Jump to content
Treshure

[GM] The case against Child GMs

Recommended Posts

Now, there isn’t going to be one sentence that opens this post up perfectly. I believe that allowing underage children (and to an extent, teeangers) to acquire GM is a very risky move that yields no significant benefit of its own. Furthermore, allowing these child game moderators to move up the bureaucratic ladder not only displays their flaws more, it allows those above them to become more manipulative and controlling. While I do hold greviance with some of the current GM team for gross incompetence, this post more so serves to suggest a precedent for the future. 

 

I believe it is common knowledge now that children’s brains do not stop developing until they are well past their teenage years, into adulthood. This is especially true for the rational part of the brain. I’ll cite a few sources down below if you don’t believe me.

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20110923/Human-brain-development-does-not-stop-at-adolescence-Research.aspx

 

Here is one alarming quote found in the first article: “In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not necessarily at the same rate“. This seems to confirm the emotional bias assigned to adolescents. This is VERY concerning especially to GMs, who are often confronted between favoring friend circles or punishing personal enemies. Although you can try and hit me with the “peer reviewed, asking other GMs for assistance” deal, a gradual lowering of standards over the years has seen to that point being made moot. 

 

Now, I’m no stranger to this bias. I became a GM in middle school around the age of fourteen. What I did is extremely reminiscent of what others now do. I put on a false facade of professionalism and maturity to seem older than I really was, all the while squirming with bias and immaturity far beneath the layers you don yourself in. I understand there may be exceptions, some genuinely skilled GMs who are underage. However, this should not be made the status quo. You don’t let little kids into college because some of them are qualified savants. I made this post specifically for GM team leads, but decided that the Indians should still be held to the standards of chiefs. 

 

Recent trial picks, ban report decisions, region decisions, and raid decisions (from what I’ve seen in both personal experience and through others) lends me the perspective that our current leadership is extremely flawed. And because it is a thankless job with no incentive to stay or improve, the team will continue to accrue not worthy individuals but the increasingly lower rungs of the community who value notoriety and relevance above all. That is another post though. This is just one issue out of MANY that I feel needs a spotlight.

 

We once praised Availer for treating the server like a business. He would spit on LotC’s name if he discovered the higher echelons of the staff team are filled by children with underdeveloped brains, easily manipulated by the Admins above and beholden to no true stance of their own.

Thank you for reading.

Edited by Treshure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a minecraft server, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rep Farm!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gargled said:

This is a minecraft server, in my opinion.

 

"haha it's mineman people don't put time or effort into it it's just a silly roblox game lol"

 

"it's not a very large online roleplaying community it's just a silly game that 12 year olds play haha i don't even play this game why am i posting"

Edited by simp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who on the team is under the age of sixteen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sky said:

Who on the team is under the age of sixteen?

 

While I do hold greviance with some of the current GM team for gross incompetence, this post more so serves to suggest a precedent for the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Treshure said:

 

While I do hold greviance with some of the current GM team for gross incompetence, this post more so serves to suggest a precedent for the future. 

 

Fourteen plus is the requirement currently, I'd say sixteen plus should be the more accurate requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admins manipulating children GMs is an issue in and of itself too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

Fourteen plus is the requirement currently, I'd say sixteen plus should be the more accurate requirement.

 

Should be 18 and up, while that may sound like too much it's safe to say that adults should be managing the server and not children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, drfate786 said:

 

Should be 18 and up, while that may sound like too much it's safe to say that adults should be managing the server and not children.

 

If we are talking about this because of how the brain works and such, then twenty-three would be the accurate number, but either way I agree with sixteen or eighteen plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

If we are talking about this because of how the brain works and such, then twenty-three would be the accurate number, but either way I agree with sixteen or eighteen plus.

 

The only reason we can't have 23 and up be the requirement though is due to the complete lack of 23 year olds on the server. How many people here are actually over the age of 23? I know Narthok likely is but his GM application was denied and then he got banned. :L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By 16 I was the leader of my choir, theater and student council while working a part-time job. I joined the server at 17 and had I had more experience At that point I would have been fine as GM. Better than now even. I don’t think it is accurate to categorize anyone under 18 as incapable of holding the position. 16+ sure, but by 18 you are accepting GMs whose lives are about to change. Many members find that they don’t have time for LoTC after that. 

 

So I can agree with what is being said here but 16 should be the age requirement, not 18.

 

(also I turned 23.... sigh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I understand this is a cause for concern, ability should always come before age. There should definitely be greater levels of evaluation for younger GMs to prove they can act independently and maturely, but at the end of the day, if they're good at the job I have no problem with someone who isn't an adult being a moderator. I think younger GMs have the potential to bring in more perspective and in some sense creativity. However, I do agree there should be a higher age limit, 16 years old would be good enough in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been small steps over time to address this issue with one of the biggest being anonymous staff reports. Though I feel your point misses the mark with the current team. To my knowledge, there are only like two GM's that are under 16 with the majority being out of high school and 18+. I see the two points you are making, but do not see how they line up exactly.

 

p.s. im not 12 i swearz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes i think we should mandate an IQ test for every gm...

 

no this is dumb and unnecessary. to say that people who are younger could on average be less fit for the role of gm is fine, but to suggest that means an outright ban is stupid. you judge each person as a whole not how old they are-- there've been definitely 'bad' GMs that were in their 20s, and 'good' GMs in their teens. It's stupid to put some arbitrary age like 'at 18 you are fit to be gm!' (well, in general); judge people on their merit.

 

if you wanted to eliminate bias or **** being handled poorly than you have a lot of avenues to go down before issuing some blanket ban (maybe decisions should be more collective, maybe GMs should be forced to recuse themselves from some matters, maybe leadership shouldn't be so centralized on moderation team, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×