I think it should be based on activity. If a fifteen year old has been helpful and active, why can't he or she apply when a 19 year old can on his or her first day?
An eighteen-year-old is more likely to possess a mature, rational, and objective attitude than a fifteen-year-old.
That's true. However, I think that, in order for a member to be helpful and respected enough to be a mod, they would have to be mature. Besides, I think experience is a better quality in this situation than just general smartness and maturity. In addition, an active and trusted user is more likely to be accepted by this community than a random person nobody's ever heard of.
I can agree with trust and experience with this site being important for a user to be trusted as a mod, but we should not trust active and experienced users to make this site better as moderators simply because they are active and trusted by some of their peers.
Besides, a new user to this site might possess the maturity and responsibility admirable in moderators and have experience from sites similar to amirite, while also being 18 years old.
You make valid points, but someone who has never used this site, or any site for that matter, doesn't know how it works. Sure, they can catch on eventually, but it's a lot like foreign aid. If you don't know exactly what the problems are, which are best discovered through long term immersion, you aren't going to know how to fix those problems.
in a way, I understand your point, but from where I stand as a 17-year-old, the rule is merely limiting.
Patience is an important facet of maturity.
that is true
now we'll just have to wait and see if I'm still here when I turn 18, or if I've drifted away again like I already have once before :p
I want to tell you it doesn't matter anyway but that's mostly just because I'm butthurt about not getting to be a mod.
It doesn't matter about age. The most recent wave of mods have done a poor job in fighting uncited posts or reposts.