod, to do this:

I will consider a high rank in my vote for anyone that can remain a positive, helpful, respectful member until the end of the elections.

I see no reason NOT to keep being helpful, if not being even more helpful than usual. After the first candidates were chosen, Lightnin said that you could still be selected in another election and to stay helpful. Thus, this is more of a "What have you done lately?" election more than what you did before the first election.
I know I'll stay helpful and positive as I was before this whole thing started.

You're definitely right gettysburg11. 

gettysburg11 wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Anyway, I challenge anyone who wants to be a mod, to do this:

I will consider a high rank in my vote for anyone that can remain a positive, helpful, respectful member until the end of the elections.

I see no reason NOT to keep being helpful, if not being even more helpful than usual. After the first candidates were chosen, Lightnin said that you could still be selected in another election and to stay helpful. Thus, this is more of a "What have you done lately?" election more than what you did before the first election.
I know I'll stay helpful and positive as I was before this whole thing started.

At first I thought I understood this, then my brain melted to mush the further I read.

"I see no reason NOT to keep being helpful, if not being even more helpful than usual."
This "challenge" was mainly at people I do not know very well on Scratch.

"After the first candidates were chosen, Lightnin said that you could still be selected in another election and to stay helpful."
What if they weren't helpful before? This isn't about the previous 4 candidates who weren't chose.

"Thus, this is more of a "What have you done lately?" election more than what you did before the first election."
I never said anything about the first election or actions before it. I just want to see if the person can stay levelheaded. Remember, this is my personal way of deciding if a person would make a good mod, and I am not trying to tell the Scratch Team to use the results of this.

"I know I'll stay helpful and positive as I was before this whole thing started."
You've ALWAYS been helpful and positive, and I have no doubt you would be a good moderator if you were to win.

soupoftomato wrote:

gettysburg11 wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Anyway, I challenge anyone who wants to be a mod, to do this:

I will consider a high rank in my vote for anyone that can remain a positive, helpful, respectful member until the end of the elections.

I see no reason NOT to keep being helpful, if not being even more helpful than usual. After the first candidates were chosen, Lightnin said that you could still be selected in another election and to stay helpful. Thus, this is more of a "What have you done lately?" election more than what you did before the first election.
I know I'll stay helpful and positive as I was before this whole thing started.

At first I thought I understood this, then my brain melted to mush the further I read.

"I see no reason NOT to keep being helpful, if not being even more helpful than usual."
This "challenge" was mainly at people I do not know very well on Scratch.

Oh, OK. I understand a bit more now.

soupoftomato wrote:

"After the first candidates were chosen, Lightnin said that you could still be selected in another election and to stay helpful."
What if they weren't helpful before? This isn't about the previous 4 candidates who weren't chose

Lightnin said that to those who weren't even chosen to even be candidates in the 1st election. And it is true that you might have been a troll before, but could act nice for 4 months to become a mod.

I explained part of what I meant above. I'll finish the rest now.

By it being more of a "What have you done lately election?", I believe it was Andresmh who after the 1st election said that the candidate choices for the next election would be based more off of what you'd done in the months since the last election, moreso than what you did before that election.
Does that make sense? Because if not, I'll try to explain it more.

soupoftomato wrote:

Okay I call off the so-called "challenge" (which is a terribly unfitting name) but the main point of it was, keep your image up.

And I was essentially saying the same thing (or at least in my mind I was), because if you do something really stupid now, you might all but destroy your chances.

12three wrote:

It will definetly be interesting to see who runs, but I'm hoping that more unknown people get picked. Not famous people.
-12three-

Fame is all in your head. It's a myth, in my mind.

rufflebee wrote:

12three wrote:

It will definetly be interesting to see who runs, but I'm hoping that more unknown people get picked. Not famous people.
-12three-

Fame is all in your head. It's a myth, in my mind.

Maybe... But fame sometimes isn't an illusion. If you're famous, and everybody knows who you are, then... 

rufflebee wrote:

iCode-747 wrote:

rufflebee wrote:

Fame is all in your head. It's a myth, in my mind.

Maybe... But fame sometimes isn't an illusion. If you're famous, and everybody knows who you are, then... 

Everybody?
So, to be famous, everyone must know who you are. Everyone. Therefore, fame is all in your head.
(Oh, rufflebee, you make no sense at all.)

Not everybody...

Fame is not all in your head. If you are fam... You know what? Never mind.