POLL: Age Limit or not?

I was an admin in m3 when I was pretty young. I think that shows that maturity is the major thing for younger users. Also, I do think a few things need to be gone over with like Eraser had mentioned.

http://lilpoison.com/
Read your arguments are invalid

That lil kid only plays Xbox, this is a PC community and PC has a larger wide variety of gamers and are not limited to the console it self. Also my experience with Xbox is gamers who are immature people because they can get away with anything in them since there's really no custom rules set in the console it self by the admins.

If you really want to make a foolproof system for applicants that are joining the clan, have a chat amongst the admins themselves every applicants that applies in the admin forum. Ask questions to your self about the individual base on your own experience, give negative first then the positive. Think about what can the individual bring to the clan and how much of an effect it would bring to the clan if he were to receive your amazing special cool badass crappy stupid admin stamp.
The Member stamp seems like a waste of a system since you already have 30+ members and you can easily gain +3 stamps from them no matter what. So it boils down to admins who are really the important ones when voting comes.

Interesting point from Vital. Maybe only admins should vote? I would say only level2 admins and up in that case. I see a risk with that and that is the level2+ admins are few and might not have a solid impression of an applicant, even after a month.

Panda, the arguments you make are more about skill then maturity. In fact, i believe that the most skilled players are the very young ones. They may very well perform with excellent KD ratios. But they will not be able to act on the same level as mature people when it comes to communication in the forums of chatting, voicechat, forums, working like a team during scrims, etc.

The picture Greezy describes is the end-goal we want to achieve at the end of this thread, i think everyone will agree with that.

This discussion about making exceptions for younger applicants has now turned in a discussion about the complete applicant approval system.

I think we should still keep the 16+ agelimit, otherwise we get too many young applicants and too much hassle. The young uns we do give a chance should be a minority group.

So far we agree on these changes:

-countervotes
-longer trial and harder requirements for underage applicants

The only question now remaining is who can vote and who cannot vote?
This is our current group of admins: http://forum.pulpfortress.com/groupcp.forum?g=3

Maybe the voters can be based on seniority. Whoever has been in the clan for _____ months can vote.

Careful consideration and keeping your 16+ rule is your wisest choice. It's very easy to act mature--only age and experience makes its integrity watertight.

From the professional-gaming perspective, you certainly want to keep 16+ around as a solid rule. Not only is it important to be mature competitively, but you'll have more reliable scheduling for scrims and matches from people whose playtime isn't dictated by parents.

The Mad Hatter wrote:Not only is it important to be mature competitively, but you'll have more reliable scheduling for scrims and matches from people whose playtime isn't dictated by parents.

+1

As a fact, from my experience, playtime isn't really dictated by my parents.

Google wrote:As a fact, from my experience, playtime isn't really dictated by my parents.

just keep younger kids out of the scrims? untill they can prove themselves?

The Mad Hatter wrote:Careful consideration and keeping your 16+ rule is your wisest choice. It's very easy to act mature--only age and experience makes its integrity watertight.

Is there an important difference between constantly feigning maturity and being mature? They wouldn't pass unless they could consistently maintain a facade of maturity... but even if it is merely a facade, where is the major difference?

Lord Zurkov wrote:

The Mad Hatter wrote:Careful consideration and keeping your 16+ rule is your wisest choice. It's very easy to act mature--only age and experience makes its integrity watertight.

Is there an important difference between constantly feigning maturity and being mature? They wouldn't pass unless they could consistently maintain a facade of maturity... but even if it is merely a facade, where is the major difference?

Well it's not really possible to constantly fake maturity. Sure, someone might be very convincing, but their true nature would eventually shine through. It's hard to keep a ruse up an extended period of time like that.

Uh, hi guys. It's the internet. Of course it's easy to keep up the charade. Hell, someone trying to join your clan should have the intelligence to shut up and play nice until they get in. It's just the same as a job interview--we all fake those too by putting on a good show.

I haven't been around that long but I know a few names who subscribe to the above in Pulp. Or were in Pulp, I should say.

Well, we have had 3 pages of ideas and back argument, can we come up with a good decision for a new rule?

Eraserhead wrote:Interesting point from Vital. Maybe only admins should vote? I would say only level2 admins and up in that case. I see a risk with that and that is the level2+ admins are few and might not have a solid impression of an applicant, even after a month.


This discussion about making exceptions for younger applicants has now turned in a discussion about the complete applicant approval system.

I think we should still keep the 16+ agelimit, otherwise we get too many young applicants and too much hassle. The young uns we do give a chance should be a minority group.

So far we agree on these changes:

-countervotes
-longer trial and harder requirements for underage applicants

The only question now remaining is who can vote and who cannot vote?
This is our current group of admins: http://forum.pulpfortress.com/groupcp.forum?g=3

If we think up an improved voting system we can make above changes final by filling in the details.

Most people using a computer are mature, like previously said about xBox's. If you have XBox live, play mw2 or halo 3 for as much as you play tf2 a day. See what you rather play. On Halo 3, this little kid cried his eyes out because he thought I was hacking, but on TF2 the most that happens on other servers is a votekick, or a ragequit.

Recent postings by Vlad reminded me to finish this discussion with a proposal. What about this system:

Applicants of <16:

-Two months trial period
-Applicant can only apply until his playtime is +24 hrs
-During the trialperiod the applicant should get another 24 hrs of gameplay so before the trialperiod ends it will be a total of 48 hrs of gameplay
-We will not accept more then 2 <16 applicants per month
-KD ratio of 1.0 (except medic) and with 0.8 a duel is needed at the end of the trialperiod
-Any accepted applicant <16 will be considered a probationary member until their 16th birthday. This means if they show themselves to be immature their membership may be revoked. In all other considerations they will be treated like a regular member.

Applicants of>16:

-One month trial period
-Applicant can apply and then has one month to accomplish 24 hrs of playtime
-Unless the applicant has good excuse if 24hrs playtime is not achieved within 3 months the applicant will be refused (to prevent never ending applications)
-KD ratio of 1.0 (except medic) and with 0.8 a duel is needed

For people to get through the trial period they need to be voted in (procedure is the same for people of either >16 and <16):

-An applicant needs 3 member YAY votes and 3 admin YAY votes
-If a level3 admin votes NAY the applicant will be refused
-If two level2 admins vote NAY the applicant will be refused
-If three members or level1 admins combined vote NAY the applicant will be refused
-Once voting has started the applicant has 10 days to get the needed votes or will be refused. The voting period will ALWAYS take 10 days, no more, no less. This is to give possible Nay voters the chance to do so.

With these changes we accomplish:
-We have rules about exceptions for kids of <16
-The system prevents never ending applications
-Senior and acting admins have more voting power
-Limited flow of <16 applicants, <16 applicants should be exceptions
-System prevents applicants being voted in through favoritism; NAY votes
-We have removed the rank requirement and replaced it by experience hours. This will require less changes in the future (when amounts of points in the top150 will get higher we don't have to change the rank requirement)

I love these changes!

The only addendum I would like to add would be a probationary period. I would quote it like so:

-Any accepted applicant <16 will be considered a probationary member until their 16th birthday. This means if they show themselves to be immature their membership may be revoked. In all other considerations they will be treated like a regular member.

jameless wrote:I love these changes!

The only addendum I would like to add would be a probationary period. I would quote it like so:

-Any accepted applicant <16 will be considered a probationary member until their 16th birthday. This means if they show themselves to be immature their membership may be revoked. In all other considerations they will be treated like a regular member.

me like

I agree with all of the above.

Oh one change I would make though. Instead of just saying that an applicant has 10 days to get the votes, we should say voting will be over a period of 10 days. This way an admin has a chance to put in a Nay vote if they feel it necessary.

For example if an admin is at work or doesn't see the forum for a day and a half and that was all it took for the 3 admin and 3 member votes then that late admin may have missed his chance. So if we make it a firm 10 days then all admins will have a valid chance to vote Nay if they wish.

Good one, lets do that. So then the trial period will be 1 month + 10 days.

We are going to need more buttons....

Lets wait if there is anyone who has anything to add and then we can make some stamps.

Because of how close pulpers(members) and pulpets(server players) are, you already have a system up. you have to vote for the people you want in. If the person is immature, that vote system wont let them in. What you have in the age limit rule is redundancy.

Thats all I really have to say. Abolish the rule and trust in the application vote to do what it was designed to do.

Adding more after reading more:

The Mad Hatter wrote:From the professional-gaming perspective, you certainly want to keep 16+ around as a solid rule. Not only is it important to be mature competitively, but you'll have more reliable scheduling for scrims and matches from people whose playtime isn't dictated by parents.

If your parents are letting you play as irresponsible a game as tf2... I dont think they much care when your online.

jameless wrote:-Any accepted applicant <16 will be considered a probationary member until their 16th birthday. This means if they show themselves to be immature their membership may be revoked. In all other considerations they will be treated like a regular member.

Good in idea but hard to execute.

Most of us want to stick to the age limit because it's just an efficient means of filtering out possible immature players. With this new system there is still a way for them to get in, but not in an easy way. The current system has flaws where there is no rule about how long voting may take and there are no nay votes. An immature player can try to get votes from players who are less critical and get in easily.