Printable View
I used to use WinTin and the Zmud for multi-running chars on Diku as well years ago - Gizmo was the mud in question though I originally cut my 'MuD' teeth on MUD and then Mystic Adventures/Dragon Swords. Much good fun and good folk :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Boylston',index.php?page=Thread&postID=59765#post 59765
Why else would they choose 18 and not 16? 18 and not 19? 18 and not 21?Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Zaelar',index.php?page=Thread&postID=60301#post60 301
Pretty random coincidence, don't you think? I don't think it's a conscious decision either -- they choose 18 because that is what the law tells them is a "legal adult". If they chose 17, the 16 year olds would cry foul. If they chose 16, the 15 year olds cry foul. So on, so forth. So why do you see so many 18+ guilds and not 17/16/15+ guilds? Is it just a natural phenomenon that everyone's favorite number is 18?
By choosing 18, they are letting the law decide who is, and who is not, mature enough to be considered a legal adult.
I draw the line at 15 for cute girls, but only if they can keep a secret.
They choose 18 because of the generalization that the law spawned. Every time a 17 year old cries foul, a bunch of 19 year olds just say "i more matur the u bcuz i 18". Since it's the same everywhere it's not like they can go somewhere else for support. They are a minority and are being discriminated against.
Any other age has the same problem, it's irrelevant. Age =/ maturity.
I recall sitting in a bar with some other guys from my base in Germany and watching the 14-year-old "kids" sitting at another table drinking.
^^ you would do.. 16 is the legal drinking age for non-spirits and then of course ppl bend the rules a little :PQuote:
Originally Posted by 'Ughmahedhurtz',index.php?page=Thread&postID=60767 #post60767
I don't think I ever wanted to imply that one should have had to have gone through some terrible ordeal in order to join a guild! I was merely giving an example of someone that would likely have developed mentally to a more mature state. While responsibility, as you rightly put it, is the overwhelming influence over that scenario, it does not lessen it's significance. After all, responsibility is one of the major factors in determining an adult's choices in life; and maturity an acknowledgement through choice, of those responsibilities.Quote:
Deceased, the scenarios you gave you game don't have anything to do with maturity, just responsibility. Having a lot of responsibility at an early age just means that your mental maturity(among other things) is tested at an earlier age than most people are. Being forced to go through tough times at an earlier age means you need to be mature, while people who don't go through tough times until later in their life don't need to be, but they still can be. I'm saying that having a requirement of going through tough times at an early age because they will be mature is bad. Any other reason is either irrelevant or just plain wrong, so having the requirement at all is bad.
That leads me back to the magic number 18. Whist personal responsibility is somewhat varied from person to person, as a general rule, an adult (over 18 ) will have more responsibilities.
And whilst I accept this is generalising it is nonetheless true (as a generalisation)
whilst there is some truth in this, and some (few) adopt the 18+ rule to have a more mentally mature guild, the vast majority do it to protect under 18s and it's members. It may seem discriminatory and patronising to say 17y'olds need protecting over WoW, but everyone is bound by law to respect just that.Quote:
They choose 18 because of the generalization that the law spawned. Every time a 17 year old cries foul, a bunch of 19 year olds just say "i more matur the u bcuz i 18". Since it's the same everywhere it's not like they can go somewhere else for support. They are a minority and are being discriminated against.
Any other age has the same problem, it's irrelevant. Age =/ maturity.
If a guild decides to implement a rule to ensure this is upheld, it is to some extent justified in doing so.
Will this create a sub/over 18 divide in the game? I don't think so. there are plenty of guilds out there that don't implement this rule.
Someone who goes through tough times is more likely to be mature as is someone who is older, as is a male is likely to be better than a female at wow. These are all generalizations, meaning not all people who go through tough times, are older, or are male are mature/better. Making a rule that only older/males can join a guild just because they are more likely to be mature/better is wrong. Going through tough times is just another thing that is more likely to end up with someone more mature.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=60826#post 60826
Protect them from what? Things they don't need protection from. Members don't need to be saved from all 17 year olds and all 17 year olds don't need to be saved from older people. Going by protection, an all male guild might need protection from females to avoid drama. Noone is bound by law to respect that, if that were true it would be illegal to have guilds with people under 18. There is nothing illegal about limiting membership in a guild, whether it's by age or gender(afaik), but I'm not arguing about legality, I'm arguing about right and wrong. It is creating a divide, just not to everyone.Quote:
whilst there is some truth in this, and some (few) adopt the 18+ rule to have a more mentally mature guild, the vast majority do it to protect under 18s and it's members. It may seem discriminatory and patronising to say 17y'olds need protecting over WoW, but everyone is bound by law to respect just that.
If a guild decides to implement a rule to ensure this is upheld, it is to some extent justified in doing so.
Will this create a sub/over 18 divide in the game? I don't think so. there are plenty of guilds out there that don't implement this rule.
It's like making mmorpgs(or anything) illegal just because a few people can't handle playing them responsibly. In this case it's making a guild illegal to a group of people just because some of them can't handle it.
The guild I'm in doesn't have a '18+' rule (in fact 2 of our officers are under 18 ) but I can understand the viewpoint of guilds that do adopt it. It's nothing to do really with maturity, I'm sure that they would happily fail the trial of an immature 28 year old based on behaviour, what it is to do with is the ability to say "You're probably considered to be legally responsible for yourself in your country of origin, meaning that we can feel more relaxed about our behaviour on guild Vent/guild chat, not feeling a need to self censor to avoid potentially improper content for someone who would be considered a minor". It's nothing to do with an applicant/member's actual maturity but about allowing members to be as uncensored as possible without the worry of being inappropriate in front of younger people. They may, of course, never have content on the guild communication channels which would actually warrant the rule but still prefer to have that perceived freedom available to them.
I assume that guilds that want to incorporate a minimum age requirement do so based on the reasoning that while there are exceptions, older people tend to be more mature. I think that more often than not, they draw a line out of a desire to avoid doing a lot of screening.
Whether that's right or wrong, or fair or unfair, is a matter of opinion. In my experience, few guilds bother with an age limit, and some of those are not very strict about it. I actually wouldn't judge a guild's maturity level based on such a simple and easily-implied/applied metric. If I found a guild that was worth being in, and they had an age limit, that wouldn't bother me. A guild without an age limit that was populated by people 25 and older who acted like idiots wouldn't be a guild that I would want to join.
I've known lots of immature adults, and quite a few mature "pre-adults." But in general, older people are more stable and more mature.