POLL: Age Limit or not?

Eraserhead wrote: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.

Its also a good way of getting rid of possible great people.

Make a voting time limit. Good.

Make Nay votes. Good.

That should take care of any problems you have. Instead of blocking off a group of people because of something that could POSSIBLY be associated with immaturity and then having a voting system that works to filter out the immaturity, just have the voting system that covers everything.

Adding an age limit is like taking the easy way out and not having it is like eating pufferfish (Google it). You could get poisoned, but if you take your time and do this right, you will have exactly what you want and people will be grateful. Prejudice of age is limited and closed minded. We are all anonymous on the internet until we decide not to be. Age is Irrelevant. Actions are all that matter.

So instead of measuring someone by their age and making them go through a much longer process than those who are older than they are, measure their actions. Are more immature? Yes. But if in a group of 100 people, there is one that is mature enough to join, you should grant them that chance equal to everyone else.

The core of my argument I suppose goes to this.

Have a vote system or have an age limit. Not both.

But if in a group of 100 people, there is one that is mature enough to join, you should grant them that chance equal to everyone else.

I have to disagree with this, it would not be efficient to have lots of applicants of which 90% gets turned down and 10% is voted in. It takes time to put people in the right forum groups, respond to topics, do duels, etc. I agree with you in theory but the age limit is just practical. Actions and age are related, it cannot be seen separate.

Eraserhead wrote:I have to disagree with this, it would not be efficient to have lots of applicants of which 90% gets turned down and 10% is voted in. It takes time to put people in the right forum groups, respond to topics, do duels, etc. I agree with you in theory but the age limit is just practical. Actions and age are related, it cannot be seen separate.

I was 13 when I started my first clan. Game was Freelancer. They were the Last Templar. I never told my age and I had a 50 person clan.

as for 'its not efficient' Thats what teh system is for. if your going to only allow the people you want in to apply, then why have the voting system?

Its there for you to vote of the large number of applicants. Does not take long to say yes or no. I could do about 100 pplz apps in about 10 minutes I would bet.

The voting system is there to be used. Also, to put people in the right forum group takes about 10 seconds to get into the admin panel and about 2 seconds to put them in. Duels are a 'when applicable' thing. They can apply for a duel and you can tell them a time that is good for YOU, say 2 weeks away. if while they are waiting they make the proper KD, there is no need and you can give that duel time to someone else.

As I said I ran my first successful clan at age 13. Your talking 16 here. That clan is STILL AROUND TODAY. I ran it for 3 years and then left and joined IKtR here on steam. Never once did anyone call me to be immature.

I know MANY more people above 16 that are immature that get away with it merely BECAUSE they are over 16.

If its above 16 is trolling and if its under its immaturity. My friend PokemonMaster101 is 14 I believe. One of my closest confidents.

I have anotehr friend who is 14 years old and just graduated college.

I have friends under 16 that could school alot of the Pulp players and they play professionally.

I know there are people under 16 that are immature. But I also know the ones above are not much better AT ALL.

To be honest, from what I have read here, this age limit could almost be called Imperialism. We aren't superior cuz were 16 or up. That is shallow as hell if you think your superior cuz your older.

being forced to tell your age is unfair because if your a certain age you WILL be prejudged immediately. No matter the age. We all have stereotypes and I do my damnedest to look past them.

Your 'efficiency' sounds more like 'I dont wanna'

Dont go there.

No one is saying >16 are better per sé. If you would have been 13 right now and applied you would still have been voted in. So we are not excluding people <16. I will let someone else reply now otherwise this topic will become a dicsussion between you and me only.

i say abolish the rule, i think the members can decide if they are mature or not when they vote. And if we vote immature members in, that would make us immature too

I think folks are looking at this topic the wrong way. In the past we have said NOONE under 16 can join. This whole topic has been a compromise between the folks that believe that players <16 are annoying and those that feel we should give them a chance. As always we try to make things as comfortable and enjoyable for all CURRENT members in our clan. In some cases this means compromises such as the one recommended by Eraserhead above.

As for that recommendation I like it. It allows us to include some of the younger members and give them a chance to prove (like you are mentioning above) that they can be just as mature if not more in some cases than older players in the clan or in the TF2 community as a whole.

If you look at the differences between the age recommendations we are simply stating that if you are less than 16 years of age we want to see you on the server more. This makes the voting system that more accurate for sniffing out the maturity if they are here more. It also is once again a compromise. The folks that think <16 is annoying will have more of a chance to play with them and perhaps grow to like them.

Our members themselves are split on the topic and we can't simply say grrr we're admins you do it our way or no way. So we've come up with the compromise as a result of this topic.

The way I see it, there's only two things people should need: they have to not suck (150+ rank/1:1 K-D ratio), and their maturity has to be roughly on-par with the rest of the clan.

Chuck wrote:i say abolish the rule, i think the members can decide if they are mature or not when they vote. And if we vote immature members in, that would make us immature too

This.

Kinseth wrote:

Its there for you to vote of the large number of applicants. Does not take long to say yes or no. I could do about 100 pplz apps in about 10 minutes I would bet.

Your 'efficiency' sounds more like 'I dont wanna'

Dont go there.

Just read this topic and tell me if you want to do this in 99 of a 100 times: http://forum.pulpfortress.com/become-a-member-f7/application-vlad-voting-starts-tba-t420-150.htm#13598

Anyway if no one has any further comments on this topic maybe we should do a poll about age limit again? I have not heard any further objections with the detailed approval process as presented.

hey wait that was only me. just because one person does something doesnt mean everyone else is.

nope, it's just an example. What i'm trying to illustrate is that people of a different maturity level just have a different way of looking at life. Different topics, different views, different humor, etc. When you see multiple posts of people trying to explain how to respond to situations then i applaud the helpfulness of those people but on the other hand this is a club to have fun with each other and not a school to teach children the ways of life.

Of course there are different degrees and everyone is unique blah blah but sadly your example Vlad illustrates just why we need an age limit and/or maturity filter.

I have to agree with the age filter. I do increasingly notice that there are two sections of posters on the board: over and under 16, with only a few exceptions. A lot of times, younger ones don't get references, they say silly things, etc. It kind of creates a split.

Eraserhead wrote: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 incorporated suggestions by jameless and changed this topic into a poll. Please read this entire thread if you want to vote. You have the option to revote if you want.

Did not realize there was a poll just voted

Keeping age limit is winning

Why did only 15 people vote while we have over 30 clan members?

Not everyone looks through every new post. Just spam everyone some messages and we'll hopefully get an answer.

I made it into a global announcement so it shows up in each forum. What more do people want. I don't have time to spam people. They should just visit the forums or miss out on important changes.

18 votes now out of 40 members: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/pulp-elite

This is not enough in my opinion. Can everyone that voted reply here so we know who didn't vote?

people who voted:

1.Eraser
2.Chuck
3.Greezy
4.Gibbo
5.Google
6.Hyce
7.Jameless
8.Nico
9.Torchic

Refrained from voting:

1.Adam

I did

Yep i voted

i voted

I did .

I voted

me

Nicobbq