Whitelist Change #1:

[cherbert]

Why don't people just accept that this probably wasn't just a spur of the moment idea.

Probably because it was.

Many valid arguments have been raised. I too believe it to be the application process at fault rather than age groups. I believe more thought needs to be put into why we have problems with certain people - I honestly feel its not age related - we have idiots of all ages and have banned people of all ages.

 

[Legion]

Yes, fine, sure, age does not equal maturity. But its a damn good indicator.
And please note, when I say maturity, I dont just mean they act respectful. Furthermore immature and stupid are two totally different problems, and we often end up banning people for doing stupid things, and so thats mucking up all the data, because there are stupid people of all ages. Immaturity is not the only ban reason by far.
But more importantly, when we say mature, we mean it in the "This film contains mature content" sense. Not just general respect, but also an understanding and preparedness to deal with ideas and concepts that are of a more adult nature. Obviously nothing explicit, but romance has always been allowed by the server but its hard to do when you arent sure if the person on the other side of the screen is 12 or 18, and that makes a huge difference. Or even just the implied gore/torture aspect, which is allowed assuming you dont take it too far. First of all, we dont want to expose 11 year olds to things like, for example, what Scardracs character does, and secondly, we dont think they can contribute positively to that sort of world.
16 is a relatively arbitrary number however, and that number was not picked through much thought. As such Im totally fine moving it down to 15. Id be reluctant to go any below that.

 

[cherbert]

Yes, fine, sure, age does not equal maturity. But its a damn good indicator.
And please note, when I say maturity, I dont just mean they act respectful. Furthermore immature and stupid are two totally different problems, and we often end up banning people for doing stupid things, and so thats mucking up all the data, because there are stupid people of all ages. Immaturity is not the only ban reason by far.
But more importantly, when we say mature, we mean it in the "This film contains mature content" sense. Not just general respect, but also an understanding and preparedness to deal with ideas and concepts that are of a more adult nature. Obviously nothing explicit, but romance has always been allowed by the server but its hard to do when you arent sure if the person on the other side of the screen is 12 or 18, and that makes a huge difference. Or even just the implied gore/torture aspect, which is allowed assuming you dont take it too far. First of all, we dont want to expose 11 year olds to things like, for example, what Scardracs character does, and secondly, we dont think they can contribute positively to that sort of world.
16 is a relatively arbitrary number however, and that number was not picked through much thought. As such Im totally fine moving it down to 15. Id be reluctant to go any below that.

Are you implying we favor ERP over Medieval Fantasy Roleplay? If anything sexual is going on that isn't for the eyes of 12 year olds then I'd be first to vote we get rid of that nonsense and focus on decent roleplay. When I used to get together roleplaying with my mates in D&D we used to slay Goblins not kiss round the back of the bike sheds.

And...

If you are saying this rule was put in place to allow for mature content then why did we not get rid of the rest of our under 16 players (of which I am sure there are quite a few!!)

 

[Legion]

No I did not mean to imply that in fact I even said "Obviously nothing explicit" but yes weve definitely had romantic rp on the server, and thats not a bad thing. Its just another thing to make the world feel more real, and its a very real way in which people interact so to purposefully cut it out is silly.

As to your second point, what I actually think would have been the best option was minimum age 14 and remove everyone under 14. That didnt fly though.

 

[cherbert]

I think a 12 year old can cope with romance. If people want to do anything other than portray love and affection then I'd rather it be taken to another server. Swearing is now filtered on the server and I don't think descriptive violence is a reason to have an age restriction. What else is left that we need to shut the door on under 16's if not because we deem their behaviour immature?

 

[cherbert]

For the record - my opinion would be to have the age limit set at 14.

 

[Faelin]

For the record - my opinion would be to have the age limit set at 14.

From my standpoint, this is the age I'd vouch for as the age I personally ceased being a bit of a twerp. (Mostly, you understand...)

 

[Naelwyn]

So, some addenda:

- This was the only planned change but I titled it #1 because I expected feedback in here to bring about worthwhile additions.

- The specific age increase, we don't have too much data for. I'm fine with it going to 15 and maybe 14 myself. The point is to nudge it upwards, not cull the entire demographic. Post further management conversations (Because none of us make decisions alone) we're probably going to set it to 14 as a starter.

- Other management minutes: "We should tool about the application to try and increase the experience of candidates in roleplay."

We will be adapting additional changes to the whitelist app but we're tooling the age req to 14~

 

[bettemus99]

.. I would just mention that when I was 13, I was dealthy horrified of any gore. Now I can take it, but I still dislike it...
So.. Torture is much worse than romance. A 12-13 can probably take a bit of romance, since they can say no to it.
But.. The other thing- Just yeah.

 

[MrTeamSparky]

So, some addenda:

- This was the only planned change but I titled it #1 because I expected feedback in here to bring about worthwhile additions.

- The specific age increase, we don't have too much data for. I'm fine with it going to 15 and maybe 14 myself. The point is to nudge it upwards, not cull the entire demographic. Post further management conversations (Because none of us make decisions alone) we're probably going to set it to 14 as a starter.

- Other management minutes: "We should tool about the application to try and increase the experience of candidates in roleplay."

We will be adapting additional changes to the whitelist app but we're tooling the age req to 14~

Why not have questions in the whitelist app that they have to answer in character so we may have a better understanding of how they'll react to actual RP

 

[Angryboy]

Why not have questions in the whitelist app that they have to answer in character so we may have a better understanding of how they'll react to actual RP

That... Is actually a good idea.
Telling them to give a character background is good for finding out if they are good at story-writing, but it won't tell us if they are any good at actually playing said character.

 

[LeafyChan]

Instead of not letting people under 16 apply, why not have an stricter application for people 15-13? The moderators would be stricter on grammar, writing, and most people who are immature tend to sure immature qualities in their writing. (Such as an excess of chatspeak or an emphasis on how their character is like a pre-existing character (not counting skins).

....Huh, I guess I am putting immature 15-13 year-olds in one bucket.. But hey, they'd have a chance?

Edit: Seeing Sparky's responce, why not have a short "test" forum based RP sent out by staff/application checkers? Then they could see how they RP with that character vs other characters?

 

[Yoda]

You could always impose some extra strictness in the application process (as said above, I'm a slow types and began this post before the above was posted) . I distinctly remember having a lot of difficulty attempting to discern between a bad role-player or someone who's lazy at typing and someone with poor grammatical skills or dyslexia/dyspraxia. However, I do not believe that the latter should be a reason for an application not to be accepted. It may be difficult to tell, but I hope my suggestion will help that:

I see most apps being accepted simply because they comply with lore and contain more than 400 words, although I would argue that these requirements aren't a true show of an applicant's skill. I see no reason why a good application under the current format would need extra work, however it is clear to me that there is some form of grey area in which there's no reason not to accept an application that isn't particularly good.

Why not use an RP with a staff member (or willing player) on the Sundered Skies server as extra practice for an applicant whose 400 words wasn't particularly great? It could be a form of additional evaluation. I actually like the idea of using the Sundered Skies server to help those who haven't written particularly outstanding applications and show them the ropes of the server.

Remember when we had a group of people that showed people around the server when they arrived? Personally, I think they were great and that such a group should be revived. I don't mind leading it myself, as long as it helps new players feel more comfortable and know what's right and what's wrong earlier on. If new players are taught of the server's ways when they join, there won't be as many problems later on.

 

[mokwar]

Oh- about whitelisting... as I take part in helping I could try going more into grammar and spell checking. ^^
Sooo... what was it except for that there should be stricter or added on a app?

 

[Angryboy]

Why not use an RP with a staff member (or willing player) on the Sundered Skies server as extra practice for an applicant whose 400 words wasn't particularly great? It could be a form of additional evaluation. I actually like the idea of using the Sundered Skies server to help those who haven't written particularly outstanding applications and show them the ropes of the server.

I think I suggested similar earlier; they can come onto the Sundered Skies server and then known players there (People like myself, Agnew and Warwolf) could vouch for them.

 

[Angryboy]

Remember when we had a group of people that showed people around the server when they arrived? Personally, I think they were great and that such a group should be revived. I don't mind leading it myself, as long as it helps new players feel more comfortable and know what's right and what's wrong earlier on. If new players are taught of the server's ways when they join, there won't be as many problems later on.

The Newbie island, right?

Yeah I was part of that with a few others including staff. It was good fun, if not a bit exhausting after a while... I think the problem with that suggestion is that you'd need a large number of players being willing to Roleplay on-call for it to work efficiently.

How about a compromise between the two suggestions?
They can come onto the Sundered Skies, and any player online at the time will come along and roleplay with them? It can act as a sort of impromptu roleplay-test, and they can survive in Sundered while they wait?

 

[Naelwyn]

There's just too many logistics issues in that suggestion for it to function well.


The Sundered Skies server isn't held to the same standards we have on Hollowworld, nor can we really execute on a lot of the mentioned.

The Sundered Skies server isn't meant to be a no-whitelist server. It's meant to offer a different experience to our /existing/ members and I personally don't want to throw people we're explicitly seeing if they are any good at all there at them.

 

[Angryboy]

The Sundered Skies server isn't meant to be a no-whitelist server. It's meant to offer a different experience to our /existing/ members and I personally don't want to throw people we're explicitly seeing if they are any good at all there at them.

Fair point, was just a suggestion.

Okay I got two suggestions then;
1) We have practice roleplays on the lobby instead (fixing the issue of having random non-whitelists on the Sundered world).
2) You practice the RP through a forum-conversation with them (Hot seating in a way).

 

[Naelwyn]

That's more along the lines of what we were thinking - checking with some forum RP or similar people's capabilities.


We can't just use the method of asking IC questions (Though it may help) because the questions would have to be non-static to be useful as we archive all the accepted/denied apps. [Though a cycling list or creative whitelisters would help matters a lot.]

 

[Spark]

Answering some RP related questions is great but to be fair, who can't do that? After writing a 400 word RP introduction they clearly possess basic creative writing skills, answering a couple of in-character questions would test the same skills as the intro.

Perhaps instead of(or as well as, adding more question can only make standards higher or stay the same) altering the application process, why not have some kind of prominent report system? It could be a "form" type page on the forums that includes a few multiple choice questions to allow easier recording and readability. Fields such as "Player Name", "reason for reporting". This could allow only roleplay issues to be reported whether it's immaturity, ERP, excessive gore RP, etc etc.

Then if someone's name keeps popping up, the staff investigate it. This wouldn't stop these unpleasant people from getting into the server but it would get them out of it.

There's no way of testing maturity as it can be suppressed just like any emotion. Someone can write a brilliant, mature application but be a complete twit in game.
Just a suggestion.