Empire Staff Application (outdated)

Discussion in 'Empire News' started by Maxarias, Apr 15, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The long anticipated Staff Application has finally been completed. I've included the form in a spoiler, and you'll need to scroll. If for some reason the embedded form does not work, I've included a link:


  2. Please take your time on this application and do not rush through it.
  3. ^Ditto^
    607, Equinox_Boss and jkjkjk182 like this.
  4. Second :s

    EDIT: Third :(
    Equinox_Boss likes this.
  5. Thanks, Max! Love how krysyy's just been stealin' those firsts lately. :p
    Equinox_Boss and krysyyjane9191 like this.
  6. While I shall not be applying, something irks me.

    I hold the belief that age is not necessarily representative of maturity. What is your rationale for a minimum age of 16, Maxarias?
    607, Luckypat, TigerstarMC and 7 others like this.
  7. Cannot wait to see a new generation of great EMC mods :).
  8. It was originally a seperate section - i'll edit post with this reasoning:

    Age requirement is not based on maturity, but more so life experience. There are many things you learn in life simply based on real life experience, and working into the adult life you start to make better decisions regarding things.

    Maturity is separate from age - the age is just to ensure our staff have a reasonable bit of experience on the internet and also better chances at using real life experience to help them make better decisions.
    dresden72, 607, IceCreamHorse and 9 others like this.
  9. Not sure I filled in the right application. I ended up with this.

    Maybe I'll try again later.
  10. Just a question on the age requirement.
    You say that the minimum age is 16, but is there any kind of 'leeway' on this. What I mean by this is, what if you're only a couple of months (lets say 3 months) away from being 16. Would that be took into consideration or do you have to be 'officially' 16? :)
  11. I do not argue this point, but I think there's a question we're all wondering: In the application, there is still an option for under 16. Does this mean that not having the correct age does not completely remove an app from the running but only lowers its chance significantly?
    I say this because I know (or believe) there has been at least one staff member in the past who has been under 16. I also know that as with anything in life, there are going to be outliers: 16 year olds with no experience or 12 year olds with the experiences of a lifetime simply because they have been exposed to more situations than the average person. Is this question made to cover these outliers?
    What I'm trying to say is, I'm confused as to why both the mentioning of "under 16 only" and the age question were both added in the ways that they are. To me this means that there could be exceptions, but perhaps I am interpreting this wrong. Don't take this the wrong way, this app looks fantastic; I am just trying to clear up confusion.
    Thanks for any info on this.
  12. Could be a way to weed out the people who didn't take the time/effort to read the first part. Could also be a way to "file away" potential future candidates.
    Equinox_Boss and hashhog3000 like this.
  13. I always love when a question answers a question :p
    607 and Equinox_Boss like this.
  14. There is no harm in applying - and the answer is there so people can be honest with their answer.

    But as Jake asks, someone could be 'close' to 16, and lieing on an application is a sure fire way to not get accepted, so we encourage everyone to be honest on that question, therefore we need that option.

    Well we are not robots, so if someone is a mere 3 months away, that is something we can take into consideration.

    Essentially, the age requirement is to minimize risk of having staff make bad decisions.

    It's to avoid situations where the staff member may not understand why what they are doing is wrong, which they could have if they had more life experience, as if we have a bunch of staff making a bunch of bad decisions, that does not look good on the staff team.

    So we have set this minimum age to minimize risk.
  15. I find that the word "requirement" wards off the players who are under 16, or close to that age. I personally thought that it meant all people under 16 would be declined - I know now this is not the case, but perhaps the word "requirement" should be changed? It sounds like a minimum, but it is actually a warning to staff to consider their application more carefully than perhaps they would do so otherwise? Of course, I acknowledge that the staff read every application thoroughly and carefully.
    Equinox_Boss likes this.
  16. Someone dear. Lol
    Equinox_Boss likes this.
  17. I agree with hashhog here, as someone 14 could have more experience than someone who could be 24 just because of what they've had to go through in life, so I don't think this question can be accurately considering what people know and how to act upon certain situations. But probably more so a test to see if someone will answer their age truthfully instead of saying they're considerably older then what they are just to increase their chances of getting accepted, where in reality they wouldn't because of this lying.

    EDIT: I probably had to change this like 10 times because the quoting of hashhog3000 screwed up xD
    Equinox_Boss and FDNY21 like this.
  18. You have a valid point. I think that maybe their chances might be reduced some, but based on how they answered the other questions they might still have a decent shot at being chosen. I do agree with the admins that being 16 is a great minimal requirement for age because someone who is 16 generally has experienced a lot of things and can make good decisions based on those experiences. This would make them better candidates for becoming moderators to begin with, But I am sure that there are people younger than 16 that may be a great moderator.
    Equinox_Boss and hashhog3000 like this.
  19. good luck to all that apply.

    Would love to make supereskimo's form looks pretty good and interesting pm me the link lol
    Equinox_Boss likes this.
  20. I do agrée with this. Some very specific parts definitely could have been worded better. Possibly a better word/phrase for "requirement" would be "We highly value" or "We prefer applicants to be." "We require" is a little bit too "dream killing" (for lack of a better word). <--- That's supposed to be ironic
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.