rufflebee wrote:
scratch_yoshi wrote:
I can handle modding, and I'm only 10!
You think you handle modding, that is. You can't really just assume that you can.
ok then...
Offline
This Just In...
...to my understanding...
The limit was placed in order to protect younger members from some 'horrors' of the moderating experience.
If you remember the troll attacks, you now know why the rule is VERY fair.
Offline
Unfair. I thought it was a question of maturity and not age.
Offline
Musicstar888 wrote:
Unfair. I thought it was a question of maturity and not age.
The Scratch Team is aware that there are mature users under the age of 14. What they are not comfortable with is those under the age of 14 being exposed to some of the issues that moderators have to deal with, regardless on whether or not the underage user feels that he/she could handle them (please see the thread in announcements for more info).

Offline
DavidTy wrote:
What is the 14 year limit?
The Scratch Team implemented a new rule requiring those running for moderator to be at least 14 years of age and have permission from parents to take on the role of moderator (see here).

Offline
recycle49 wrote:
rufflebee wrote:
scratch_yoshi wrote:
I can handle modding, and I'm only 10!
You think you handle modding, that is. You can't really just assume that you can.
ok then...
Yeah, being a mod requires a lot of hard work and commitment. It's definitely a job for older scratchers. Next year, I'll be able to run for community moderator! Right now, I'm 13, and I'm excited to run for mod next year!
Offline
illusionist wrote:
The limit was placed in order to protect younger members from some 'horrors' of the moderating experience.
If you remember the troll attacks, you now know why the rule is VERY fair.
If you don't mind me asking, what was it like? ^^ Inappropriate posts every five minutes?
Offline
Chrischb wrote:
illusionist wrote:
The limit was placed in order to protect younger members from some 'horrors' of the moderating experience.
If you remember the troll attacks, you now know why the rule is VERY fair.
If you don't mind me asking, what was it like? ^^ Inappropriate posts every five minutes?
Probably.
It's not really work for fairy people...
Offline
Links to unquittable shock sites disguised as links to other things such as clubs or fanpages or videos or something
A few gifs that kids should never even be in the same roof with
Let's see, what else
Ascii art after the images got blocked
There was also some other things that I wasn't here for
Offline
I think the new rule is completely reasonable.
Offline
My internet connection has been dead. I'm back now. Illusionist and I are roughly the same age. Vote here too: http://suggest.scratch.mit.edu/forums/6 … ear-limit-
LOWER IT TO 13!!!
Offline
kimmy123 wrote:
juststickman wrote:
LOWER IT TO 13!!!
13 and a half!
13!
Offline
kimmy123 wrote:
juststickman wrote:
kimmy123 wrote:
13 and a half!13!
13 and a half!
You guys, arguing about the age limit like that isn't going to get it lowered. Even if it was, you guys aren't looking very mature right now
Offline
steppenwulf wrote:
kimmy123 wrote:
juststickman wrote:
13!13 and a half!
You guys, arguing about the age limit like that isn't going to get it lowered. Even if it was, you guys aren't looking very mature right now
![]()
Juststickman not 13.
Offline
Survivorduck wrote:
I think the new rule is completely reasonable.
![]()
This.
Offline
scratch_yoshi wrote:
Survivorduck wrote:
I think the new rule is completely reasonable.
![]()
This.
This.
Offline
kimmy123 wrote:
Chrischb wrote:
scratch_yoshi wrote:
This.
This.
This.
You don't this a this, or this a "this; this"
But, I agree anyway, Ducky. Reasonable is a good word to describe it.
Last edited by rufflebee (2010-10-01 18:51:57)

Offline
In my opinion it's perfectly fair. Sure, there will always be special cases of 12-year-olds being super mature and 15-year-olds being idiots...but in the general case (which is what the Scratch Team is probably trying to address here), the 15-year-old is usually more mature (and therefore more capable of a mod position) than the 11-year-old. The relentless rage and outcry over the new rule just serves to hammer in my point.
Not to mention the spam/troll attacks everyone pointed out. An 11-year-old being exposed to certain nasty sites (for lack of a better description) is much more shocking to them than a 15-year-old; I know it was for me!
The limit's more convenient for the Scratch Team anyway since now they don't have to filter through endless "can i be the mod TOMORROW, I Wanna Be The Mod" topics and have a much smaller pool for their initial top 8 (?). Most likely it'll mean a better pool of candidates in the end, with more thought put into the nomination process.
Last edited by S65 (2010-10-01 19:07:11)
Offline
rufflebee wrote:
kimmy123 wrote:
Chrischb wrote:
This.This.
![]()
You don't this a this, or this a "this; this"
But, I agree anyway, Ducky. Reasonable is a good word to describe it.
You broke the chain!
Offline