Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Guardian Application Feedback

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Recheh View Post
    You had me at here bud, honestly you’re starting to slurr your words here. as of right now the only argument here you have is “More applicants” but trust me when I say they have [>**enough**<] and I don’t think there’s some superman of a 15 year old or a 14 year old that they are truly gonna miss and not wanna lose if anything it’s just a waste of time to sort through 14 and 15 year old applications.

    Also You kind of dodged this when I said >>>>> Guardian phase is to get trained to become a moderator, it’s not a lighter role in any way you’re literally just picked to get trained by either the current moderators or ubi team staff to become a moderator.

    I really don’t wanna be rude but this just seems like you’re desperate for to apply as a guardian, but you’re not old enough, man this isn’t making it any better what you’re doing now. if not 90% of the people that replied here said no, no matter what you say, no matter how much you try to convince us that there are “GODTIER” 15 or 14 year olds that UBISOFT DEARLY NEEDS AND CAN’T LET PASS won’t make any difference. If anything you’re right now proving how ignorant one can be.

    Also by what you stated up there clearly you didn’t leave a very good mark of 14 and 15 year olds with what you quoted.
    First of all, let’s keep this a civilized discussion. We are just sharing our opinions, not fighting for what is ‘better’, because we are only discussing about what we know, there are a lot of stuff that we don’t know quite yet (including the argument that they already have ‘enough’ applicants). I’ll start with the argument that they already have enough applicants. Yes, they essentially have enough applicants in terms of being barely qualified. I’ve met wonderful people who would do a wonderful job, but guess what? They’re under 16. But let’s suppose they do have enough that qualify just fine. I already addressed multiple benefits of recruiting younger people on the main post. I’ll give some examples: they have more free time to moderate the game, since they don’t have many responsibilities, they tend to learn faster than older people and they will have more years to contribute to Growtopia, since they are younger and thus have less responsibilities. It seems like the first reason at first glance, but they are different, let me explain. Let’s suppose it takes 1 year for a Guardian to become a mod (I’m addressing your argument about Guardians being mods in training). If they hired someone who was 16, which is the bare minimum as of now, that person would be 17 (or even more) by then. One more year and they would be going to college or getting a full-time job, which both take an enormous part of the day, and thus they wouldn’t have much time to dedicate to Growtopia, which is very bad, as they’re looking for people who will stay in Growtopia for a long period of time. 14 year olds would have 2 more years to work for Growtopia, for example. Also, they would have time to evaluate if the person is qualified for the job as a moderator, 1 year seems like a great period of time. About 90% of people here is older than 16, thus have a bias towards disagreeing with me.

    Comment


    • #47
      U say independant but u leave school at 16/17 so that's when ur independant not 18
      Not sure why I'm back but I'm back
      IGN: Deno855
      TRUE OG
      Level: 71
      Gems: 352k / 1mil
      WLS: Who even cares its the effort
      Instagram: @deno855_gt

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Deno855 View Post
        U say independant but u leave school at 16/17 so that's when ur independant not 18
        Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant with my previous reply is that when you leave school your free time shrinks by a lot, thus you have less time to dedicate to Growtopia, in this case, moderating Growtopia.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by John S. View Post
          First of all, let’s keep this a civilized discussion. We are just sharing our opinions, not fighting for what is ‘better’, because we are only discussing about what we know, there are a lot of stuff that we don’t know quite yet (including the argument that they already have ‘enough’ applicants). I’ll start with the argument that they already have enough applicants. Yes, they essentially have enough applicants in terms of being barely qualified. I’ve met wonderful people who would do a wonderful job, but guess what? They’re under 16. But let’s suppose they do have enough that qualify just fine. I already addressed multiple benefits of recruiting younger people on the main post. I’ll give some examples: they have more free time to moderate the game, since they don’t have many responsibilities, they tend to learn faster than older people and they will have more years to contribute to Growtopia, since they are younger and thus have less responsibilities. It seems like the first reason at first glance, but they are different, let me explain. Let’s suppose it takes 1 year for a Guardian to become a mod (I’m addressing your argument about Guardians being mods in training). If they hired someone who was 16, which is the bare minimum as of now, that person would be 17 (or even more) by then. One more year and they would be going to college or getting a full-time job, which both take an enormous part of the day, and thus they wouldn’t have much time to dedicate to Growtopia, which is very bad, as they’re looking for people who will stay in Growtopia for a long period of time. 14 year olds would have 2 more years to work for Growtopia, for example. Also, they would have time to evaluate if the person is qualified for the job as a moderator, 1 year seems like a great period of time. About 90% of people here is older than 16, thus have a bias towards disagreeing with me.
          I really do not want to argue this to death. If you are going to discredit an argument because it is speculative, you cannot make the antithetical argument when the evidence is also speculative. We do not know for sure that school-aged kids have more free time. Everyone has varying amounts of free time at varying stages of their life. As a university student, I can attest to having significantly less free time in high school than I do currently. Others might have a different experience though, and this is not a factor that has a causal relationship with age.

          You also stated that younger players have more years to give to the game, which, aside from being fallacious for the reasons above, contradicts itself. Now you have shifted the argument toward discrediting the potentiality for older moderators, but have done so on an unsteady basis: ability to contribute. It is a nebulous and convenient reason that cannot really be substantiated beyond a presupposition — entirely the same type of assumption made about younger players’ maturity. It might ring true sometimes, but it is not a blanket rule to assume of all members in the group.

          Also, there is significant evidence — apart from anecdotes and observation — that plenty of people apply for the position. If I can find the quote I am looking for, I will post it later, but feigning an ignorance toward the number of people that want to become a guardian is not very helpful. The only reason Ubisoft does not mass-recruit guardians is the resources needed to train them and closely monitor their progress. I can assure you that Ubisoft would not want to decline volunteer assistance moderating their game, but the selectivity is probably hortatory to the a combination of amount of applicants and resources to train them.

          I am not trying to sound hostile or disrespectful, but it is exasperating reiterating the same points and seeing a desperate defense in the rebuttal.
          Originally posted by tson
          *** concentrated yeast hell no i didnt eat that ****
          Just finished transcribing this…deliberating on whether or not to adapt it into Growtopia.
          The answer is yes and at NOTE63.

          Contact Info:

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Ohlid View Post
            I really do not want to argue this to death. If you are going to discredit an argument because it is speculative, you cannot make the antithetical argument when the evidence is also speculative. We do not know for sure that school-aged kids have more free time. Everyone has varying amounts of free time at varying stages of their life. As a university student, I can attest to having significantly less free time in high school than I do currently. Others might have a different experience though, and this is not a factor that has a causal relationship with age.

            You also stated that younger players have more years to give to the game, which, aside from being fallacious for the reasons above, contradicts itself. Now you have shifted the argument toward discrediting the potentiality for older moderators, but have done so on an unsteady basis: ability to contribute. It is a nebulous and convenient reason that cannot really be substantiated beyond a presupposition — entirely the same type of assumption made about younger players’ maturity. It might ring true sometimes, but it is not a blanket rule to assume of all members in the group.

            Also, there is significant evidence — apart from anecdotes and observation — that plenty of people apply for the position. If I can find the quote I am looking for, I will post it later, but feigning an ignorance toward the number of people that want to become a guardian is not very helpful. The only reason Ubisoft does not mass-recruit guardians is the resources needed to train them and closely monitor their progress. I can assure you that Ubisoft would not want to decline volunteer assistance moderating their game, but the selectivity is probably hortatory to the a combination of amount of applicants and resources to train them.

            I am not trying to sound hostile or disrespectful, but it is exasperating reiterating the same points and seeing a desperate defense in the rebuttal.
            As we’re getting on the speculative side of things, I suppose it’s better to lean towards the factual side. What I said about free time is just average. Even though it might fluctuate, in most cases it stays the same. But let’s disconsider the speculative side. Even then, we still have facts and studies that say what younger people can do better. I’ll take one of them as an example. There’s an arcticle I stated on the original thread in Columbia University’s virtual library saying younger people learn faster than older people. How can this benefit Ubisoft? Hassle could be reduced drastically, thus allowing more time to be spent on other duties, or even allowing more Guardians to be recruited.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by John S. View Post
              As we’re getting on the speculative side of things, I suppose it’s better to lean towards the factual side. What I said about free time is just average. Even though it might fluctuate, in most cases it stays the same. But let’s disconsider the speculative side. Even then, we still have facts and studies that say what younger people can do better. I’ll take one of them as an example. There’s an arcticle I stated on the original thread in Columbia University’s virtual library saying younger people learn faster than older people. How can this benefit Ubisoft? Hassle could be reduced drastically, thus allowing more time to be spent on other duties, or even allowing more Guardians to be recruited.
              They have probably 20k+ applicants I think they’re good. (who are over the age of 16)

              I’m quite getting annoyed how you repeat the same thing over and over. Like 90% of people here have said no to your thread but You just don’t bulge You are being ignorant.

              Listen here pal, Becoming a guardian isn’t just “doing a job” it also takes a very strong mentality state, these people get bullied on a daily basis, these people get harrassed on a daily basis, doxxed, DDoSed and so on. You think a 14 or a 15 year old can handle that? Very fast thinking abilities? Razor sharp decision making? Be prepared for any sort of situation that comes to them? There’s like so much more to a guardian and a mod than just “banning players” which You don’t understand. They don’t need people that can “learn fast” they need people that are actually useful and could benefit the game (Bunch of kids as guardians won’t benefit anyone, this isn’t kindergarden here)

              I’m literally fighting a lost cause, because it feels as if I’m talking to a brick wall who’s desperate onto becoming a guardian but can’t because they are 14 or 15. You have literally proved every reason right now as to why not make a 14 or 15 year old a guardian just by how You act.
              Contact me on Discord: Recheh#0001
              Console Growtopia Discord Server
              https://discord.gg/TkGayKu

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Recheh View Post
                They have probably 20k+ applicants I think they’re good. (who are over the age of 16)

                I’m quite getting annoyed how you repeat the same thing over and over. Like 90% of people here have said no to your thread but You just don’t bulge You are being ignorant.

                Listen here pal, Becoming a guardian isn’t just “doing a job” it also takes a very strong mentality state, these people get bullied on a daily basis, these people get harrassed on a daily basis, doxxed, DDoSed and so on. You think a 14 or a 15 year old can handle that? Very fast thinking abilities? Razor sharp decision making? Be prepared for any sort of situation that comes to them? There’s like so much more to a guardian and a mod than just “banning players” which You don’t understand. They don’t need people that can “learn fast” they need people that are actually useful and could benefit the game (Bunch of kids as guardians won’t benefit anyone, this isn’t kindergarden here)

                I’m literally fighting a lost cause, because it feels as if I’m talking to a brick wall who’s desperate onto becoming a guardian but can’t because they are 14 or 15. You have literally proved every reason right now as to why not make a 14 or 15 year old a guardian just by how You act.
                Please, read the main thread and all of my replies. I have already answered nearly all your doubts/arguments there.. First of all, about the 90% of people answering ‘no’, that’s due to personal bias, since most people here are 16. And yes, being even a Guardian is extremely hard, and I have no doubt on that. But as you said, there are 20 thousand applicants. People might skip this at first, but it is a huge number. And I expect it to rise as they lower the age requirement. But within this many people, what’s stopping there to be worthy ones? Plus, younger people will have the benefits that I stated along this thread! Oh, also the difference between a worthy 14-15 year old is clear between a regular 14-15 year old. Regarding me answering every single question, I’m doing that because we are a small fraction of people on the forums. I’m trying to defend the minority here. I’m answering what I would expect them to answer, but since most are in the game and not in the forums, I basically have to answer everything, which makes me seem ignorant. Aside from that, most people are touching topics which I already covered, thus I have to reiterate what I said earlier. After all, we’re discussing here. We’re not arguing about what’s better. We’re presenting arguments in which Ubisoft will use to make their decision. Hope this clears everything out.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Note, I have not read anything but the OP as I am not interested into reading pages long arguments, but thought it'd share my position about this.

                  I do not see an age restriction as a problem. Whether older players may have more responsibilities I think the key component is that you are not engaging yourself into a job, you are being a volunteer for a game that you like; you are not entitled to help, play and show insane activity, it is literally a thing you may or may not want to do on your free time. As long as the requirements in terms of what type of players are being looked for, this is what the initiative is made for in the first place.

                  Restrictions greatly increases the overall civility of players and their behavior - moderating the game is a serious area which should not in any circumstances be used to do all kinds of incivilities and jokes. Older persons start to get through that process of entering adult age and taking things seriously as mistakes reflect into your professional life being affected, and I do believe this very well applies here. Everyone isn't perfect but minimizing mistakes that can be made by younger people is preferable.

                  With the enormous amount of players that play the game it makes more sense than anything to have these restriction into place and I sincerly think they are not strict enough considering the degree of certain offenses happening in the game.
                  A recipe finder. A GT Wikia Admin. Playing since Feb 2013.
                  Level: 125 - L Title/Dragon/DK Wings Done - Sponsored Mystical Etherboard
                  IGN: TK69
                  Growtopia Treehouse Discord | My Insta

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Nenkaai View Post
                    Note, I have not read anything but the OP as I am not interested into reading pages long arguments, but thought it'd share my position about this.

                    I do not see an age restriction as a problem. Whether older players may have more responsibilities I think the key component is that you are not engaging yourself into a job, you are being a volunteer for a game that you like; you are not entitled to help, play and show insane activity, it is literally a thing you may or may not want to do on your free time. As long as the requirements in terms of what type of players are being looked for, this is what the initiative is made for in the first place.

                    Restrictions greatly increases the overall civility of players and their behavior - moderating the game is a serious area which should not in any circumstances be used to do all kinds of incivilities and jokes. Older persons start to get through that process of entering adult age and taking things seriously as mistakes reflect into your professional life being affected, and I do believe this very well applies here. Everyone isn't perfect but minimizing mistakes that can be made by younger people is preferable.

                    With the enormous amount of players that play the game it makes more sense than anything to have these restriction into place and I sincerly think they are not strict enough considering the degree of certain offenses happening in the game.
                    Well said.
                    Rest In Peace, Marley
                    My beloved kitty that went missing 21.8.2019, found dead 23.8.2019, I will never forget you.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Nenkaai View Post
                      Note, I have not read anything but the OP as I am not interested into reading pages long arguments, but thought it'd share my position about this.

                      I do not see an age restriction as a problem. Whether older players may have more responsibilities I think the key component is that you are not engaging yourself into a job, you are being a volunteer for a game that you like; you are not entitled to help, play and show insane activity, it is literally a thing you may or may not want to do on your free time. As long as the requirements in terms of what type of players are being looked for, this is what the initiative is made for in the first place.

                      Restrictions greatly increases the overall civility of players and their behavior - moderating the game is a serious area which should not in any circumstances be used to do all kinds of incivilities and jokes. Older persons start to get through that process of entering adult age and taking things seriously as mistakes reflect into your professional life being affected, and I do believe this very well applies here. Everyone isn't perfect but minimizing mistakes that can be made by younger people is preferable.

                      With the enormous amount of players that play the game it makes more sense than anything to have these restriction into place and I sincerly think they are not strict enough considering the degree of certain offenses happening in the game.
                      Hey there! First of all, thanks for sharing your opinion, if you don’t mind, I’ll mention something here. While I do agree that having an age restriction is good, it can be reduced. Aside from the benefits shown in the main thread and the replies (I edited the main thread along these days to include the additions on the replies to the main thread, it’s okay if you didn’t read the replies), there is one other point I’d like to touch. We have yet to see any of the recruited Guardians to do something severely bad, and reducing the requirement by 2 years (which by itself isn’t too much, even though I agree it’s a reasonable amount of time) coupled with strict examination and and avaliation by Ubisoft, this shouldn’t be a problem at all.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by John S. View Post
                        We have yet to see any of the recruited Guardians to do something severely bad, and reducing the requirement by 2 years (which by itself isn’t too much, even though I agree it’s a reasonable amount of time) coupled with strict examination and evaluation by Ubisoft, this shouldn’t be a problem at all.
                        Then why change it. If the system in place currently works fine, then there should be no reason to alter the requirements. Like Nenkai said above, these restrictions are in place to ensure better-equipped volunteers. Your arguments - amongst others - are solely based on the idea that younger people can be just as mature as older people, but statistically and logically speaking, why take this chance when you have better luck obtaining volunteers of a more statistically mature age.

                        16 is the age where life becomes more serious. You feel like a young adult and that responsibility, or the impending responsibility of the near future, takes a toll on your mentality.

                        If there is no problem then there is no reason to change it.
                        37 World of the Days won.
                        4 World Building Competitions placed in.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          didn't read the other half because there's a lot but it sounds more like the OP sees the title of a Game Guardian as game achievement instead. If something isn't broken, why fix it? You mentioned how younger players should be qualified too or else they'll "quit" by the time they reach 16. If they're not dedicated to the game, why be a guardian? for the sake of power or entitlement? I don't see why do you have to fight for the chance to allow younger players to be game guardians, unless you yourself want to be one.

                          tdlr it's pretty fine as it is, there is no need for more changes in application just so a few more players can get their priorities in life wrong.
                          IGN : Liquify

                          support my wholesome Axolotl thread!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            We already talked about this in another thread, I told you this would happen. None will agree with you.
                            IGN: SydeEvil
                            Discord: SydeEvil#2924

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by SydeWeiz View Post
                              We already talked about this in another thread, I told you this would happen. None will agree with you.
                              Yeah I actually went back to the last thread and went throug most of it, what it felt like as if anything that was replied against his idea he ignored completely. When people said mostly 16 and few said 15 he went down as to 13 or 14. Honestly if most of the community is against it then why bother.

                              I’m amazed he even made another one when the last one clearly got the answer.
                              Contact me on Discord: Recheh#0001
                              Console Growtopia Discord Server
                              https://discord.gg/TkGayKu

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Techy View Post
                                Then why change it. If the system in place currently works fine, then there should be no reason to alter the requirements. Like Nenkai said above, these restrictions are in place to ensure better-equipped volunteers. Your arguments - amongst others - are solely based on the idea that younger people can be just as mature as older people, but statistically and logically speaking, why take this chance when you have better luck obtaining volunteers of a more statistically mature age.

                                16 is the age where life becomes more serious. You feel like a young adult and that responsibility, or the impending responsibility of the near future, takes a toll on your mentality.

                                If there is no problem then there is no reason to change it.
                                Hi! I’ll try to make this more clear, sorry if it wasn’t as clear before. I’ll separate my reasonings in 2 parts. First, there’s the part stating that young people are as mature as 16+ year olds. Then, there’s the part saying the benefits younger people have over 16+ year olds. Most people miss one of the parts, however both are crucial to my argument, and should not be missed by any means. Take a look at my previous replies, I already covered your point previously.

                                - - - Updated - - -

                                Originally posted by Liquify View Post
                                didn't read the other half because there's a lot but it sounds more like the OP sees the title of a Game Guardian as game achievement instead. If something isn't broken, why fix it? You mentioned how younger players should be qualified too or else they'll "quit" by the time they reach 16. If they're not dedicated to the game, why be a guardian? for the sake of power or entitlement? I don't see why do you have to fight for the chance to allow younger players to be game guardians, unless you yourself want to be one.

                                tdlr it's pretty fine as it is, there is no need for more changes in application just so a few more players can get their priorities in life wrong.
                                Just passing by to say that I do not consider becoming a Guardian an achievement. It’s rather something a selected few are chosen for, and pretty much dedicate their time with Growtopia solely to that, not something you just do for ‘fun’, and then forget about it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X