Rule Suggestion Make It So MTF (LT)Com+ has the min age of 18

[Ratman99]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Adds a rule that makes the minimum age of the (Lt) Commander of MTF units to be 18+
Potentially adds the age requirement can be lowered with relevant experience or with discretion of SL
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
I dont know
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Adds a minor maturity buffer to a VERY important role
At least makes it so the person can be so-so trusted as it more so.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Maybe manpowershortage, if no ones eligle to be promoted to it.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
It should add a maturity and competency buffer to these 2 very important roles, i dont think someone under the age of 18 should be entrusted with this responsibility, unless they had demonstrable experience. eg 1 year as a major, already a staff member etc. Unless i am mistaken, i belive most other CL4 roles have a white list process for it and/or have a divided power system.

I dont belive there are many engatives to it, and they can be dealt with when they crop up by "at staff discretion", so a trusted person can be promoted to the position, if none are elegble.

 

[Ratman99]

We'd lose @Tiago mate
I do not believe that maturity necessarily grows with age. Some people are idiots regardless.

Tiago is 18 now, isnt he? And you'd also loose Gambit, i think the bulk of under 18 ones i listed have since left, in hindsight, should have marked current and former.

-Support, when I was E11 CPT at 13 I helped E11 from falling over the edge, punk, into potential SL intervention to bring it back. Just cause your young doesnt mean that your progression should be stopped based off something you can't change and even so young people have helped regiments lots before in the past lol. Look at @'Clank'

(Did anyone catch the reference in there?)

Ok

My suggestion:
Only effects LtCom+
Has a provision for prior experience, so if you spent say 1 year in the regiment before your promotion, you could be a Ltcom/com at 14/15.

-Support
Age limits are arbitrary and harmful, especially for a game with a younger audience. Some of the most mature people I've worked with were under 18, and some of the worst were double that age.

I understand the idea and speaking from experience, most of the people that I've worked with who were under the age of 18 struggled to keep up with their older colleagues in complex social situations & managing their emotions. They have to work twice as hard to "be mature" as they likely haven't had time in their lives to experience the difficult life decisions and situations that build a person's character and depth. Be that as it may, there is no call to deny them via policy. Judge them on their actions alone, and you will do fine.

It seems like you gave me at least a reason for why its not artibtary and a reason for how it can reduce harm in the form of stress and burnout in your own reply.
paraphrase:
under 18's arent fully devoloped
they may be under more stress to "act mature"

i belive the part where i stated there can be exemptions made, covers persons who are deemed comptent for it. I just think the default should be no.

considering you are only listing 3/4 of the previous/current ltcom+ this really isnt that big of a sample size, especially considering some of them dont have data on them

This is mainly due to data issues , and i only intended to keep it as maybe the last gen or gen before, but when i couldnt find anyone before Solaz on the NU7 roster, it sort of sealed it at 4, as well as the lt com replacing the commander sort of messed with things.

 

[Pyrite]

We'd lose @Tiago mate
I do not believe that maturity necessarily grows with age. Some people are idiots regardless.

Like me

Should say as well that I was SA and ECM at 16, and A-1 COM at 17. I don't think there needs to be such limits on roles above LTCOM.

 

[Headbutt]

bro lost in the ltcom race to a 17 yr old

 

[flameprince]

It seems like you gave me at least a reason for why its not artibtary and a reason for how it can reduce harm in the form of stress and burnout in your own reply.
paraphrase:
under 18's arent fully devoloped
they may be under more stress to "act mature"

I should have clarified, it isn't the age limit itself that is arbitrary, but the age that it limits. Why 18? Why not 17? Or 19?

I can't see any functional benefit from this change, only really bad optics that make the server unwelcoming to our younger audience. Sure, you say that the age requirement can be waived, but there is no guarantee someone will get accepted, and I have no doubt that most U18 won't apply in fear they'll be rejected due to their age.

 

[IGNVexary]

-Support
Age limits are arbitrary and harmful, especially for a game with a younger audience. Some of the most mature people I've worked with were under 18, and some of the worst were double that age.

I understand the idea and speaking from experience, most of the people that I've worked with who were under the age of 18 struggled to keep up with their older colleagues in complex social situations & managing their emotions. They have to work twice as hard to "be mature" as they likely haven't had time in their lives to experience the difficult life decisions and situations that build a person's character and depth. Be that as it may, there is no call to deny them via policy. Judge them on their actions alone, and you will do fine.

- Support I agree with @flameprince

 

[Joe "Enoch"]

- Support

I was O1 COM when I was 15 and ECM when I was 16 and did well in both of those positions. I dont belive that this change is needed and is just limiting the ability for people to progress in the server who are qualifed because they might be younger than 18.

 

[Avery Snow]

-Support
Being over 18 doesn't automatically make a person competent or mature. If they are suitable for the role, That's all that matters.

 

[Reshala]

Reshala

 

[Novaz]

brother what are we even talking about, who hurt you?
-Support

 

[Charles "Ze" Whitmee]

-Support

No matter the age if you've worked your way up to CO and are now eligable for COM/LTCOM that shows they're competent.

Dont base it off age, base it off merit.

 

[Tiago]

Turning 18 doesn't automatically make you a matured gentlemen who can handle situations, this is not needed.

-Support

 

[Willow 'Despoiler']

18 Is a but ludicrous, if you really need this, then lock it the same way staff is, 14 with FCOM approval, 15 otherwise.

-support

 

[Ronin]

You MUST be 18+ to roleplay!

 

[Porkchop]

-Support
Hej son your finnaly 18 you can drive, drink and gamble. But most importantly become a commander on CN scp rp.

 

[Evan]

-Support

This wouldn't really work and it doesn't make sense. I have 10 different points to prove this.

First, lets discuss how it's an arbitrary age cutoff. Why is it 18? There is no reason for it. You didn't show any evidence at all that people under 18 are worse in performance compared to people over 18. Why not 16, 20, 25, 30? There is no reasoning at all.

Secondly, you're scientifically wrong. You said in a reply that a person doesn't develop until they are 18 which is just wrong. According to PubMed Central, the person doesn't fully develop until 25 years old. Does this mean that people shouldn't be allowed to be a Commander or LTCOM until they're 25?

Third, age does not equal maturity. Maturity is mostly based on experience. This means that people 18 or over does not mean they're mature. However, if they have experience, they may be mature, but that's the same with people under 18.

Also, this excludes capable people. People under 18 who are capable of leading a regiment will be locked out of it until they are 18. This just ruins their chance and the regiments chance if they would have done well.

Then, there is no evidence of a problem. There is no data you have presented that shows people under 18 perform worse as I said in my first point.

For my sixth point, exceptions undermine the rule. If you allow anyone under 18 to become LTCOM or COM with SL discretion, then it's just preference. And sure, you may argue that staff allows 14 year olds with Super Admin approval, but that is because it's one age lower. Your suggestion says any age.

For my seventh point, I have a question. How do you enforce something like this? Is staff supposed to just base it off voice? People can lie very easily about their age online and I am very sure people don't want to show their ID for a Commander position in a Garry's Mod SCP Roleplay Server.

For my eighth point, this doesn't fix leadership. If you want better leadership, you should focus on trainings and more promotion requirements. Not just an age.

For my ninth point, it creates a barrier for no reason. This would make it harder for spots to fill when there is qualified people. Which you could bring up the SL discretion rule, but then again, that undermines the rule.

For my tenth point, this suggestion treats 18 as a magical number where as soon as you turn 18, your suddenly capable of being a commander. As well as you said that it makes it so people are more trusting. This is incredibly wrong as there are many people who are 18+ and shouldn't be trusted as a Commander.

In conclusion, this suggestion makes it harder to fill spots without SL discretion, it's an arbitrary age requirement, there is no actual way to enforce it, it doesn't fix leadership, maturity is not based on age, your suggestion undermines your own suggestion, there is no evidence of a problem, and the average person isn't fully developed until 25.

 

[John Inertia]

-Support
Purely because half of the REGCOM on both UK and US are below 18

 

[flameprince]

For the sake of discussion/deliberation,

First, lets discuss how it's an arbitrary age cutoff. Why is it 18? There is no reason for it. You didn't show any evidence at all that people under 18 are worse in performance compared to people over 18. Why not 16, 20, 25, 30? There is no reasoning at all.

I want to share that over the past decade I've managed a community & staff team of various ages. In that time, I have observed that more often than not the younger individuals end up causing problems. While those 13 - 16 are typically just immature or inexperienced, it is those 17 - 20 year olds that some more serious issues can crop up in terms of attitude, especially when given power over others. Despite this, my community has never instated age limits because our vetting & training process is efficient enough that we don't need to factor in someone's age, just their behaviours.

Maturity is mostly based on experience

Yes, but odds are that someone 18+ will have more functional life experience then someone 13 - 17. Chances are they've graduated, maybe have a job and might be starting in post-secondary. They will have found a need to start thinking beyond their immediate surroundings, and likely have a better perception on how their actions influence others. If they're given power, they know how to handle it responsibly because they may have already had some small experience in handling it. This isn't a certainty, of course, you can have 30 year olds that have less life experience then a 16 year old if they never put themselves out there or challenged their own biases and way of thinking.

this excludes capable people

While I agree that it could, in the sense that someone who would be perfectly capable may feel scorned/judged or otherwise turned away based on the age limit, @Ratman99 has included tolerances & allowances for those who are truly capable and dedicated to have the age requirement waived.

there is no evidence of a problem

It is better to be proactive with changes then reactive. While evidence certainly helps in a suggestion like this, the lack of shouldn't undermine the idea at its core. I have no doubt some of us (especially those who've been active in the gmod community for a long time) have had personal experiences with younger individuals who had positions of power who either abused the power or acted on their biases in situations where, had they more life experience, they may have known better. (I'm sure we've also had issues with fully grown adults doing the same, though, so there's little merit in that argument!)

How do you enforce something like this?

This sort of thing is usually self-enforcing. If they go through the effort of lying about their age, they're likely the very problem that the age limit was created for in the first place, and they will probably slip up and reveal they've lied in their conversations. I've seen this happen before, with kids who lied saying they were 18+ would talk about what they did at secondary school that day, or something that exposes them as being u18. Beyond that, a kid who has messed up may be forgiven if people believed they didn't know better due to their age, the expectations may be a little higher for someone who is known to be an adult & ought to have known better.

If you want better leadership, you should focus on trainings and more promotion requirements

It is also my experience that there are traits to leadership that tend to be more intrinsic. You can train and mentor someone to be a leader every single day, but their ability to grasp difficult concepts & adjust their own behaviours will ultimately influence their ability to lead. My experience is that younger folks struggle with this a bit more often then their older counterparts, but it doesn't necessarily mean they should be precluded from leadership, especially in the context of MTF Command - everyone has to start somewhere, after all.

this suggestion treats 18 as a magical number where as soon as you turn 18, your suddenly capable of being a commander

The general idea of age limits is that they have to start somewhere. The age selected is usually pretty arbitrary, but works as a general guideline. The older someone is, the more experience they could theoretically have, so the further they are from the age limit would then be "better" for the applicant.

 

[Evan]

For the sake of discussion/deliberation,



I want to share that over the past decade I've managed a community & staff team of various ages. In that time, I have observed that more often than not the younger individuals end up causing problems. While those 13 - 16 are typically just immature or inexperienced, it is those 17 - 20 year olds that some more serious issues can crop up in terms of attitude, especially when given power over others. Despite this, my community has never instated age limits because our vetting & training process is efficient enough that we don't need to factor in someone's age, just their behaviours.



Yes, but odds are that someone 18+ will have more functional life experience then someone 13 - 17. Chances are they've graduated, maybe have a job and might be starting in post-secondary. They will have found a need to start thinking beyond their immediate surroundings, and likely have a better perception on how their actions influence others. If they're given power, they know how to handle it responsibly because they may have already had some small experience in handling it. This isn't a certainty, of course, you can have 30 year olds that have less life experience then a 16 year old if they never put themselves out there or challenged their own biases and way of thinking.



While I agree that it could, in the sense that someone who would be perfectly capable may feel scorned/judged or otherwise turned away based on the age limit, @Ratman99 has included tolerances & allowances for those who are truly capable and dedicated to have the age requirement waived.



It is better to be proactive with changes then reactive. While evidence certainly helps in a suggestion like this, the lack of shouldn't undermine the idea at its core. I have no doubt some of us (especially those who've been active in the gmod community for a long time) have had personal experiences with younger individuals who had positions of power who either abused the power or acted on their biases in situations where, had they more life experience, they may have known better. (I'm sure we've also had issues with fully grown adults doing the same, though, so there's little merit in that argument!)



This sort of thing is usually self-enforcing. If they go through the effort of lying about their age, they're likely the very problem that the age limit was created for in the first place, and they will probably slip up and reveal they've lied in their conversations. I've seen this happen before, with kids who lied saying they were 18+ would talk about what they did at secondary school that day, or something that exposes them as being u18. Beyond that, a kid who has messed up may be forgiven if people believed they didn't know better due to their age, the expectations may be a little higher for someone who is known to be an adult & ought to have known better.



It is also my experience that there are traits to leadership that tend to be more intrinsic. You can train and mentor someone to be a leader every single day, but their ability to grasp difficult concepts & adjust their own behaviours will ultimately influence their ability to lead. My experience is that younger folks struggle with this a bit more often then their older counterparts, but it doesn't necessarily mean they should be precluded from leadership, especially in the context of MTF Command - everyone has to start somewhere, after all.



The general idea of age limits is that they have to start somewhere. The age selected is usually pretty arbitrary, but works as a general guideline. The older someone is, the more experience they could theoretically have, so the further they are from the age limit would then be "better" for the applicant.

Let’s start with your first claim. Staff is way different than a commander role, as well as different servers have different expectations. For staff, you put in an application. For commander, in CI for example, you have to be a BCOM already which they’re supposed to be mature and have good leadership already. Then, they must be handpicked by SSL I believe.

While some people that are 18+ have more life experience, this doesn’t mean all of them do. Which you did say. This one we basically agree with.

While the age requirement can be waived, that also means there is not much point for this suggestion since people who are capable will just have the requirement waived. If all the capable people have the requirement waived, what’s the point in the requirement in the first place?

Power is abused by all ages like you said. Also, SSL can remove a Commander I believe if they’re abusing it making it pointless for a requirement of being 18.

So basically you’re arguing they’ll slip up which is just nonsense. Basing an entire rule suggestion on people slipping up is pointless. Plus, if they lied about their age and got chosen for Commander, that usually means they’re capable in the sense of leadership and maturity (although I do agree that lying about their age is a little bit of a red flag.).

While some people can’t be taught leadership, through experience within the regiment, they can begin to grasp it. And, if they can’t, then they shouldn’t rely on being 18 to be able to lead a regiment. Like “oh yeah even though you don’t know how to lead now that your 18 you have a shot at it” like no, that’s just wrong.

And sure, age limits require people to start somewhere, but you have to remember that this is a 13+ server. You shouldn’t need to be 18 or have SL auth to become an RP leader if you are capable.

Overall, the SL discretion makes this suggestion pointless as the choosing of Commanders is already strict, so making it so they need SL auth will just make it so that SL auths anyone under 18 since they’re usually capable when they pick people.

 

[Tom Shifu]

I genuinely wonder what led to this, or if its just random

 

['Clank']

Why only MTF? not Dpt. Leads or FCOM? seems like you're just trying to target specific people