There is rampant discrimination going on in this community.

[THExSPIDERMAN]

Yes it's true. It's not racism or sexism, those are frowned upon and would not be tolerated for one second. The discrimination that is rampant is much more acceptable. I am talking about agism.

If you're 16 or under, you have probably personally experienced agism. You have probably had people not respect your ideas or not take you seriously because in their eyes, you are just a child. Even the rules have agism in them.

" In order for someone to enlist within a faction of Forerunner Conflict, he/she must be 15 years of age or older."

Look at that blatant agism. Let's change the quote a little bit.

" In order for someone to enlist within a faction of Forerunner Conflict, he/she must be a white male."

Now it's offensive.


Why is agism so acceptable? You can make the argument that people under 15 are more likely to act immature, but you're still stereotyping a whole age group because of how a few have acted.



To fix this problem I suggest getting rid of the part about age in the rules, and giving all members under 17 promotions to make up for promotions that they were probably passed over for due to their age. Also I suggest that the following derogatory terms should be against the rules.


-"Child"

-"kid"

-"lad"

-"did your mommy say it is time for bed"(when getting offline)



Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

[Deathhawk]

It's a huge problem in America. Even the laws are agist- driving age, tobacco, drinking age etc.

Such an injustice.

[RetRdidMunkie]

Sorry lad, but we've had major issues with kids in the past, before the age limit. Really, a child shouldn't even be on a mature game. And if his mommy says its time to go to bed, he'd leave the battle in the middle of it, and screw his team over.
So, nuh uh.

[THExSPIDERMAN]

Sorry lad, but we've had major issues with kids in the past, before the age limit. Really, a child shouldn't even be on a mature game. And if his mommy says its time to go to bed, he'd leave the battle in the middle of it, and screw his team over.
So, nuh uh.

But not all younger people would have to leave, only some. You're sterotyping. What if during a battle night, a lady goes into labor. Does that mean we ban pregnant women?

[Fuzzy]

But not all younger people would have to leave, only some. You're sterotyping. What if during a battle night, a lady goes into labor. Does that mean we ban pregnant women?

We ban pregnant men.

[RetRdidMunkie]

We ban humanity.

[bazongaman502]

Sorry lad, but we've had major issues with kids in the past, before the age limit. Really, a child shouldn't even be on a mature game. And if his mommy says its time to go to bed, he'd leave the battle in the middle of it, and screw his team over.
So, nuh uh.

Munkie is correct. We had several problems with younger kids. Originally I think the vote was either not allowing 13 year old, 14 year olds or 15 year olds and the vote went to the 15.

Kinda think about it this way though. Porn websites have these deals that pop up and say "You must be 18+ in order to enter". Thats kinda like what we are doing. There are a lot of things said on this website that younger kids don't need to see. Trust me, my sister told me to get my nephew involved in FC so he has something to do during the summer. I immediately said no because of how people act in FC (occasionally. Hell, just look back at when I joined, I was a major pain in the ass). But we all know how easy it is to say your a certain age when you're not on the internet. Everyone has faked their age at one point in their life in order to access something or do something. Chances are 14 and under kids might be still joining just under false ages for all we know.

But it should stay as is.

[silversleek]

We ban humanity.

screw it, let's ban everyone.


no, but really, it's 15 now? that is getting a bit much, what happened to the rule "13, unless they get a bunch of people to vouch for them and are checked out by the leaders themselves"

i definitely say we should go back to that rule, we're excluding a lot of people, and if it does turn out some are immature, we'll find out fairly quickly (hopefully in the bootcamp) and deal with it.

[Nicholas Sapien]

screw it, let's ban everyone.


no, but really, it's 15 now? that is getting a bit much, what happened to the rule "13, unless they get a bunch of people to vouch for them and are checked out by the leaders themselves"

i definitely say we should go back to that rule, we're excluding a lot of people, and if it does turn out some are immature, we'll find out fairly quickly (hopefully in the bootcamp) and deal with it.

wasn't it 15 in the reach wars?

[RetRdidMunkie]

Its been 15 for quite a while.

Really, I don't see the big deal, prevents more problems than it solves. People under 15 aren't always the cause of issues, but they are often worsened with people under 15. They either become the target of the drama, or they start the drama, or someone starts it for them. Either way, drama seems to be attracted to them. We've had far less major drama since we enacted the age limit.

- - - Updated - - -



screw it, let's ban everyone.


no, but really, it's 15 now? that is getting a bit much, what happened to the rule "13, unless they get a bunch of people to vouch for them and are checked out by the leaders themselves"

i definitely say we should go back to that rule, we're excluding a lot of people, and if it does turn out some are immature, we'll find out fairly quickly (hopefully in the bootcamp) and deal with it.

That rule is still in effect as far as I know. We've had a few younger members since reach....And unfortunately, most of them end up banned, because drama stirs up.

[MedeDust]

I stopped reading at sex.

Age limit should legally be 17 Because of the game rating. But what do I know.

[RetRdidMunkie]

I stopped reading at sex.

Age limit should legally be 17 Because of the game rating. But what do I know.

^^^this.
This is what a lot of us were thinking but then we decided on 15, with 13 being the minimum if you have people vouch for you.

Seriously, 15 was the compromise, so I really wouldn't complain.

[THExSPIDERMAN]

The age rating for the game is just a guideline for parents. It's not really a rule.

[silversleek]

wasn't it 15 in the reach wars?

sometime in the reach wars, was 13 when i joined. memories are starting to come back to me about some kind of vote taking place, everyone was super cerial about their sides, and 15 had the majority.

[RetRdidMunkie]

It shows what is commonly accepted as the age most gain the maturity level to handle what is in the game..

And we value maturity over member numbers. Sadly, 90% of the members under 15 we've had have caused major issues since the start.
Yet again, a lot of us who made the decision wanted a higher number, like 17 or 18, so 15 was the compromise. 15 was us showing leeway. Asking for us to go even lower is unwarranted, since we already went lower than we wanted.

And also, I don't think you read the "13 minimum with members vouching for them". Kinda makes the whole "agism" argument a moot point.

[Maxdoggy]

15 is a good age. If younger people want to join, they need people to vouch for them. To get people to vouch for them, they need to try to be a part of this community that we have created - showing that they truly want to be here.

Agism sucks, but in the context of FC it's necessary.

[THExSPIDERMAN]

It shows what is commonly accepted as the age most gain the maturity level to handle what is in the game..

And we value maturity over member numbers. Sadly, 90% of the members under 15 we've had have caused major issues since the start.
Yet again, a lot of us who made the decision wanted a higher number, like 17 or 18, so 15 was the compromise. 15 was us showing leeway. Asking for us to go even lower is unwarranted, since we already went lower than we wanted.

And also, I don't think you read the "13 minimum with members vouching for them". Kinda makes the whole "agism" argument a moot point.

That's still agist. What if we didn't let a certain race in unless members vouched for them?

[RetRdidMunkie]

That's still agist. What if we didn't let a certain race in unless members vouched for them?

And what if we only let people play in the battles if the sun was still shining in their state?


What ifs never contribute to discussion, because they aren't part of the discussion. Also, you can grow out of an age, can't grow out of a race. As someone who deals with racism all the damn time, I'm gonna ask you to drop that angle, because they are in no way, shape, or form, similar.

[THExSPIDERMAN]

They aren't completely the same, but they are both out of the persons control and they both bring discrimination.

[Toast78901]

All I see when reading Spiderman's posts in this thread is TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. ..

[RetRdidMunkie]

Alright dude, what's your beef with the rule?

Is there someone you wish to bring in? If so, vouch for them, and prove they'd be a valuable member for our community.

If not, then you have no horse in this race, so there's no need for any continued jockeying. There is no "agism" and really, this isn't a country, there is nothing stating we have to accept any and everyone. We are a private community. We don't let disrespectful people in, we force people to sign in to talk, sign on to play, and we don't let people under a certain age in unless someone vouches for them, and we have no obligation to change any of that.

- - - Updated - - -


All I see when reading Spiderman's posts in this thread is TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. ..

^^^this.

The decision was made, and concessions were also made. The WC already made major compromises to ensure that respectful members, as long as they are teenagers, are still able to be brought in to FC. Since no meaningful contributions or ideas are being given, this thread is closed.

CLOSED

[RaZ Vader]

The amount of stupid from OP is too damn high.