Scratch

helltank wrote:

I understand the Scratch Team's POV, but look at ours. Imagine, cheddargirl, that you weren't a mod, just a caring and helpful user. Suddenly, you spot something. OMG! It's the moderator elections! You put in hours into making your speech. You're so passionate that you receive general approval and are a favorite to winning the elections. Then pretend you're only 11, and the Scratch Team slams this down. Now multiply that frustration by 10, and you will see why there's so much protest and flame wars.

Yes, understandably that the decision makes many people upset, and I'd be extremely upset too if I were in the same situation.

Believe me, the decision made by the Scratch Team wasn't done so lightly; it was a long time that they were discussing this (to my understanding, since this summer), it was only recently that the decision was finalized.

The Scratch Team really does not feel comfortable with younger users taking the position on, even if they [the candidates] sincerely feel that they are capable of doing so - this sentiment is also echoed by many people who are uncomfortable with younger users seeing certain content over the internet (as I've stated before in my previous comments earlier). 

While it is unfortunate that the decision was recent and that it does eliminate many potential candidates who were hopeful, the Scratch Team does feel that the rule will eventually help out in the long run, both for the moderating staff and the Scratch community. 

gettysburg11 wrote:

Oy, this has caused the debate that I thought it would. I mean, I see where the Scratch team is coming from, but I think there are plenty of mature people on this website who are under the age of 14. I see the posts that say they don't want to make someone under 13 take on the commitment of being a mod, but then you just keep the parental consent part. Also, the Scratch team would have the final say in the candidates, so if they think someone isn't mature enough or would be stretching themselves too thin, then they just don't put them on the candidate list.
I think making a cutoff of 14 would cut way too much of the candidate list.

This might just be my disappointment at not being able to run talking, but after all the thinking about this election I've done, I'm annoyed that it's going to go to waste for 11 months until I turn 14. I thought I'd been a helpful contributor here and at least deserved a shot at being a mod, which was one of my dreams on here, but now I can't. I don't know, the whole thing makes me kinda angry, but this is getting ranty by now.
Sorry if this seems disrespectful, this is just the way I feel right now.

Sad face.
Good argument though.
-12three-

Sperry wrote:

I think that this rule maybe this rule could be un-fair, but I tink that epople are over reacting. People need to get over this and move on to more important thngs, like actually deciding who you think is going to be the best moderator, instead of trying to complain for your own personla gain. You need to be aware that other people WILL do a good job I'm sure.

So lets discuss the actual people who are running, and decide who the community thinks would be good.

Scratch On! 
Sperry

I like your attitude. In fact, I think you could make a great mod!

Last edited by helltank (2010-09-30 06:43:11)

I see this as a very biased 2 sided argument
People who were running and under 14 are biased against having the rule abolished, and people who are running and over 14 are biased against it staying, because it means less competition

helltank wrote:

Okay, I'll trust the Scratch Team because it's been so awesome over the past few years.

(See, being trusted DOES have a use, for example when you make controversial rules near election time)

Thank you. And we agree, trust is important.

Wow, now this is causing more trouble than I thought it would. It's been set down as rock-solid and it won't change, so we all have to accept it and wait our turn until we're old enough.
Being under 14, I want to rant on this even more, but Blade is 100% right; this arguement is biased both ways. Each of us should probably put ourselves into the other category's shoes and then think about it.
But to wrap this up, it's not changing, so we all just have to live with it.

To be honest, I was also thinking of running this autumn/fall as a moderator, but did not prepare in advance just in case. And I was right not to get too excited 

I'm currently 13 and will be elegible next fall. I perfectly understand what coolstuff means by 'when you're 13, you think you know everything, but there's still more to it' (although i do not know what there is to it    ) because it's been the same a couple years ago elementary to middle school (yes, i did skip a grade if any of you observative people noticed).

People are over-reacting in this thread because they obviously forgot or never learnt a simple rule I understood by personal experience: If something makes you angry on a blog or forum (anything written in general), take a deep breath before replying and calm down. Confront your anger and reflect on whether it is really necessary to reply in the bad mood you're in. You will see that there is a reason to everything a sensible person does -- and i definitely consider the Scratch Team one. Remember: words hurt. In fact, i'll quote the buddah.

"Words have the power to both destruct and heal. When words are both true and kind, they can change our world".
And written words stay -- their demoralising effect stays longer than when these are spoken.

If you read all of that, congratulations. I read all 6 pages of this thread before replying and honestly got bored by the end of it.

Oh, one more little thing: I agree with the fact that many 'unofficial' candidates were over-excited and not conscious of the workload moderating gives -- i'm familiar with the PunBB forum moderating facility and I can assure you it is not to be taken lightly.

Scratch on,
LS97

Just out of curiosity, why 14? I'm not trying to be rude or anything, just asking.
I'm not even sure there are eight people running who ARE 14.
-12three-

did anyone read my suggestion? 

12three wrote:

Just out of curiosity, why 14? I'm not trying to be rude or anything, just asking.
I'm not even sure there are eight people running who ARE 14.
-12three-

There doesn't need to be 8 people. Since we're only electing 2 people this time, there really doesn't need to be any more than 4 or 5.

14 is a great age for the cut-off. IMO, it's the only reasonable way.

antimonyarsenide wrote:

Only 2? 

I thought Lanie, illusionist, and Dazachi were all retiring 

So, eligible people=me, Telemachus, steppenwulf, and... who else?

Lanie is already retired.
-12three-

TheSaint wrote:

antimonyarsenide wrote:

Only 2? 

I thought Lanie, illusionist, and Dazachi were all retiring 

So, eligible people=me, Telemachus, steppenwulf, and... who else?

Myself and demosthenes

Oh...

I don't know if I have a chance 

Blade-Edge wrote:

I see this as a very biased 2 sided argument
People who were running and under 14 are biased against having the rule abolished, and people who are running and over 14 are biased against it staying, because it means less competition

*stamps with the word "Pwnage"*