The New Moderation Changes.

[today]

Link: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=4585755#post4585755

Personally its loads better i think :]

Not sure on the no pm for warnings but then again shouldnt break the rules.

[Nixt]

Automatic bans = big thumbs down from me. I don't like them simply because I think there needs to be an intelligent and human input when it comes to banning members which you do not get from automatic bans. As I've said before, changing a system that is fine already can often cause problems. Why try and fix something that isn't broken?!

[today]

But getting infractions is alot harder now and less chance of getting them.

[Nixt]

But getting infractions is alot harder now and less chance of getting them.

Yes, but that is hardly a remedy for my qualms ;).

[kk.]

you should still get a pm for warnings but it seems better :)

[Jamesy]

oo I will still have active warnings. Can't you bump it back like... a month?

[today]

Yes, but that is hardly a remedy for my qualms ;).
There still is the "appeal agaisnt" issue. ;) And all infractions are overlooked anyhow.

[Nixt]

There still is the "appeal agaisnt" issue. ;) And all infractions are overlooked anyhow.

Yes I am aware of this, I used to do it myself. Tended to be the least favourite job of all Super Moderators :-P. Nevertheless, I simply feel that an action such as banning a member should have a human input. Simple as that.
Automatic banning will probably, on the whole, work out fine but that's not going to change my opinion toward the lack of intelligent decision behind automatic bans.
I also think removing PMs for warnings is silly, where is the justification for this? They are supposed to remind users of the rules... if they don't get a PM and it takes them a while to notice a new warning in their User CP they are not receiving this reminder. It seems like a totally pointless change just for the damn sake of it.

[today]

Im unsure on why warnings are set to no pms now. Though auto banning will save time for super moderators and give them chance to do other job roles though.

:] Lets agree to disagree on the auto banning.

[le harry]

it's okay i guess. i've never really had over 4 active infractions/warnings at one point i don't think so i'm not bothered.

[Plank]

I agree that you should still get a pm for a warning

[Jamesy]

Yes I am aware of this, I used to do it myself. Tended to be the least favourite job of all Super Moderators :-P. Nevertheless, I simply feel that an action such as banning a member should have a human input. Simple as that.
Automatic banning will probably, on the whole, work out fine but that's not going to change my opinion toward the lack of intelligent decision behind automatic bans.
I also think removing PMs for warnings is silly, where is the justification for this? They are supposed to remind users of the rules... if they don't get a PM and it takes them a while to notice a new warning in their User CP they are not receiving this reminder.

autoban works well in some situations.

Eg on fp you get instabanned for saying the N word but most of the banning is done by only a few moderators. Less than here really, with about 100,000 members.

[Dan2nd]

I think you should still receive a PM fo warnings less robotic that way =]

[jesus]

This is a sign that you all should be less naughty now.

[Nixt]

autoban works well in some situations.

Eg on fp you get instabanned for saying the N word but most of the banning is done by only a few moderators. Less than here really, with about 100,000 members.

I'm not saying it won't work, it will be madeto work. I personally just don't like it because it is far too robotic. In my opinion banning should have human input, as they can make an informed decision in regard to a ban. An instant ban for having a certain amount of infractions does do this and for that reason I don't like the idea.

[Jamesy]

yes I agree garion. what I was saing was autoban works some places. Here I don't think it will, we have a smaller community and a human input feels better than an automated message.

[Kardan]

What if the 10th Infraction was obviously a wrong decision and should be reversed...

You can't reverse it because you're banned?

[today]

All infractions are overlooked so if that happened you wouldnt be banend for long.

[Test:Tube:Baby]

I still like the idea, but I still think you should get a PM when you receive a warning. Otherwise you may not realise you've done something wrong, and then you'll keep doing it until you get banned :(


This is a sign that you all should be less naughty now.

Yes master :rolleyes:

[GommeInc]

Automatic bans = big thumbs down from me. I don't like them simply because I think there needs to be an intelligent and human input when it comes to banning members which you do not get from automatic bans. As I've said before, changing a system that is fine already can often cause problems. Why try and fix something that isn't broken?!
Exactly what I am thinking. I also don't like the idea that people get infractions for petty trivial things that are about as serious as the parliament members watching a cat dance around a mexican hat. 5 infractions for contstantly swearing to purposely annoy members = infraction. Swearing but the filter doesn't pick it up = deserves an infraction, but isn't worth a ban if done 5 times. Same goes for people talking in another language 5 times, tis very petty and not worth a ban.

They've added a system, but it won't work until they've fixed other systems "/

[Nixt]

All infractions are overlooked so if that happened you wouldnt be banend for long.

It's still an inconvenience though. I'd find it very annoying to be banned for even a couple of hours to find myself unbanned because the Infraction was wrongly issued. If bans were left to Super Moderators, this problem would not arise as the SMod should be individually checking each Infraction and justifying the ban.

[---MAD---]

I'm not saying it won't work, it will be madeto work. I personally just don't like it because it is far too robotic. In my opinion banning should have human input, as they can make an informed decision in regard to a ban. An instant ban for having a certain amount of infractions does do this and for that reason I don't like the idea.
Off course it requires human input. The infractions are given out by humans. Without the humans to infract there would be no bans ;).

Exactly what I am thinking. I also don't like the idea that people get infractions for petty trivial things that are about as serious as the parliament members watching a cat dance around a mexican hat. 5 infractions for contstantly swearing to purposely annoy members = infraction. Swearing but the filter doesn't pick it up = deserves an infraction, but isn't worth a ban if done 5 times. Same goes for people talking in another language 5 times, tis very petty and not worth a ban.

They've added a system, but it won't work until they've fixed other systems "/
Things like that are accounted for already. What systems need to be fixed?

[DaveTaylor]

Off course it requires human input. The infractions are given out by humans. Without the humans to infract there would be no bans ;).

Things like that are accounted for already. What systems need to be fixed?

Righto means I am 2 infractions away from 7 day ban w00t!

[Nixt]

Off course it requires human input. The infractions are given out by humans. Without the humans to infract there would be no bans ;).

Yes. However I also think there should be human input when it comes to the ban itself; a direct input.

[GommeInc]

Things like that are accounted for already. What systems need to be fixed?
The moderation system, the rules... Anything linked to the Infraction System. Members can get infracted through moderator misjudgement AND are not aware of which rules are more serious than the others. This system may work, but it won't make a whole lot of sense, because at the moment any broken rule, whether it is serious or not, will earn an infraction. There's a few ways to go about it. Change the rules so it has sections; serious rules and whatever you'll call less-serious rules. Change the Moderation system to somehow solve moderators issuing warnings/infractions which are not rightly deserved, and half the time they know it once it's brought into attention. Change the infraction system so it knows what rules aren't serious, but this will still confuse members because they will not know what rules are serious etc.

Then comes the robotic bit which is going in the wrong directions from what people want. They don't want robots moderating us, they want to communicate with something fleshy sitting behind a computer.

[---MAD---]

Righto means I am 2 infractions away from 7 day ban w00t!
No because you don't have any infractions - you have warnings.

The moderation system, the rules... Anything linked to the Infraction System. Members can get infracted through moderator misjudgement AND are not aware of which rules are more serious than the others. This system may work, but it won't make a whole lot of sense, because at the moment any broken rule, whether it is serious or not, will earn an infraction. There's a few ways to go about it. Change the rules so it has sections; serious rules and whatever you'll call less-serious rules. Change the Moderation system to somehow solve moderators issuing warnings/infractions which are not rightly deserved, and half the time they know it once it's brought into attention. Change the infraction system so it knows what rules aren't serious, but this will still confuse members because they will not know what rules are serious etc.
Moderation is mostly all about judgement theres no way we can explain each possible outcome for each rule. Thats why the infractions/warnings given out are checked by smods/admins and why we allow members to report any unfair ones so they can tell us their side in case of mis-judgement or confusion. You have to remember, the people moderating are mostly teenagers not trained professionals ;).

[CALLUMisbanned]

You're always first to make a thread about every announcement, and you always agree?

And this is alright I guess, but perm bans from auto is crap, should be from smods.

[jesus]

I'm in full support of this new system. If you are complaining that you don't get a PM with a warning when you do something wrong, my suggestion is that you take a look through the forum rules to make sure you don't get one in the first place. :)

[Meti]

BUT WHAT IF PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE LIKE 15 INFRACTIONS OR SOMETHING? WILL THEY GET BANNED OR WHAT?

[CALLUMisbanned]

BUT WHAT IF PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE LIKE 15 INFRACTIONS OR SOMETHING? WILL THEY GET BANNED OR WHAT?


Stop talking in capitals. If they had 15 active infractions then yes they would. But they should be banned already.

[Nixt]

Moderation is mostly all about judgement

Then why, oh why, are you introducing the use of automatic bans?!


I'm in full support of this new system. If you are complaining that you don't get a PM with a warning when you do something wrong, my suggestion is that you take a look through the forum rules to make sure you don't get one in the first place. :)

Why do you hold that opinion? Why do you think that individuals should not receive a PM? Please explain your way of thinking.
It seems so stupid that people don't get a PM after receiving a warning and I just really cannot see why you would remove it? If someone can justify the reason I will sit back and say okay, great, good idea. I was wrong, you are right - but as of yet I do not see any justification for it.

[IRBlueMoon]

it's okay i guess. i've never really had over 4 active infractions/warnings at one point i don't think so i'm not bothered.
Looks I need to calm down a bit then. I think I had 8 infractions and 6 warnings... I might just ask Alex to post my information like he did last time which he shouldn't have done. :rolleyes:


This is a sign that you all should be less naughty now.
Rich coming from you?


BUT WHAT IF PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE LIKE 15 INFRACTIONS OR SOMETHING? WILL THEY GET BANNED OR WHAT?
They'd be banned already.

[@xP]

I'm in full support of this new system. If you are complaining that you don't get a PM with a warning when you do something wrong, my suggestion is that you take a look through the forum rules to make sure you don't get one in the first place. :)

Rich coming from you.

If you wern't a moderator you would 100% against this as your the forum
'spammer' and wont want to be prevented to gaining your 1000 posts day achievment.

I'm against this. What was wrong with the old moderation system?

[Slowpoke]

i think it's great ;D

[jesus]

BUT WHAT IF PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE LIKE 15 INFRACTIONS OR SOMETHING? WILL THEY GET BANNED OR WHAT?


Stop talking in capitals. If they had 15 active infractions then yes they would. But they should be banned already.No they wouldn't. The auto-bans start in 3 weeks so that gives time for existing infractions or warnings to expire.


Then why, oh why, are you introducing the use of automatic bans?!



Why do you hold that opinion? Why do you think that individuals should not receive a PM? Please explain your way of thinking.
It seems so stupid that people don't get a PM after receiving a warning and I just really cannot see why you would remove it? If someone can justify the reason I will sit back and say okay, great, good idea. I was wrong, you are right - but as of yet I do not see any justification for it.I was agreeing with the auto-ban ideology. :O I just made a suggestion for those complaining about not receiving PMs.



Rich coming from you?


Rich coming from you.

If you wern't a moderator you would 100% against this as your the forum
'spammer' and wont want to be prevented to gaining your 1000 posts day achievment.

I'm against this. What was wrong with the old moderation system?The highest amount of infractions I've had at one time is 2 with 4 warnings. :S


i think it's great ;DGood. Everyone else seems to be against everything that the forum ever does... until it's them who are being bullied or whatever. :eusa_booh

[Slowpoke]

Good. Everyone else seems to be against everything that the forum ever does... until it's them who are being bullied or whatever. :eusa_booh

They will never be happy - whatever management do. You know what I mean... :$

[Nixt]

I was agreeing with the auto-ban ideology. :O I just made a suggestion for those complaining about not receiving PMs.
The highest amount of infractions I've had at one time is 2 with 4 warnings. :S

Good. Everyone else seems to be against everything that the forum ever does... until it's them who are being bullied or whatever. :eusa_booh

So do you agree with the lack of warning PMs, or not? Why do you think automatic bans are a good idea? I dislike posts where people do not back up their statements, it makes them seem like they are following others blindly.
I am disagreeing because my opinion happens to go against the implementation of new systems. Not because I have anything against management. In a recent conversation with MAD I told him I thought, on the whole, Habbox were doing fine but occasionally decisions were made that, to me, seem stupid. This decision happens to be one of them.

[@xP]

No they wouldn't. The auto-bans start in 3 weeks so that gives time for existing infractions or warnings to expire.

I was agreeing with the auto-ban ideology. :O I just made a suggestion for those complaining about not receiving PMs.



The highest amount of infractions I've had at one time is 2 with 4 warnings. :S

Good. Everyone else seems to be against everything that the forum ever does... until it's them who are being bullied or whatever. :eusa_booh

We didn't talk about infractions.

I'm talking about your constant rule breaking.
The spam etc.

But i guess your dong your job now telling people to read the forum rules.
All im trying to say is you spam all over the forum.


And there still no specific reason to why the old system went and the new system is coming in. :rolleyes:

[Slowpoke]

We didn't talk about infractions.

I'm talking about your constant rule breaking.
The spam etc.

But i guess your dong your job now telling people to read the forum rules.
All im trying to say is you spam all over the forum.


And there still no specific reason to why the old system went and the new system is coming in. :rolleyes:

Sorry Corey but he doesn't spam. There is no rule against making lots of posts in one day. All of Jamie's posts contribute to the topic at hand so all his posts are justified. Spam is if someone went around posting, "LOL" - "YEH" etc. Jamies posts are lengthy and as I said, he's always contributing.

[Neversoft]

Automatic bans = big thumbs down from me. I don't like them simply because I think there needs to be an intelligent and human input when it comes to banning members which you do not get from automatic bans. As I've said before, changing a system that is fine already can often cause problems. Why try and fix something that isn't broken?!

I totally agree.

Also, what if you get a handful of unfair warnings/infractions and get banned/cautioned? You'll have to go through a ton of trouble to get unbanned/uncautioned when it won't be your fault in the first place. It takes atleast 5 days for them to unban you these days... Thats very unfair and I can see it happening a lot.

I think 5 warnings for a caution is too less... You could get like 4 warnings all on the same day and then not get any until 2 months later, but get cautioned for it. It was a lot better before where how often you broke the rules determined whether you got cautioned/banned or not. As Garion said already, you need human input, not some computer.

[jesus]

They will never be happy - whatever management do. You know what I mean... :$Sure do homeboy.


So do you agree with the lack of warning PMs, or not? Why do you think automatic bans are a good idea? I dislike posts where people do not back up their statements, it makes them seem like they are following others blindly.
I am disagreeing because my opinion happens to go against the implementation of new systems. Not because I have anything against management. In a recent conversation with MAD I told him I thought, on the whole, Habbox were doing fine but occasionally decisions were made that, to me, seem stupid. This decision happens to be one of them.I neither agree or disagree with the lack of warning PMs. I'd have to see how things are in the long-run to make a judgement on whether it was a good idea or not, which is why i haven't justified my opinions on this as well as the auto-banning.

I do know what you mean by the concept of 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' - I usually agree and I can see why some members might be in disagreement. But from my point of view, it makes the system a lot easier. Not only this but the other changes that you don't know about and I probably cannot mention. That might be why I'm in agreement to it and other users aren't.

[Slowpoke]

Also, what if you get a handful of unfair warnings/infractions and get banned/cautioned? You'll have to go through a ton of trouble to get unbanned/uncautioned when it won't be your fault in the first place. It takes atleast 5 days for them to unban you these days... Thats very unfair and I can see it happening a lot.

You would never get a 'handful' of unfair warnings since every infraction/warning is checked by a SMod/Admin before it becomes active. Yes, the odd one or two slip through the net but that's what the "Report Unfair Infractions" thread is for. Also, sending an email to Habbox (contact us) is hardly a "ton" of trouble.

[Neversoft]

You would never get a 'handful' of unfair warnings since every infraction/warning is checked by a SMod/Admin before it becomes active. Yes, the odd one or two slip through the net but that's what the "Report Unfair Infractions" thread is for. Also, sending an email to Habbox (contact us) is hardly a "ton" of trouble.

I got 3 unfair warnings yesterday mate.

Oh, and it is a ton of trouble because they never reply. :rolleyes:

[FlyingJesus]

The highest amount of infractions I've had at one time is 2 with 4 warnings. :S

You were permed for like 3 years lol

Anyway, I don't get why we don't get a PM for warnings - I'd prefer to as otherwise I'm not being warned at all, and am likely to continue as I was :S also can someone who's knowledgeable of such things let me know in what way we'll be receiving less infractions as it says in the announcement? What are the actual changes to moderation that we can look out for?

[Kardan]

You would never get a 'handful' of unfair warnings since every infraction/warning is checked by a SMod/Admin before it becomes active. Yes, the odd one or two slip through the net but that's what the "Report Unfair Infractions" thread is for. Also, sending an email to Habbox (contact us) is hardly a "ton" of trouble.

And if you get unfairly banned how can you use the thread?

[Antony]

I don't see why we can't be informed via PM if you are given a warning / infraction, I for one do not automatically check my User CP as soon as I log onto the forum, and don't do it often enough, the PM would highlight that you have been given an infraction/warning and make you aware.

[@xP]

Sorry Corey but he doesn't spam. There is no rule against making lots of posts in one day. All of Jamie's posts contribute to the topic at hand so all his posts are justified. Spam is if someone went around posting, "LOL" - "YEH" etc. Jamies posts are lengthy and as I said, he's always contributing.

Oh sorry, he posts:

LOL, that made me laugh.
Abuses the forum games section
Abuses the 'What music are you listning to now'
In cool rooms, looks good.

I can go on, thats spam.

Now im finished with my rank about Jesus because overall he is a decent moderator.

@Garion & Neversoft

I couldn't agree any more. :)

[The Professor]

I do think not being "warned" when you receive a "warning" sort of defeats the point of the word "warning" but we shall see how it works out.

[Slowpoke]

Oh sorry, he posts:

LOL, that made me laugh.
Abuses the forum games section
Abuses the 'What music are you listning to now'
In cool rooms, looks good.

You can't abuse the forum games section or the music WAYLTK thread. There is no rule about the amount of posts you're allowed to make. As for cool rooms, I didn't know you were required to post more than that? If you are, please direct me to where that's stated :)


And if you get unfairly banned how can you use the thread?

By using the 'contact us' form, what do you think it's there for?

[today]

I think 5 warnings for a caution is too less... You could get like 4 warnings all on the same day and then not get any until 2 months later, but get cautioned for it. It was a lot better before where how often you broke the rules determined whether you got cautioned/banned or not. As Garion said already, you need human input, not some computer.

Warnings do NOT count towards a ban. ;) It happens now before this new system pointless warnings were given out making a caation happen then they got reversed. So it will happen anyway, nothing new really?

[Neversoft]

You can't abuse the forum games section or the music WAYLTK thread. There is no rule about the amount of posts you're allowed to make. As for cool rooms, I didn't know you were required to post more than that? If you are, please direct me to where that's stated :)



By using the 'contact us' form, what do you think it's there for?

Ignoring me now eh. ;)

How often do they reply to contact us? And if I remember correctly it wasn't even working a few days ago...

[The Professor]

Ignoring me now eh. ;)

How often do they reply to contact us? And if I remember correctly it wasn't even workign a few days ago...

To be perfectly honest I hear reports of it "not working" every other week, if theres that much of a problem with it I think something needs to be done about it, or maybe rig up a system of letting users email the admins directly on an @habbox.com email or something.

[Slowpoke]

Ignoring me now eh. ;)

How often do they reply to contact us? And if I remember correctly it wasn't even working a few days ago...

Sorry :P Not on purpose!!

Erm, well Elkaa tries to reply to emails daily and yeah, they were having problems with it but it's all fine now!

[GommeInc]

Moderation is mostly all about judgement theres no way we can explain each possible outcome for each rule. Thats why the infractions/warnings given out are checked by smods/admins and why we allow members to report any unfair ones so they can tell us their side in case of mis-judgement or confusion. You have to remember, the people moderating are mostly teenagers not trained professionals ;).
So why make them seem like professionals :rolleyes: Whenever someone moans about an infraction or the rules, it's never stated that their knowledge is about the same as anyone elses. They're put forward as individuals with higher knowledge than all other members, when they're about as dumb and stupid as the rest of us, and in some casers more or less.

Surely you should be moderating moderators and see how bad they are with infractions and bold, red letter edits and if they don't do a satisfactory job, deal with them? It's suggested time and time again, and the outcome is that they'll get upset... So? Should be doing your job properly.

[jesus]

We didn't talk about infractions.

I'm talking about your constant rule breaking.
The spam etc.

But i guess your dong your job now telling people to read the forum rules.
All im trying to say is you spam all over the forum.


And there still no specific reason to why the old system went and the new system is coming in. :rolleyes:If I constantly broke the rules I'd be infracted.


Sorry Corey but he doesn't spam. There is no rule against making lots of posts in one day. All of Jamie's posts contribute to the topic at hand so all his posts are justified. Spam is if someone went around posting, "LOL" - "YEH" etc. Jamies posts are lengthy and as I said, he's always contributing.He won't listen, there's no hope!


I got 3 unfair warnings yesterday mate.

Oh, and it is a ton of trouble because they never reply. :rolleyes:They were confirmed 'fair' by 3 seperate super-moderators. :)


You were permed for like 3 years lolInfractions didn't exist back then!


And if you get unfairly banned how can you use the thread?There's a link that says 'Contact Us' at the bottom - you use that.


Oh sorry, he posts:

LOL, that made me laugh.
Abuses the forum games section
Abuses the 'What music are you listning to now'
In cool rooms, looks good.

I can go on, thats spam.

Now im finished with my rank about Jesus because overall he is a decent moderator.

@Garion & Neversoft

I couldn't agree any more. :)If you can provide evidence of where I've posted on multiple occasions 'LOL that made me laugh' or 'looks good' then I'll give you 100 thrones on Habbo UK.




As I've said, we have inside information and that's why we might agree more with these changes.

[Slowpoke]

I got 3 unfair warnings yesterday mate.

Oh, and it is a ton of trouble because they never reply. :rolleyes:

Hmm since I'm not a moderator anymore I won't comment on whether I thoght they were fair or not since my opinion won't be valued. However, I suggest you PM ---MAD---, Elkaa or both if you still feel that they were unfair. :)

[GommeInc]

As I've said, we have inside information and that's why we might agree more with these changes.

That excuse is dried up and invalid. On a forum, nearly everything is on show. There is nearly no 'inside information' other than how the system works for people who don't have the powers to use them.


Good. Everyone else seems to be against everything that the forum ever does... until it's them who are being bullied or whatever. :eusa_booh
It's mainly because it doesn't make sense. They just chuck a system into the deep end and hope for the best, rather than propose the ideas to make people get ready for them and most important, see how it fits in with any other system that works in, around and through it.

[Nixt]

I neither agree or disagree with the lack of warning PMs. I'd have to see how things are in the long-run to make a judgement on whether it was a good idea or not, which is why i haven't justified my opinions on this as well as the auto-banning.

I do know what you mean by the concept of 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' - I usually agree and I can see why some members might be in disagreement. But from my point of view, it makes the system a lot easier. Not only this but the other changes that you don't know about and I probably cannot mention. That might be why I'm in agreement to it and other users aren't.


Easier isn't necessarily better though, is it? Why are members not told about all of the changes? If it means we can understand it's foolish not to tell us, because with the way it is currently presented is making it look like a bad idea to many members.


Warnings do NOT count towards a ban. ;) It happens now before this new system pointless warnings were given out making a caation happen then they got reversed. So it will happen anyway, nothing new really?

If cautions were given out on the basis of pointless warnings before the Moderation on this Forum is in a bad state indeed. As I mentioned before, Super Moderators should be individually checking Infractions and Warnings they are using to justify a ban or caution. At least, that's what we used to be told and I see no reason for it to change now.

[jesus]

That excuse is dried up and invalid. On a forum, nearly everything is on show. There is nearly no 'inside information' other than how the system works for people who don't have the powers to use them. So you can see the updated moderation guide can you? The changes make it easier and more convenient for us as moderators, that's what I'm saying is the reason for us liking the changes.

[Neversoft]

Sorry :P Not on purpose!!

Erm, well Elkaa tries to reply to emails daily and yeah, they were having problems with it but it's all fine now!

Is Elkaa the only one that replies to the emails? Thats bad.


To be perfectly honest I hear reports of it "not working" every other week, if theres that much of a problem with it I think something needs to be done about it, or maybe rig up a system of letting users email the admins directly on an @habbox.com email or something.

Yeah. Although if they did set up a new system that would most probably start 'not working' aswell. :eusa_wall


They were confirmed 'fair' by 3 seperate super-moderators. :)

You mean they were confirmed fair by you.


Hmm since I'm not a moderator anymore I won't comment on whether I thoght they were fair or not since my opinion won't be valued. However, I suggest you PM ---MAD---, Elkaa or both if you still feel that they were unfair. :)

Thats what I did with another unfair warning I got a few days ago and it got reversed. Might just PM him again. :P

[GommeInc]

So you can see the updated moderation guide can you? The changes make it easier and more convenient for us as moderators, that's what I'm saying is the reason for us liking the changes.
Actually we can, because you're using the guide mentioned to do visible work on the forum e.g. how you infraction a member :rolleyes: If it was inside information it'll be something we really do not see at all.

[today]

The Moderation gude displays so much and we hardly show anyone anything apart from moderation edits.

There is much in that guide which members will never see unless becoming a moderator.
:)

[Nixt]

So you can see the updated moderation guide can you? The changes make it easier and more convenient for us as moderators, that's what I'm saying is the reason for us liking the changes.

As I said before, making things "easier and more convenient" for the Moderators should not be the priority for Forum Management. Their priority should be the members and if this means Moderators have to do some hard work (not that most don't work hard already) then so be it. I am guessing most Super Moderators were not having problems with the banning system before, so why change it now?

[today]

vBulletin offer us this, we pay for it so we may as well use it.

[GommeInc]

The Moderation gude displays so much and we hardly show anyone anything apart from moderation edits.

There is much in that guide which members will never see unless becoming a moderator.
:)
So what you are saying is the moderation guide has useless bits that will never be used? If a moderator moderates around the forum, anything they've been told will be put on show. They're moderators, not office workers. Office workers do behind the scenes stuff, moderators do visible forum stuff, which is what their job implies :rolleyes:

[Nixt]

vBulletin offer us this, we pay for it so we may as well use it.

Forgive me for saying it but that is a ridiculous reason for implementing a system. It shouldn't be a case of, "oh, we will use it 'cos it's there"

[Neversoft]

You're allowed on the Habbox Council as long as you don't have more than 6 warnings aren't you? Why is the amount to get cautioned lower than this?

[today]

So what you are saying is the moderation guide has useless bits that will never be used? If a moderator moderates around the forum, anything they've been told will be put on show. They're moderators, not office workers. Office workers do behind the scenes stuff, moderators do visible forum stuff, which is what their job implies :rolleyes:
No, and honestly Gommie please stop twisting words. ;) I cant comment on what is withi nthe guide but its far from useless.

[jesus]

Actually we can, because you're using the guide mentioned to do visible work on the forum e.g. how you infraction a member :rolleyes: If it was inside information it'll be something we really do not see at all.But what I'm saying is you don't know the changes to how infractions and warnings are issued now. :eusa_doh: