Moderators editing posts

[Thetan]

Ok, this is not directed toward anyone, or any Moderator.

Over the past couple days I have noticed a number forum moderators abusing their post editing powers. They have been editing posts that, really are the least bit rude, or pointless. Most of the time, they do not understand the what the person said (not incoherency), so they edit it saying it is pointless. If somebody says something towards someone, that could even SLIGHTLY be viewed as offensive, it is edited. Well, this is really irritating, because you cannot:

Make a joke
Tell someone off
Say something not directly related to the topic



Its really annoying! So next time you go to edit a post (this is to moderators), think about the post before you really irritate the poster, especially when its obvious that you did not understand what they were getting at!
Its these little things, that make this forum less casual and laid back. This forum should be a place to talk about stuff, make jokes, and sometimes when necessary tell people off who are causing trouble. You aren't the Taliban!

[Tristan]

Can you provide links to any posts that have been edited where posters are not replying directly to the topic?
As you should be allowed to reply to other people's posts in a thread without having to directly post about the topic.

[BlueEyedSarah]

They are doing their job on the forum, if they see anything breaking the rules they will edit the post or to make the post slightly better they edit it - Users would complain if the mods did not edit some posts and say they are not doing their job. Accept posts get edited by the mods and see they are at least doing their jobs to make the forum a good relaxing place to post in.

[Xeros]

To be honest I was infracted in the thread called " your ideal name "
I said the name... well if you've seen the film Meet the F*****'s
Well I said his name and I was infracted for that?

Mod's do it so when there monthly report comes it makes them look good.
Pathetic imo

[Tristan]

To be honest I was infracted in the thread called " your ideal name "
I said the name... well if you've seen the film Meet the F*****'s
Well I said his name and I was infracted for that?

Mod's do it so when there monthly report comes it makes them look good.
Pathetic imo

Well, although I decided against dealing with that post, I can see why it was decided to be dealt with by another moderator as it does indeed avoid the filter.

A warning or just an edit in my opinion would suffice but that's just me.

If there are any problems with infractions or warnings, report it in the specified thread, as has been said many times. :P

[kk.]

it has happened quite a lot to me recently

this is not directly related but im not going to PM someone when i can just post
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=470767

[Tristan]

it has happened quite a lot to me recently

this is not directly related but im not going to PM someone when i can just post
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=470767

Yeah, that's an example that would go along with what I said in my original post.


As you should be allowed to reply to other people's posts in a thread without having to directly post about the topic.

[Yoshimitsui]

The reason pointless comments are edited is because they contain no logical thinking by the user to what the have insterted into the reply, it is more often than not a reason to increase post count quickly.

And yes we do wish for users to stay on topic, if you get a user posting whatever he/she wishes in the thread then tom **** and harry do the same, in no time the thread has gone totally off the point and is basicly spam.
That is why there is many sections to post the aprropriate topic in so that evrryone can discuss whatever they wish without having to have threads taken over.

This way it makes the forum fair for everyone.

[Catzsy]

Well there is no reason for someone not to have a bit of fun because that's what the forum is for as far as I am concerned as long as it is not at somebody's elses expense. I think the way out is to have a laugh but make sure that you have posted something on-topic too. i.e. in the above post 'achoo' - it is only commonsense that is quite a witty remark but strictly under the the rules it is off-topic so you would make sure you also give your opinion on the thread topic e.g 'Achoo' - I do not think too much pepper is harmful'.

There is a reason for a spam forum because lots of people get irriatated
when they have taken the trouble to compose and post a thread in the right category and then it just turns into a spamfest.

As far as being The Taliban are concerned I believe that I am designated more to be like Benito Mussolini which I can cope with. Thanks Oli:D


Thetan, I do think you have bought up some valid points and I will certainly take heed of what you say. There could be a reason that the mod is busy and does not have time to read and get the gist of the thread but really you can only make a good judgment if this is done:)

[Tristan]

Well there is no reason for someone not to have a bit of fun because that's what the forum is for as far as I am concerned as long as it is not at somebody's elses expense. I think the way out is to have a laugh but make sure that you have posted something on-topic too. i.e. in the above post 'achoo' - it is only commonsense that is quite a witty remark but strictly under the the rules it is off-topic so you would make sure you also give your opinion on the thread topic e.g 'Achoo' - I do not think too much pepper is harmful'.

There is a reason for a spam forum because lots of people get irriatated
when they have taken the trouble to compose and post a thread in the right category and then it just turns into a spamfest.

As far as being The Taliban are concerned I believe that I am designated more to be like Benito Mussolini which I can cope with. Thanks Oli:D

Saurav (I think it is?)/kk means his post lower down in the thread. :)

Like this post, it's fair because it was provoked by a misunderstanding/previous post in the thread and is replying directly to it.

[Catzsy]

Saurav (I think it is?)/kk means his post lower down in the thread. :)

Like this post, it's fair because it was provoked by a misunderstanding/previous post in the thread and is replying directly to it.

Well I would say that post is off-topic. The previous post he made had off-topic elements but was also on-topic. The previous off-topic post was not edited as they were staff and it has to go the staff editor. It provides nothing constructive to the thread topic at all. It could have been easily put in a pm. We are hired to moderate by the rules of the forum so that's it really :)

[Hayd93]

Alot counts on the personal opinion of a moderator.There is such a fine line in some posts weather you edit or not as is the same if you infract or not.Most decisions will please majority but occasionally they think that it is wrong.Moderators are just like users we all make mistakes from time to time we are human you know.

[Thetan]

Can you provide links to any posts that have been edited where posters are not replying directly to the topic?
As you should be allowed to reply to other people's posts in a thread without having to directly post about the topic.


This is a good example right here, nobody was off topic, it was related to the topic, the moderator didnt have a clue what they were talking about, so she thought it was "pointless" and "Offtopic".

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=474909&page=2

[Tristan]

Well I would say that post is off-topic. The previous post he made had off-topic elements but was also on-topic. The previous off-topic post was not edited as they were staff and it has to go the staff editor. It provides nothing constructive to the thread topic at all. It could have been easily put in a pm. We are hired to moderate by the rules of the forum so that's it really :)

I disagree. :( Lol. :P
I wouldn't say it was a Pointless post by the staff member. It is a direct reply to an on-topic post and was provoked by a comment in it. This is the same with kk's post after this. It is also a direct reply and has all stemmed from an on-topic post. kk's post was provoked by the staff member asking where and so, I wouldn't deem it pointless.

:)

EDIT: Thetan, yeah. This is what I'm saying. I wouldn't have edited many if not any of the posts there. Kyle replies directly to the previous mentions of "4chan". The following posts are also direct replies and provoked by the question. I'd edit for posting pointlessly only posts #16, #17 & #18. #20 is off topic too, which ironically hasn't been edited which I'm going to do now. :)

[Catzsy]

I disagree. :( Lol. :P
I wouldn't say it was a Pointless post by the staff member. It is a direct reply to an on-topic post and was provoked by a comment in it. This is the same with kk's post after this. It is also a direct reply and has all stemmed from an on-topic post. kk's post was provoked by the staff member asking where and so, I wouldn't deem it pointless.

:)

I didn't say it was pointless - off-topic is not pointless. Pointless is totally random like some saying ' my helicopters on fire' in the middle of this discussion. I think perhaps people are getting mixed up here between off-topic and pointless. Just because somebody posts something off-topic this does not mean that the next poster has the right to go off-topic too. We are all governed by the same set of rules.:)

[GhostFace-]

ill say names ive seen

Mrs.McCall
Hyd93

edit a bit to much in General


i report the mod edits every now and then bu i never get mod edits so doesnt matter much to me.

[Wootzeh]

Ye, I seem to see Hayd93 and Mrs.Mccall editting loads of posts saying they're pointless when they aren't.

[The Professor]

Ok, this is not directed toward anyone, or any Moderator.

Over the past couple days I have noticed a number forum moderators abusing their post editing powers. They have been editing posts that, really are the least bit rude, or pointless. Most of the time, they do not understand the what the person said (not incoherency), so they edit it saying it is pointless. If somebody says something towards someone, that could even SLIGHTLY be viewed as offensive, it is edited. Well, this is really irritating, because you cannot:

Make a joke
Tell someone off
Say something not directly related to the topic



Its really annoying! So next time you go to edit a post (this is to moderators), think about the post before you really irritate the poster, especially when its obvious that you did not understand what they were getting at!
Its these little things, that make this forum less casual and laid back. This forum should be a place to talk about stuff, make jokes, and sometimes when necessary tell people off who are causing trouble. You aren't the Taliban!

As much as I appreciate you're trying to do some good for the forum, your tone is really patronising. As gomme points out so many times: we are only forum members with a couple more powers on the forum than everyone else. Those powers do not make us higher and more intelligent than you, and when we occasionally get things wrong it doesn't make us lower than you. If you speak to us as equals rather than children, you might get your message across better :)

As for the actual topic: you say some moderators are "abusing" their powers. I'm pretty sure Minty (as is the case study here) is not a moderator with the sole aim to try and make the forum a less fun place. Unfortunately, moderators have an icredibly difficult job, and it is also based on our own judgement as well as following a black-and-white guide. These things put together mean sometimes we get things wrong, or one of us has a slightly different interpretation of the rules to the next moderator, as has been displayed by Sam & Rosie above me.

As you use the forum more and more, and take note of the edits, you start to understand where a moderator is coming from when the edits are made, even if you don't necessarily agree with them. Once you've worked that out, you'll know how to "work the system" as it were and make sure all your posts adhere to the guidelines put down by the forum. One such way to do this is to make your witty comment or comment about the user above's post count or w/e, then say "And on-topic: nope, pepper is harmless". That way you've achieved what you've wanted to achieve, saved us a job and saved yourself getting annoyed with red writing all over your posts.

That's the thinking man's way around it anyway. You'll never get all the moderators to have the same interpretation of the rules, or the same level of strictness. So instead you need to learn how to use the system in your favour.

Edit: Ghostface's post pretty much backs up what I've said. Platinum user, been here a while, knows how the system works, never gets any edits. Its simple once you know how ;)

[today]

ill say names ive seen

Mrs.McCall
Hyd93

edit a bit to much in General


i report the mod edits every now and then bu i never get mod edits so doesnt matter much to me.

I have to agree, specially when it doesnt need editing :(

[Tristan]

Well they're quite new so may need a little bit of guidance.
I'd say they're doing fairly well.

This post is also fine, because it's directly replying to a comment about the two moderators.

& Catzsy, yes but we are not meant to edit with "Please post on-topic" or "Please do not post off-topic"... Since it is not written in the moderation guide... We are only able to edit with "Please do not post pointlessly"?

[GommeInc]

The reason pointless comments are edited is because they contain no logical thinking by the user to what the have insterted into the reply, it is more often than not a reason to increase post count quickly.

And yes we do wish for users to stay on topic, if you get a user posting whatever he/she wishes in the thread then tom **** and harry do the same, in no time the thread has gone totally off the point and is basicly spam.
That is why there is many sections to post the aprropriate topic in so that evrryone can discuss whatever they wish without having to have threads taken over.

This way it makes the forum fair for everyone.
May I ask, how do you know that there is no logical thinking? A post or indeed a thread is not pointless until proven so by many pointless posts following it.

Also, who says a forum has to have logical thinking behind each post? Humour is something for teenage culture, which the forum bases itself around, that changes depending on different tastes. This is a forum for teenagers, not a forum for business men and women for mature and intellectual conversation, because we are all well aware that this forum attracts users because of the fact it is aimed at teenagers (or tried to but fails miserably), rather than brainy people, which aren't all that common on Habbo...

[kk.]

Well I would say that post is off-topic. The previous post he made had off-topic elements but was also on-topic. The previous off-topic post was not edited as they were staff and it has to go the staff editor. It provides nothing constructive to the thread topic at all. It could have been easily put in a pm. We are hired to moderate by the rules of the forum so that's it really :)
The only thing is, i was replying directly because im not going to repeat what i said before as this would be a waste of my time and people reading it. if i was to put something along the lines of waht i said previously ("and i wouldnt think so. which pepper anyway? :P black pepper is used for seasoning so i wouldnt think it is.") it would not be deemed off topic. I thought i would point out the error to someone.

As you said, forums are meant for fun and to chat, nott o be given an infraction or warning for every single post that is apparently off topic which it really doesnt make a difference to anyone anyway.


This is a good example right here, nobody was off topic, it was related to the topic, the moderator didnt have a clue what they were talking about, so she thought it was "pointless" and "Offtopic".

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=474909&page=2
lol, to be fair, you have to laugh at that even if you arent a moderator


May I ask, how do you know that there is no logical thinking? A post or indeed a thread is not pointless until proven so by many pointless posts following it.
good point. I personally see some very witty remarks which make me laugh and then i see that it was edited and seen as pointless even when they are only just remotely related to the topic that they have made.

in the 4chan thread, this post: http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=4636115&postcount=6 is what i am talking about.


http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=476740
That thread was originally edited by professor-alex but then re edited and deleted because he got something wrong :P. im not saying hes a bad mod, i just thought i would point something out which made me laugh

[Mr.Sam]

Moderators editing posts for being offtopic is really annoying, if the posts relate to anywhere in the thread they are not off topic, as seen in this thread from like post 11 down.

4chan was talked about in the first post and they are simply replying to the thread.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=474909

[The Professor]

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=476740
That thread was originally edited by professor-alex but then re edited and deleted because he got something wrong :P. im not saying hes a bad mod, i just thought i would point something out which made me laugh

What? When? :eusa_whisI was trying to be pro-active but failed miserably :P It'd probably help if I owned a wii and knew how it worked :P

But that proves my point, we're only human :)

[kk.]

What? When? :eusa_whisI was trying to be pro-active but failed miserably :P It'd probably help if I owned a wii and knew how it worked :P

But that proves my point, we're only human :)
lol, thats alright, i just thought i would share with everyone in my laughter at when you realised you did something wrong :P

[Thetan]

Well, I think if you don't understand the subject, you do not have a right to label it "Offtopic" or "Pointless".

If you dont quite know whether they are offtopic or not, just leave it to another moderator who will know.

[samsaBEAR]

i must agree, i read through that topic, and all of the post apart from kyle's were on topic and not pointless.
it says in the rules that your post must be related to the thread, or a discussion within the thread. someone raised 4chan as a discussion that was related to the main thread, therefore all of them were on topic.

[Tristan]

Moderators editing posts for being offtopic is really annoying, if the posts relate to anywhere in the thread they are not off topic, as seen in this thread from like post 11 down.

4chan was talked about in the first post and they are simply replying to the thread.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=474909

Yes, this is exactly what I mean.
They're fine because they're provoked by previous posts in the thread.

[today]

that thread about 4chan, every post edited nearly is wrongly edited.

[GommeInc]

To be honest, there is a rule that states you can post 'off topic' as long as it relates to a post in the thread. So just chuck that in the infraction thread, or at the moderator.

[Thetan]

Yes, this is exactly what I mean.
They're fine because they're provoked by previous posts in the thread.

Not only that, but 4chan had everything to do with the subject, as they were the prime suspects of the incident.

[The Professor]

lol, thats alright, i just thought i would share with everyone in my laughter at when you realised you did something wrong :P

Well thankyou, that makes me feel great :'(

I asked for it really :P

Serious point time! It isn't hard to have a laugh with the moderators, and if they do edit something which was a joke but looked like an insult, or something along those lines, just PM the moderator politely and explain to them, they'll probably remove the edit and go a bright shade of red :P

[Tristan]

Not only that, but 4chan had everything to do with the subject, as they were the prime suspects of the incident.

Yeah. :P
Gomme, absolutely right, which is what I've been saying. :P

So I believe that this has been cleared up... :)

[Thetan]

Well thankyou, that makes me feel great :'(

I asked for it really :P

Serious point time! It isn't hard to have a laugh with the moderators, and if they do edit something which was a joke but looked like an insult, or something along those lines, just PM the moderator politely and explain to them, they'll probably remove the edit and go a bright shade of red :P


Well, the problem is they probably don't have the time to. All I am saying, is if you are a newbie to the internetz, and you are a moderator on a forum, and you have no clue what someone is talking about, leave it to the pros.

[Catzsy]

Moderators editing posts for being offtopic is really annoying, if the posts relate to anywhere in the thread they are not off topic, as seen in this thread from like post 11 down.

4chan was talked about in the first post and they are simply replying to the thread.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=474909

Yes I agree that's fine because that's contributing to the thread but quite often somebody will come along and just start a conversation which doesn't contribute to the spirit or theme of the thread. This can be just as annoying to people who do contribute and find the thread spammed up. The test is - does it contribute constructively to the thread? That's always been my understanding.


Thetan that is very true - I sure a thread by you the other day 'entititled' 'NewFag' I thought was the heck is that but found it be a new version of noob I think but it was a bit beyond me. :)

[Mr.Sam]

the subject has come up before, and after that moderators seemed to pay more attention to whether posts were on topic or not, but I don't think the moderator guide has been updated - there have been lots of new moderators and they seem to stick to the guide totally and if they see something that doesn't go with the initial thread topic they will class as off topic.

I think that the moderators have to stop using the guide to every detail and just use it as basic knowledge and make their own decisions based on the thread contents - not just the topic.

Of course moderators can not be knowledgeable in every subject that is covered but they should read through the thread and make an educated guess - perhaps even link the thread to another moderator/smod or even post in the moderator chat section for other moderators to provide feedback before editing.


Yes, this is exactly what I mean.
They're fine because they're provoked by previous posts in the thread.

[kk.]

Well thankyou, that makes me feel great :'(

I asked for it really :P

Serious point time! It isn't hard to have a laugh with the moderators, and if they do edit something which was a joke but looked like an insult, or something along those lines, just PM the moderator politely and explain to them, they'll probably remove the edit and go a bright shade of red :P
like you did :P

many moderators dont read or follow the thread and dont look at all the posts... probably dont know that many people on here on each others' MSN and are just having a mess around as your meant to.

[The Professor]

Well, the problem is they probably don't have the time to. All I am saying, is if you are a newbie to the internetz, and you are a moderator on a forum, and you have no clue what someone is talking about, leave it to the pros.

If you PM an smod or Elkaa, they might not have the time because they have a shedload to do, but the mod who made the edit will probably be more than happy to help you and correct their error.

Again, "leave it to the pros." Please stop being patronising, considering people complain that staff act like they're higher than people, being patronising to the staff is a bit backwards and equally as wrong.

@kk: Like I say, if a mod does edit thinking its a genuine insult, drop them a PM and correct them, they won't bite your head off! We aren't mind readers, we don't know the contents of every msn convo you've ever had with anyone.

What people seem unable to grasp is we're trying to work with you, not against you. If you make our lives awkward by causing a fuss when one of us makes a mistake, you start to get the divide between mods and everyone else.

[Thetan]

Yes I agree that's fine because that's contributing to the thread but quite often somebody will come along and just start a conversation which doesn't contribute to the spirit or theme of the thread. This can be just as annoying to people who do contribute and find the thread spammed up. The test is - does it contribute constructively to the thread? That's always been my understanding.


Thetan that is very true - I sure a thread by you the other day 'entititled' 'NewFag' I thought was the heck is that but found it be a new version of noob I think but it was a bit beyond me. :)

Actually, its someone who is new to 4chan and/or posts memes endlessly and is generally unfunny.

And to Professor-alex: What I mean by "Pro", I mean like a pro at the topic, who will understand the subject, and will know whether someone is posting offtopic

[Mrs.McCall]

The thread about the Rick Roll was not a thread about 4chan, thus it was taking the thread into a different topic and therefore it was off-topic.

The thread then went into a series of posts unrelated to the actual rick rolling.

There was probably a little bit of over-editing but that thread did become an argument about how good or bad 4chan was and that, in my opinion, made all the threads pointless/off-topic. Nobody actually mentioned the rick roll for the other two pages apart from one person who stated it was on the news!

I think the thread became unrelated and thus off topic.

[Callum.]

Recently I've seen an increase in this. I know it's just an edit, but edits are normally one step closer to becoming s mods which bad mods shouldn't become. I don't really mind them, but it just really puts me off posts and makes my own look really bad, when it isn't. Alot are for say, making a topic semi relevent to the thread in the thread and posting your opinion on something that happened prior to the edit.

Like people are getting edited for replying to a post that was before theirs. Yes the one before may have been off topic, but when that user has made a reply to the post, it's no longer as he/she is replying to something in the thread.

Just my 2 cents.

Just adding another bit -

This is meant to be a discussion board right? Well when you are limited to what you have to say, it's pretty hard to do that. Rather than making a new thread, you prefer to talk about it in the one that is to do with what you are replying in. So say you said "I got a new car the BMW blah blah" then someone said they liked another model and someone else said the same etc, they're sometimes classed as offtopic?

[The Professor]

Actually, its someone who is new to 4chan and/or posts memes endlessly and is generally unfunny.

And to Professor-alex: What I mean by "Pro", I mean like a pro at the topic, who will understand the subject, and will know whether someone is posting offtopic

Moderators are assigned to their forums by Elkaa based (I believe) on which forum they're likely to have most knowledge about based on their past posts, as well as the forums they're most active in anyway. For example, I used to use the Runescape forum a lot and occasionally ventured off into console/PC games, so I was assigned the games forum.

Based on that, a mod generally has background knowledge on the subject and can make edits accordingly. Unfortunately, "General" covers a wide area so the mods there have the hardest jobs in that respect, so they have to do their jobs as best they can.

[kk.]

@kk: Like I say, if a mod does edit thinking its a genuine insult, drop them a PM and correct them, they won't bite your head off! We aren't mind readers, we don't know the contents of every msn convo you've ever had with anyone.

well you should :P

nah, i knwo what your all saying but their should be rule changes to make them much more leniant to off topic posting and other things. Definitely not the rules about bullying but some need loosening really

[Mr.Sam]

Ok, the rick rolling mets idea came from 4chan, I did mention 4chan in the first post and a discussion started from that meaning the posts (well most of them) were not off topic as the rick rolling mets came from 4chan and 4 chan had already been posted about in the thread.


People do not have to stick the the initial topic other wise threads would be boring.

threads go like this:

topic about global warming - > points about crops being destroyed -> point about farmers -> most food being sourced internationally -> etc etc

the topic doesn't go:

rick roll -> rick roll -> rick roll

the topics branch off from other posts - that topic happened to go:

rick roll at the mets game -> 4chan (which started the rock roll mets saga and was posted about in the first post) -> people posting about all the unneeded mod edits - > thread died



The thread about the Rick Roll was not a thread about 4chan, thus it was taking the thread into a different topic and therefore it was off-topic.

The thread then went into a series of posts unrelated to the actual rick rolling.

There was probably a little bit of over-editing but that thread did become an argument about how good or bad 4chan was and that, in my opinion, made all the threads pointless/off-topic. Nobody actually mentioned the rick roll for the other two pages apart from one person who stated it was on the news!

I think the thread became unrelated and thus off topic.

[Mrs.McCall]

But it wasn't a thread about 4chan!

It's like having a thread saying "Youtube took part in a student demonstration against the treatment of Tibetans" and then everyone talking about how slow Youtube is recently..

[Callum.]

But it wasn't a thread about 4chan!

It's like having a thread saying "Youtube took part in a student demonstration against the treatment of Tibetans" and then everyone talking about how slow Youtube is recently..

But I feel that should be allowed. Why make a new thread when it when you could easily discuss with other people who ovbiously watch youtube as the thread is sort of about it.

[:....:mike:....:]

This thread angers me in that it happens so much. People are completely stupid when it comes to judgment. I hate specific moderators on this forum, the ones who think they know right from wrong. I believe all moderators who make more then 3 mistakes should be booted without hesitation. I do not like it when moderators find the time to harass people on a daily basis such as editing perfectly fine posts. In a matter of time all posts will have edits in red from mods/smods etc. and it will be just as bad as X's overriding rooms.

[Decode]

Can you provide links to any posts that have been edited where posters are not replying directly to the topic?
As you should be allowed to reply to other people's posts in a thread without having to directly post about the topic.
Go to the oral on friday thread (education forum), there is lots in there.

[GommeInc]

But it wasn't a thread about 4chan!

It's like having a thread saying "Youtube took part in a student demonstration against the treatment of Tibetans" and then everyone talking about how slow Youtube is recently..
It doesn't have to be about 4Chan, a thread can and will branch off into other discussions, which is what a forum is all about. You can only restrict people to following exact rules like in the Debates forum(s). There is a even a rule which allows you to make unrelated posts to the thread title, but you can make comments that are related to posts in that thread.

[Mrs.McCall]

But I feel that should be allowed. Why make a new thread when it when you could easily discuss with other people who ovbiously watch youtube as the thread is sort of about it.

I can see why you may feel this should be allowed and I'm not disputing that but under the current rules, my example would be off topic. The conversation about 4chan had no direct relevance to the actual rick roll, it was a brand new conversation about the site itself and therefore, was off-topic to the actual thread itself.

I can see why this is annoying but I have to moderate under current rules rather than what people think the rules should be.

[Mr.Sam]

if you read my last post I did explain how the two were connected.

4chan started the whole topic of rick rolling the mets and 4chan was mentioned in the first post.

the example that you gave would be fine... the topic would start from youtube demonstrations and if the topic starts to continue about youtube it's still on topic as youtube has been discussed previously in the thread.

But it wasn't a thread about 4chan!

It's like having a thread saying "Youtube took part in a student demonstration against the treatment of Tibetans" and then everyone talking about how slow Youtube is recently..

[The Professor]

well you should :P

nah, i knwo what your all saying but their should be rule changes to make them much more leniant to off topic posting and other things. Definitely not the rules about bullying but some need loosening really

The rules are actually incredibly flexible, but the moderators' implementation of them dictates how strict/leniant they are. I can't see a rule which is difficult to comply with, but the problem with the "off topic" rule is that it links in with a couple of other rules. The actual rule:


B13. Do not make off topic posts - Off topic and random posts are not allowed. Your post must be related to a post made earlier in the thread or about the thread itself.

is pretty much black and white. However, the following rules:



B1. Don't post for the sake of your post count - It's always nice to have a high post count, it may seem as though people will respect you more with a higher number beside your name, but it doesn't really mean anything on these forums. We respect each of you whether you have 1 post or 1000.


B2. Don't post short or meaningless posts / spam - We don't want replies like "i dono" or "why" or "yeah". We have set the forum so that any message must contain at least 9 characters, do not try to get around this by adding meaningless characters.


B11. Do not make pointless posts - It is not allowed to post any messages that others consider to be meaningless or pointless or not relevant to the discussion.

make it a grey area. Especially the last one, where it says "not relevant to the discussion". If you put those rules together, they say "Your post must be related to a post made earlier in the thread or about the thread itself. It is not allowed to post any messages that others consider to be meaningless or pointless or not relevant to the discussion." The interpretation and application of that combined rule is completely down to the moderator, and people finding themselves treading the line between them will find themselves caught out and edited by the stricter moderators. As I posted above, there are ways to make sure all posts you make comply with all of the above rules, but its an aquired skill ;)

[:....:mike:....:]

I can see why you may feel this should be allowed and I'm not disputing that but under the current rules, my example would be off topic. The conversation about 4chan had no direct relevance to the actual rick roll, it was a brand new conversation about the site itself and therefore, was off-topic to the actual thread itself.

I can see why this is annoying but I have to moderate under current rules rather than what people think the rules should be.
But what it is wrong with being off-topic? It boosts the forum's activity and it brings in good conversations. Sure it is off-topic but the forum was designed to create different online discussions.

[Callum.]

I can see why you may feel this should be allowed and I'm not disputing that but under the current rules, my example would be off topic. The conversation about 4chan had no direct relevance to the actual rick roll, it was a brand new conversation about the site itself and therefore, was off-topic to the actual thread itself.

I can see why this is annoying but I have to moderate under current rules rather than what people think the rules should be.

Yeah I know you're only following rules that you are set to following, but I think the rules should be tweaked. If a thread say talks about Arsenal losing, it should be allowed to discuss Arsenal in ways, say past games etc, but not like "yeh Wigan are good" that's wrong obviously.

And wow, not many mods are following b13 then, if the post isn't about the starting post, they get edited.

[Thetan]

But it wasn't a thread about 4chan!

It's like having a thread saying "Youtube took part in a student demonstration against the treatment of Tibetans" and then everyone talking about how slow Youtube is recently..

No, because he mentioned 4chan being part of it when he made the thread, making the thread about the Rick rolling, and 4chan being behind it. Although I respect your decision, you shouldn't have edited everyones post.

[Mrs.McCall]

See, Alex has hit the nail on the head. There is a lot of grey area.

I just think that a thread about a rick roll should be about the rick roll rather than the website that contributed to it. Other moderators may disagree with me but some may agree. It's all about your own interpretation.

I am, however, willing to admit that I did over-edit that thread and I was perhaps a bit too strict.

[Mr.Sam]

I'm just saying that 4chan was previously mentioned so the posts would be on topic anyway.

B13. Do not make off topic posts - Off topic and random posts are not allowed. Your post must be related to a post made earlier in the thread or about the thread itself.


See, Alex has hit the nail on the head. There is a lot of grey area.

I just think that a thread about a rick roll should be about the rick roll rather than the website that contributed to it. Other moderators may disagree with me but some may agree. It's all about your own interpretation.

I am, however, willing to admit that I did over-edit that thread and I was perhaps a bit too strict.

[Tristan]

The thread about the Rick Roll was not a thread about 4chan, thus it was taking the thread into a different topic and therefore it was off-topic.

The thread then went into a series of posts unrelated to the actual rick rolling.

There was probably a little bit of over-editing but that thread did become an argument about how good or bad 4chan was and that, in my opinion, made all the threads pointless/off-topic. Nobody actually mentioned the rick roll for the other two pages apart from one person who stated it was on the news!

I think the thread became unrelated and thus off topic.
But 4chan was introduced to the thread straight from the original post.
So people are at liberty to post replies regarding it.
They stem off from it. Like a chain or they "branch" as Sam says. :P

well you should :P

nah, i knwo what your all saying but their should be rule changes to make them much more leniant to off topic posting and other things. Definitely not the rules about bullying but some need loosening really

The rules are fine at the moment, it's just that the Pointless Posting rule is most often misunderstood.

[Decode]

craziness

Edited by lAscend (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly.


craziness

Edited by lAscend (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly.


by the way what is 4chan

Edited by Mrs.McCall (Forum Moderator): Please keep on topic, thanks :)


Something you and most forum members are too young for - not kidding, legally

Edited by Mrs.McCall (Forum Moderator): Please keep on topic, thanks :)


4chan.org

Edited by Mrs.McCall (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly.


I don't think you have a social life, enjoy your 4chan.

Edited by Mrs.McCall (Forum Moderator): Please keep on topic, thanks :)


o come on, do we really want kyle posting all that crap?

Edited by Mrs.McCall (Forum Moderator): Please keep on topic, thanks :)


LOL TIME TO CONTRIBUTE.

Edited by Mrs.McCall (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly.


Oh good lord I hate it when you newfags post endless memes

Edited by Mrs.McCall (Forum Moderator): Please keep on topic, thanks :)


now kyle nows about 4chan you've given him ANOTHER personality to try to fit into :(

Edited by Mrs.McCall (Forum Moderator): Please keep on topic, thanks :)


tee hee.

Edited by Enrique (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly.


Wow, I guess somebody just got hired as a moderator.

Edited by Enrique (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly.

LOL, this is all from 1 thead.

[The Professor]

See, Alex has hit the nail on the head. There is a lot of grey area.

I just think that a thread about a rick roll should be about the rick roll rather than the website that contributed to it. Other moderators may disagree with me but some may agree. It's all about your own interpretation.

I am, however, willing to admit that I did over-edit that thread and I was perhaps a bit too strict.

I should bloody well hope so, between re-checking all of the rules and thinking of my argument it took me 10 minutes :P

But seriously, its general concensus that that thread was over-edited, and Joey has admitted that publicly. We do not believe we are above everyone else, we are all prone to mistakes, that's life. I wish people would drop the "moderators think they're god" think, because we really don't.

[Mrs.McCall]

But where does it begin to get stupid?

Say, for example again, I posted a thread about Ulrika Johnson presenting a new show. Another user then mentions she got re-married and then the next 4 pages are all about her former marriages. They then mention she met one husband on her show Mr Right and then the next two pages talk about her other shows and how bad they were.

This means that after my initial post, 6 pages were completely unrelated to the new show I've posted about. I'd then find the subsequent pages after my post off-topic because the thread wasn't about Ulrika Johnson directly.

Sorry to go on about Ulrika Johnson and I hope I haven't confused everyone with my haphazard explanations but what I am trying to get at is, even though 4Chan was mentioned, was there really a need for the thread to be just about 4Chan?

[:....:mike:....:]

I should bloody well hope so, between re-checking all of the rules and thinking of my argument it took me 10 minutes :P

But seriously, its general concensus that that thread was over-edited, and Joey has admitted that publicly. We do not believe we are above everyone else, we are all prone to mistakes, that's life. I wish people would drop the "moderators think they're god" think, because we really don't.
There is a difference between mistakes and doing it on purpose. Obviously those mods did it on purpose. If they ever considered looking at a post both ways, maybe just maybe these mods will do a better job. :rolleyes:

[Thetan]

I can see why you may feel this should be allowed and I'm not disputing that but under the current rules, my example would be off topic. The conversation about 4chan had no direct relevance to the actual rick roll, it was a brand new conversation about the site itself and therefore, was off-topic to the actual thread itself.

I can see why this is annoying but I have to moderate under current rules rather than what people think the rules should be.

Ok, im sorry if this sounds rude, but please read the rules. It says an offtopic post would be something not relevant to the the thread topic. 4chan is definately relevant to the topic of rick rolling, so it is not off topic.

[Mr.Sam]

Do not make off topic posts - Off topic and random posts are not allowed. Your post must be related to a post made earlier in the thread or about the thread itself.


[below is basically saying don't post meaning less - which is the same as the two rules below.]
It's always nice to have a high post count, it may seem as though people will respect you more with a higher number beside your name, but it doesn't really mean anything on these forums. We respect each of you whether you have 1 post or 1000.

We don't want replies like "i dono" or "why" or "yeah". We have set the forum so that any message must contain at least 9 characters, do not try to get around this by adding meaningless characters.

It is not allowed to post any messages that others consider to be meaningless or pointless or not relevant to the discussion

-------------------------

all the rules above are pretty much saying the same things, if they were merged and edited it would be much more clear.

the rules should be merged changed to something like:


Do not make off topic posts - Off topic and random posts are not allowed. Your post must be related to a post made earlier in the thread or about the thread itself, posts that are there for the sake of post count and/or the moderator believes are meaningless to the thread are not allowed.

[Mrs.McCall]

There is a difference between mistakes and doing it on purpose. Obviously those mods did it on purpose. If they ever considered looking at a post both ways, maybe just maybe these mods will do a better job. :rolleyes:

In all fairness, I always review an entire thread before I moderate it. Unless, of course, it's one of those threads that's been going on since 2005 where I'd usually review the last 10 pages rather than the last 500 or so!

[:....:mike:....:]

In all fairness, I always review an entire thread before I moderate it. Unless, of course, it's one of those threads that's been going on since 2005 where I'd usually review the last 10 pages rather than the last 500 or so!
K, let me give you an example.

If I made a thread about Sulake and then someone started to talk about Habbo, then that is branching off not off-topic. And don't say that is different because it is not different then stated earlier about the other thread with repetitive edits from mods.

[Callum.]

But where does it begin to get stupid?

Say, for example again, I posted a thread about Ulrika Johnson presenting a new show. Another user then mentions she got re-married and then the next 4 pages are all about her former marriages. They then mention she met one husband on her show Mr Right and then the next two pages talk about her other shows and how bad they were.

This means that after my initial post, 6 pages were completely unrelated to the new show I've posted about. I'd then find the subsequent pages after my post off-topic because the thread wasn't about Ulrika Johnson directly.

Sorry to go on about Ulrika Johnson and I hope I haven't confused everyone with my haphazard explanations but what I am trying to get at is, even though 4Chan was mentioned, was there really a need for the thread to be just about 4Chan?

But the forum is meant for discussion right? I'd much rather just visit one thread about one person, than 5 about different aspects of them. You know when you read a thread, and think something you'd like to say, I think you'd like to post it in the thread already about the person, than make a new one.

[Catzsy]

See, Alex has hit the nail on the head. There is a lot of grey area.

I just think that a thread about a rick roll should be about the rick roll rather than the website that contributed to it. Other moderators may disagree with me but some may agree. It's all about your own interpretation.

I am, however, willing to admit that I did over-edit that thread and I was perhaps a bit too strict.

If its any help I remember when the rule change came in because the Smods at the time contributed to the discussion with ---MAD--- amd Sierk.

This is Sierk's direction of the off-topic rule change:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=258389&highlight=topic


Now I also remember that this meant a subject could evolve as the thread progressed as long as it was not random and did contribute constructively to the thread and not turn to spam which is why it is important to read the whole thread.

I am sure if I am wrong about this that MAD or Sierk will comment.

[Mrs.McCall]

K, let me give you an example.

If I made a thread about Sulake and then someone started to talk about Habbo, then that is branching off not off-topic. And don't say that is different because it is not different then stated earlier about the other thread with repetitive edits from mods.

Interesting example. It depends what you posted about Sulake... if you posted how Sulake are making a new habbo-type website and then someone posted about how Habbo lags all the time, that is off-topic and not branching out because it's not related to Sulake's new development.

[Tristan]

But where does it begin to get stupid?

Say, for example again, I posted a thread about Ulrika Johnson presenting a new show. Another user then mentions she got re-married and then the next 4 pages are all about her former marriages. They then mention she met one husband on her show Mr Right and then the next two pages talk about her other shows and how bad they were.

This means that after my initial post, 6 pages were completely unrelated to the new show I've posted about. I'd then find the subsequent pages after my post off-topic because the thread wasn't about Ulrika Johnson directly.

Sorry to go on about Ulrika Johnson and I hope I haven't confused everyone with my haphazard explanations but what I am trying to get at is, even though 4Chan was mentioned, was there really a need for the thread to be just about 4Chan?
Yes, it'd be fine. Although that wouldn't happen and I feel your examples are quite exaggerated, that'd still be fine.
Also, 4chan relates to Rick Rolling and was introduced in the original post. The posts formed a chain or "branched off" which is allowed.

EDIT: Yeah, that's the rule change I remember! It was done because it was found that it was becoming far too harsh.

[Decode]

*LINK REMOVED*

Edited by Thaddeus (Forum Moderator): Please do not post links to inappropriate material.
I think he was talking about speaking, not head.

Edited by Thaddeus (Forum Moderator): Please stay on topic.

That was never off topic!

[The Professor]

There is a difference between mistakes and doing it on purpose. Obviously those mods did it on purpose. If they ever considered looking at a post both ways, maybe just maybe these mods will do a better job. :rolleyes:

On purpose? That's a pretty serious accusation, and one that holds no ground at all. He's even said that he might have been a bit too strict, what grounds do you accuse him of abusing powers on?

[Mrs.McCall]

Yes, it'd be fine. Although that wouldn't happen and I feel your examples are quite exaggerated, that'd still be fine.
Also, 4chan relates to Rick Rolling and was introduced in the original post. The posts formed a chain or "branched off" which is allowed.

In your opinion.

I feel that, back to my Ulrika Johnson example, if I posted about her new show... people posting about her marriages are unrelated and off-topic.

[Callum.]

Catzsy has just summed the thread up.

[today]

I think certain mods need a listen on what rules are...

[Dentafrice]

Well, although I decided against dealing with that post, I can see why it was decided to be dealt with by another moderator as it does indeed avoid the filter.

A warning or just an edit in my opinion would suffice but that's just me.

If there are any problems with infractions or warnings, report it in the specified thread, as has been said many times. :P
I really don't see why any action would be taken.

It is the name of a person from a movie.. not anything offensive.

[Thetan]

In your opinion.

I feel that, back to my Ulrika Johnson example, if I posted about her new show... people posting about her marriages are unrelated and off-topic.


Yeah, I see where you are coming from now. But like I said, this wasn't directed at just you, I have seen lots of other edited posts that should not have been edited, just that thread was one example.

[Tristan]

I really don't see why any action would be taken.

It is the name of a person from a movie.. not anything offensive.

Which is why I decided against dealing with it in the first place.
In hindsight I may have edited but yeah. :)

[Mrs.McCall]

Yeah, I see where you are coming from now. But like I said, this wasn't directed at just you, I have seen lots of other edited posts that should not have been edited, just that thread was one example.

No, I can 100% see where you are coming from.

I just thought that I'd explain my actions. I am not a moderator because I enjoy having a go at people. I'm not perfect, I may make mistakes but I feel it is unfair for people to attack moderators simply because they have a position of power on Habboxforum.

I would never, ever abuse my powers or edit for the sake of editing. I simply over-edited that thread, a misjudgment that was not done purposely. I think any suggestion otherwise is unjust and unfair.

[Callum.]

Well the post catzsy just made has a thread from 2006, maybe sierk needs to remind the moderation team / anounce it again.

[:....:mike:....:]

On purpose? That's a pretty serious accusation, and one that holds no ground at all. He's even said that he might have been a bit too strict, what grounds do you accuse him of abusing powers on?

All I am saying is that you make a decision when you see the edit button on a post you do not see is appropriate. If he or whoever thought twice, he or whoever wouldn't have had to put that edit text and then say I was wrong just to cover it up. He or whoever knew very well they did it on purpose because like any other person knows that they benefit from it. Btw, your methods of trying to make us look below you is pathetic and doesn't work on me or anyone else. So, I noticed you find yourself pretty high on top there with those questions and statements you continuously use against people to make them look stupid.

[samsaBEAR]

I think certain mods need a listen on what rules are...
lol i was thinking that. its ironic that we're trying to explain to a moderator what the rules are.

basically, imagine that i started a thread about carrots, then someone said how they hate carrots, but like parsnips. then someone said they liked parsnips to, and it sparked a conversation about parsnips, this is alright.

however, if i started a thread about ipods, and someone said about parsnips, this is off-topic, unless of course they somehow found a way to link an ipod with a parsnip.

[Thetan]

All I am saying is that you make a decision when you see the edit button on a post you do not see is appropriate. If he or whoever thought twice, he or whoever wouldn't have had to put that edit text and then say I was wrong just to cover it up. He or whoever knew very well they did it on purpose because like any other person knows that they benefit from it. Btw, your methods of trying to make us look below you is pathetic and doesn't work on me or anyone else. So, I noticed you find yourself pretty high on top there with those questions and statements you continuously use against people to make them look stupid.

Well, I sometimes notice that about Alex, saying that I am being patronizing, but it is kind've true because I may have put it a little bit nicer, but thats just how it goes.

[today]

lol i was thinking that. its ironic that we're trying to explain to a moderator what the rules are.

basically, imagine that i started a thread about carrots, then someone said how they hate carrots, but like parsnips. then someone said they liked parsnips to, and it sparked a conversation about parsnips, this is alright.

however, if i started a thread about ipods, and someone said about parsnips, this is off-topic, unless of course they somehow found a way to link an ipod with a parsnip.
Of course.

Any thread like

iPods > Apple > New iPod Advertisment > Features of "new iPod" > "Discussion on what iPod is best

Thats fine as its still relating to the orginal post.
So was the 4chan thread. :rolleyes:

[:....:mike:....:]

Well, I sometimes notice that about Alex, saying that I am being patronizing, but it is kind've true because I may have put it a little bit nicer, but thats just how it goes.
Moderators always say we want to be treated the same way as users because we don't want to seem so high in power. So, I chose to speak to him as a user
as someone I prefer to exploit vs. someone I rather look up to for anything.

[Catzsy]

No, I can 100% see where you are coming from.

I just thought that I'd explain my actions. I am not a moderator because I enjoy having a go at people. I'm not perfect, I may make mistakes but I feel it is unfair for people to attack moderators simply because they have a position of power on Habboxforum.

I would never, ever abuse my powers or edit for the sake of editing. I simply over-edited that thread, a misjudgment that was not done purposely. I think any suggestion otherwise is unjust and unfair.

I 110% believe that. You would never - you have only done what you thought to be right. That's all. :)

Yes, maybe someone should re-announce the definition of off-topic.

Last direction by Sierk as I posted before but I think it got losts :P
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=258389&highlight=topic

[GhostFace-]

i find this simple,
If Mods continue to edit when there not suposed to

Perm ban.

just like the new rules on the feedback forum !!

fair is fair.

[Callum.]

Also, I find that only one edit per person is needed, rather than going down the whole list of "poinless, off-topic" posts, the last post should be edited with a message involving no more of "x".

[Thetan]

i find this simple,
If Mods continue to edit when there not suposed to

Perm ban.

just like the new rules on the feedback forum !!

fair is fair.



I would like if this to was a casual forum, I don't want the management to be gung ho on moderators because they make a mistake.

[Mrs.McCall]

i find this simple,
If Mods continue to edit when there not suposed to

Perm ban.

just like the new rules on the feedback forum !!

fair is fair.


Well, if that moderator would be fired if there was no explanation.

However, I believe I had good reason to edit the posts I did BUT I over-edited the thread and I believe Callum is right in only editing one or two of the posts.

edit: I think the people who are going on about the irony of telling a forum moderator the "rules". I think the irony is that members say moderators get above their station when members to the same thing.

I think respect works both ways.

[:....:mike:....:]

Also, I find that only one edit per person is needed, rather than going down the whole list of "poinless, off-topic" posts, the last post should be edited with a message involving no more of "x".
There is no point of arguing about mod's mistakes because most mods take their job too seriously that is why they make so many mistakes (supposedly). I believe mods should be trained not have to read a handbook that management have no proof of knowing you read.

[Callum.]

There is no point of arguing about mod's mistakes because most mods take their job too seriously that is why they make so many mistakes (supposedly). I believe mods should be trained not have to read a handbook that management have no proof of knowing you read.

I'm not arguing, I'm suggesting, and putting my own opinion across while respecting others.

And then adding to my idea, the edit would most of the time be correct, as say 1 in 10 semi pointless/"off-topic" posts would definetly be pointless without a doubt in one thread.

[Catzsy]

Also, I find that only one edit per person is needed, rather than going down the whole list of "poinless, off-topic" posts, the last post should be edited with a message involving no more of "x".

Agreed except we then get complaints that nobody else was edited. :(


I would like if this to was a casual forum, I don't want the management to be gung ho on moderators because they make a mistake.

I don't think anybody on this forum should be gung-ho.


There is no point of arguing about mod's mistakes because most mods take their job too seriously that is why they make so many mistakes (supposedly). I believe mods should be trained not have to read a handbook that management have no proof of knowing you read.

Agreed. I helped with the last Moderator's Handbook but it was meant as a supplement to not as a substitution for Training. I have to add a rider though that I have only been back less than a week and there could be a training system set up.

[Callum.]

Agreed except we then get complaints that nobody else was edited. :(

I meant one edit per person, not one edit per thread as some people are following the rules, and the ones that are not should get edited to show it's them.

[Catzsy]

I meant one edit per person, not one edit per thread as some people are following the rules, and the ones that are not should get edited to show it's them.

Okay, I agree thats a good way :)

[:....:mike:....:]

Okay, I agree thats a good way :)
If only all the moderators were this understanding. All the mods want to complicate an easy situation and to argue their innocence.

[Mrs.McCall]

If only all the moderators were this understanding. All the mods want to complicate an easy situation and to argue their innocence.

Slight generalisation?

And mods have every right to if everyone is having a go at them for doing their jobs! I think that the moderators in this thread that have replied have replied nicely without confusing things and I know i've tried to explain my school of thought.

[:....:mike:....:]

Slight generalisation?

And mods have every right to if everyone is having a go at them for doing their jobs! I think that the moderators in this thread that have replied have replied nicely without confusing things and I know i've tried to explain my school of thought.
There was at least 3-4 moderators this week arguing for their mistakes. You are not the only one who fought against the members. The irony is that every mod ended up giving in. :rolleyes:

[Mrs.McCall]

There was at least 3-4 moderators this week arguing for their mistakes. You are not the only one who fought against the members. The irony is that every mod ended up giving in. :rolleyes:

I haven't fought against anyone. I simply explained my reasoning behind edited the posts. And "arguing" their mistakes is a bit harsh. Moderators are admitting they made mistakes or explained how they feel about a situation.

The feedback forum is all about seeing issues and changing them for a happier forum. Not a mod v member mentality or a way for mods to make excuses.

[Callum.]

Mike, I don't think you would last as a mod though. These guys give up their time for the forum and make decisions of their own back, if they're wrong, well it's just a mistake. Yes this rule needs reviewing, but I think everyone has put their point across.


There was at least 3-4 moderators this week arguing for their mistakes. You are not the only one who fought against the members. The irony is that every mod ended up giving in. :rolleyes:

Why are you doing this? Only 3 mods have posted and kept posting through new replies and have all semi admitted that the rule does need reviewing and there is a grey area about what to do in the case of the posts we are all discussing.

[The Professor]

Mike, I don't think you would last as a mod though. These guys give up their time for the forum and make decisions of their own back, if they're wrong, well it's just a mistake. Yes this rule needs reviewing, but I think everyone has put their point across.



Why are you doing this? Only 3 mods have posted and kept posting through new replies and have all semi admitted that the rule does need reviewing and there is a grey area about what to do in the case of the posts we are all discussing.

I love this guy ^ Have some rep :)

What do you want me to do mike, carry on repeating myself all night? That sort of attitude is exactly why there's such a divide between staff/moderators and members. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO WORK AGAINST YOU. We don't enjoy looking for fights, I sure as hell don't enjoy typing those massive long essays that I'll bet very few people read. We post in this thread to explain some points which need to be cleared up, defend ourselves against attacks (or admit the mistakes) and try to discuss the issue with members so we can reach some sort of consensus as to where the problem is and how best to solve it. We are not trying to win any wars against you, and we are not "giving in" simply because we've said our pieces and can't say a whole lot more.

We're trying to work with you to keep the forum fun to use. The sooner you drill that into your cranium the sooner we can start to put some of the issues right.

[Callum.]

I love this guy ^ Have some rep :)

What do you want me to do mike, carry on repeating myself all night? That sort of attitude is exactly why there's such a divide between staff/moderators and members. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO WORK AGAINST YOU. We don't enjoy looking for fights, I sure as hell don't enjoy typing those massive long essays that I'll bet very few people read. We post in this thread to explain some points which need to be cleared up, defend ourselves against attacks (or admit the mistakes) and try to discuss the issue with members so we can reach some sort of consensus as to where the problem is and how best to solve it. We are not trying to win any wars against you, and we are not "giving in" simply because we've said our pieces and can't say a whole lot more.

We're trying to work with you to keep the forum fun to use. The sooner you drill that into your cranium the sooner we can start to put some of the issues right.

Thanks :)

And yeah, the not working against members is yet to be realised with many people. Have some rep back on Callum. (more to offer) for all your points in this thread, aswell as some other people :).

[Thetan]

You know, I don't exactly try to sound rude, it just comes when I am frustrated about something. I try my best to sound polite.

Not that I am a rude person, just happens for me.

[Tristan]

There was at least 3-4 moderators this week arguing for their mistakes. You are not the only one who fought against the members. The irony is that every mod ended up giving in. :rolleyes:

I'd say "heated debate"!

[Catzsy]

I love this guy ^ Have some rep :)

What do you want me to do mike, carry on repeating myself all night? That sort of attitude is exactly why there's such a divide between staff/moderators and members. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO WORK AGAINST YOU. We don't enjoy looking for fights, I sure as hell don't enjoy typing those massive long essays that I'll bet very few people read. We post in this thread to explain some points which need to be cleared up, defend ourselves against attacks (or admit the mistakes) and try to discuss the issue with members so we can reach some sort of consensus as to where the problem is and how best to solve it. We are not trying to win any wars against you, and we are not "giving in" simply because we've said our pieces and can't say a whole lot more.

We're trying to work with you to keep the forum fun to use. The sooner you drill that into your cranium the sooner we can start to put some of the issues right.


Being defensive is counter productive in my opinion and I personally see no point. For me the best way is just to state the facts. It is either against the rules or allowed by the rules and where there is doubt get it clarified. The problem starts when personal comments are made which have nothing to do with the subject in hand and people are criticised instead of the particular action that was taken. As the GM said it is a service so we provide a service to the members. Being confrontational can work both ways.
Its is a community not a confrontunity. ( Oh that is very cheesey but it late:p) Goodnight :D

[shizzle]

True i seen loads abusing their powers.

[Callum.]

True i seen loads abusing their powers.

It's not really abusing their powers, it's doing what they think is right as the rule that was posted 2006 was a long time ago and alot of moderators were not here in 2006. At the end of the day, they're doing their job to their ability, if they don't know the rule (which many members aswell don't) then it should be reminded.

[Hayd93]

All i can say on this topic also is infractions.I don't enjoy giving out then,Members may think i do but i really do not.It causes divides between staff and members i think.Also when i hand a infraction out it actually causes more work for me as i have to type out all the details etc.Also people saying about me in spam forum etc editing all i can say is i try my best,Alot of people in there have jokes and sometimes is very hard for me to decide if it is a joke or a real insult.

[shizzle]

It's not really abusing their powers, it's doing what they think is right as the rule that was posted 2006 was a long time ago and alot of moderators were not here in 2006. At the end of the day, they're doing their job to their ability, if they don't know the rule (which many members aswell don't) then it should be reminded.
It abusing them.

[Callum.]

It abusing them.

Editing someones post with a edit is not abusing, abusing is giving out infractions with the intention of getting the user banned etc. Have you read the thread?

[Mr.Sam]

Do not make off topic posts - Off topic and random posts are not allowed. Your post must be related to a post made earlier in the thread or about the thread itself.


[below is basically saying don't post meaning less - which is the same as the two rules below.]
It's always nice to have a high post count, it may seem as though people will respect you more with a higher number beside your name, but it doesn't really mean anything on these forums. We respect each of you whether you have 1 post or 1000.

We don't want replies like "i dono" or "why" or "yeah". We have set the forum so that any message must contain at least 9 characters, do not try to get around this by adding meaningless characters.

It is not allowed to post any messages that others consider to be meaningless or pointless or not relevant to the discussion

-------------------------

all the rules above are pretty much saying the same things, if they were merged and edited it would be much more clear.

the rules should be merged changed to something like:


Do not make off topic posts - Off topic and random posts are not allowed. Your post must be related to a post made earlier in the thread or about the thread itself, posts that are there for the sake of post count and/or the moderator believes are meaningless to the thread are not allowed.

[Elkaa]

I've looked into this and sorted it.

[GommeInc]

I've looked into this and sorted it.
... How? You can't control moderators? Or can you? Hmmm... Better not of touched the off-topic rule or death will follow.

[---MAD---]

... How? You can't control moderators? Or can you? Hmmm... Better not of touched the off-topic rule or death will follow.
What do you mean by "death will follow" :S?

[GommeInc]

What do you mean by "death will follow" :S?
You'll get bombarded by threads saying restore the rule which would be annoying :P Plus people would get incredibly annoyed, because that rule makes the forum appropriate for the age group it's targeted at.

[Callum.]

What has happened? Is the rule sierk posted still in place?

[Tristan]

What has happened? Is the rule sierk posted still in place?

Of course.
It's just that some of the new moderators may have slightly misunderstood or did not remember the announcement. :)

[Callum.]

Of course.
It's just that some of the new moderators may have slightly misunderstood or did not remember the announcement. :)

Yeah that's what I've been saying most in this thread. Some were not even around at that time.

[GommeInc]

What rule/announcement? People have mentioned it and PM'd me about it, yet I see nought!

[Tristan]

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=258389&highlight=topic

This is the rule that I was talking about from the start and what I've been following, just didn't think to find it. :P

[Callum.]

Elka just posted an announcement but moved it quickly, hmm.

[Mrs.McCall]

Yeah. In all fairness, I hadn't seen the rule until now because I didn't even look last night.

Ok, that's cool. I think that should be made more clearer in the rules then maybe?

[GommeInc]

Isn't that rule in the rules section? I swear I've seen it before...

B13. Do not make off topic posts - Off topic and random posts are not allowed. Your post must be related to a post made earlier in the thread or about the thread itself.

Seems clear enough.

[Mrs.McCall]

I must've missed it, but I have read the rules like... 50 times over!

Well, I've apologised now and the point is made.

[GommeInc]

Not very clear really, it goes on a bit and sorta contradicts itself.

[Mrs.McCall]

Yeah.

Well, at least now I have seen the thread and can apply it in my moderating. :P

[Nereo]

Moderators can interpret posts wrongly, but I think it's there job to assess what they think is acceptable and whats not, and most of the time I think that their edits are justified ;)
No one is perfect

[Catzsy]

Not very clear really, it goes on a bit and sorta contradicts itself.

Well at the risk of sounding like a broken down record again in this thread.

That rule was clarified in late 2006.

The rule was meant to provide a relaxing of off-topic to allow a thread to naturally progress and evolve as a discussion. Something I know you are in favour of. Sierk, the GM along with a lot of the staff felt it was too strict before. The main criteria though was that a post should positively and constructively contribute to the thread so a chit chat in the middle of it (such as is allowed in the spam forum) is still not allowed and in my view shouldn't be as it destroys the purpose of the thread. That's my memory of the explanation of this rule and I agree that it could be amended to make it clearer. :)

[kk.]

what was with that announcement a while ago lol. it as confusing to read and gone now hasnt it? someone said it ahs anyway.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=4596961&postcount=7
why was that edited by someone else aswell as minty? lol

[Tristan]

what was with that announcement a while ago lol. it as confusing to read and gone now hasnt it? someone said it ahs anyway.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=4596961&postcount=7
why was that edited by someone else aswell as minty? lol

huh?

Minty is Thaddeus.
I guess he accidently put his old name in the edit. :P

[oJosh..]

The forum moderators are doing their job. They don't want people to start abusing people even if it is a little bit, because if this happened to anyone, most probabally, the forum would not have many users.

[Mr.Sam]

have you read the whole thread?
it's not abusing them it's pointing out that they are implementing certain rules incorrectly.


The forum moderators are doing their job. They don't want people to start abusing people even if it is a little bit, because if this happened to anyone, most probabally, the forum would not have many users.

[kk.]

huh?

Minty is Thaddeus.
I guess he accidently put his old name in the edit. :P
yeh but you dont put your name in manually do you? it just puts it in :P

maybe its an error on the forum if he had a name change?

[today]

yeh but you dont put your name in manually do you? it just puts it in :P

maybe its an error on the forum if he had a name change?
No, you have to type your name.

Edit: Oh i see, he TYPED his name thus it wouldnt "get updated". Where as the Edit note when editing any post auto updates as its using varibles.

" Last edited by $username : 30-03-2008 at 10:16 PM."

[kk.]

oh right, why type your name when it does it autopmatically, and does it only give the option to moderators because i dont have it :P

[today]

oh right, why type your name when it does it autopmatically, and does it only give the option to moderators because i dont have it :P
Have what?

the "edited by hollywood (forum moderator) reason" is manually inputted everytime. ;]

The onlything vB does is the
" Last edited by Thaddeus : 30-03-2008 at 10:16 PM."
Which will auto update when ever a post gets edited by anyone unless its turned off.

[kk.]

Have what?

the "edited by hollywood (forum moderator) reason" is manually inputted everytime. ;]

The onlything vB does is the
" Last edited by Thaddeus : 30-03-2008 at 10:16 PM."
Which will auto update when ever a post gets edited by anyone unless its turned off.
you styarted off by saying you type your name. I know it automatically puts your name in but you said that which confused me lol

so who's thaddeus?

all i wanted to know was why it said thaddeus when he hasnt edited the post in anyway?

[Mr.Sam]

he's minty.

minty edited the post with the username minty - after minty got a name change to thaddeus, so the ''last edited'' automatically changed to thaddeus but the actually post edit didn't because that is manually changed.
you styarted off by saying you type your name. I know it automatically puts your name in but you said that which confused me lol

so who's thaddeus?

all i wanted to know was why it said thaddeus when he hasnt edited the post in anyway?

[today]

you styarted off by saying you type your name. I know it automatically puts your name in but you said that which confused me lol

so who's thaddeus?

all i wanted to know was why it said thaddeus when he hasnt edited the post in anyway?


he's minty.

minty edited the post with the username minty - after minty got a name change to thaddeus, so the ''last edited'' automatically changed to thaddeus but the actually post edit didn't because that is manually changed.Thats what i was trying to explain, just didnt seem to be working! :P

[e5back2k7]

Apprantly Minty was hacked by the same guy who hacked my msn and he said he infracted about 10 people or someinth on Minty's account? lol

[today]

Apprantly Minty was hacked by the same guy who hacked my msn and he said he infracted about 10 people or someinth on Minty's account? lol
If he was then he'll be banned..

http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=43717

[e5back2k7]

If he was then he'll be banned..

http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=43717
Maybe he doesn't know yet? :S I'm just passing on what was said.

[Tristan]

His msn was, I believe.
But it doesn't link to habbox or habbo, I think.

[Nick-]

Apprantly Minty was hacked by the same guy who hacked my msn and he said he infracted about 10 people or someinth on Minty's account? lol

I can definitely confirm that this is not true.
All infractions and warnings are checked by the Super Moderators and if a hacker did get onto a Moderator account and subtly started impersonating Staff by issuing infractions, the issue would be highlighted immediately.
Also, in the time it would take Thaddeus to realise he had been hacked (which he hasn't) the hacker wouldn't have had enough time to read the Moderator Guide and start genuinely moderating effectively. Even trialists who are trying their best to stick the guide as effectively as they possibly can make a few mistakes so a totally new person getting onto a Moderator account is likely to start making mistakes left, right and centre. :P

[kk.]

Thats what i was trying to explain, just didnt seem to be working! :P
LOOOL :redface_b
my bad. i didnt realise what you were saying lol

and nick, its pretty obvious how to moderate :P. Expecially if you have done it before :)

[:....:mike:....:]

Mike, I don't think you would last as a mod though. These guys give up their time for the forum and make decisions of their own back, if they're wrong, well it's just a mistake. Yes this rule needs reviewing, but I think everyone has put their point across.



Why are you doing this? Only 3 mods have posted and kept posting through new replies and have all semi admitted that the rule does need reviewing and there is a grey area about what to do in the case of the posts we are all discussing.

I am sort of offended from that comment about me not lasting as a mod. There is no evidence of that being anywhere near true, besides, I wouldn't want to be a slave for people who can't operate a normal community. There are no real mistakes in moderating, you have two decisions to decide from every time you read a post. NO one ever said moderating was easy, if you make a mistake you should know what or who you have to deal with. You are dealing with people your age, maybe younger or older.

Even though mods admitted they made mistakes, what is really the benefit out of that? They will probably make the same mistake again, again, again and again until they end up fired. If I were you, I'd fix that grey area since you seem to be defending mod's mistakes.


I love this guy ^ Have some rep :)

What do you want me to do mike, carry on repeating myself all night? That sort of attitude is exactly why there's such a divide between staff/moderators and members. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO WORK AGAINST YOU. We don't enjoy looking for fights, I sure as hell don't enjoy typing those massive long essays that I'll bet very few people read. We post in this thread to explain some points which need to be cleared up, defend ourselves against attacks (or admit the mistakes) and try to discuss the issue with members so we can reach some sort of consensus as to where the problem is and how best to solve it. We are not trying to win any wars against you, and we are not "giving in" simply because we've said our pieces and can't say a whole lot more.

We're trying to work with you to keep the forum fun to use. The sooner you drill that into your cranium the sooner we can start to put some of the issues right.

I respect you Alex in a sense that you are a good guy but sometimes you dance on my last nerve when you post because you are always trying to find a backdoor to every problem. Why not go forward to find a method to fix this instead of always looking the other way. Admitting to your mistakes is like being given another chance, maybe too many chances most of the time. Moderators a human, we get that...but that isn't the point. If the users want a community that works with proper rules, then they should get it. They should not have to deal with moderators, with smods, with staff but they should have to deal with management because those are the people who will make changes. Why not all the mods bug out of feedback threads so that management can deal with these more closely.


Thanks :)

And yeah, the not working against members is yet to be realised with many people. Have some rep back on Callum. (more to offer) for all your points in this thread, aswell as some other people :).

I don't know why or how but what was with the change of heart? Now you are favoring mods for their mistakes vs them making you look like a complete idiot to the community.

"The village just called, they want their idiot back"


You know, I don't exactly try to sound rude, it just comes when I am frustrated about something. I try my best to sound polite.

Not that I am a rude person, just happens for me.

Every forum has a negative person not naturally negative but someone who doesn't exactly appreciate all the moronic responses that favor the wrong side.


It's not really abusing their powers, it's doing what they think is right as the rule that was posted 2006 was a long time ago and alot of moderators were not here in 2006. At the end of the day, they're doing their job to their ability, if they don't know the rule (which many members aswell don't) then it should be reminded.

They do things in a sense that it doesn't flow with the forum, all of this red text and infractions, it is all just a game to them. They try to be on top of the game on a daily basis. At the end of the day, they end up getting fired because they are too judgmental and will always find a way to use their power to look good in instances where a specific post/thread has no real rule breaking. It isn't their responsibility to be looking for previous rules hidden in the forum someplace. They are given a guide which should be updated every so often.


All i can say on this topic also is infractions.I don't enjoy giving out then,Members may think i do but i really do not.It causes divides between staff and members i think.Also when i hand a infraction out it actually causes more work for me as i have to type out all the details etc.Also people saying about me in spam forum etc editing all i can say is i try my best,Alot of people in there have jokes and sometimes is very hard for me to decide if it is a joke or a real insult.

Your job isn't to decide how people perceive the post, it is your job to decide whether it is directly at someone or not. IF someone reports the post, then you will know definitely that the post/thread was offensive to them. That is how mods make the same mistakes repeatedly.


I've looked into this and sorted it.

Please let us know how you did it that way we don't start to pick up pitch forks and start a riot.


... How? You can't control moderators? Or can you? Hmmm... Better not of touched the off-topic rule or death will follow.


I must've missed it, but I have read the rules like... 50 times over!

Well, I've apologised now and the point is made.

What if you make the same mistake over and over again? What will happen then?


Moderators can interpret posts wrongly, but I think it's there job to assess what they think is acceptable and whats not, and most of the time I think that their edits are justified ;)
No one is perfect

I think most mods think they can do the job but deep down, they are awful and can't figure out what the heck they need to do when editing a post that they cannot decide on. That is when abusive edits come in.


I can definitely confirm that this is not true.
All infractions and warnings are checked by the Super Moderators and if a hacker did get onto a Moderator account and subtly started impersonating Staff by issuing infractions, the issue would be highlighted immediately.
Also, in the time it would take Thaddeus to realise he had been hacked (which he hasn't) the hacker wouldn't have had enough time to read the Moderator Guide and start genuinely moderating effectively. Even trialists who are trying their best to stick the guide as effectively as they possibly can make a few mistakes so a totally new person getting onto a Moderator account is likely to start making mistakes left, right and centre. :P

You make it seem like knowing the material as a moderator is hard, we all see what mods do. Maybe not the modCP stuff but most of the other stuff and it turns out they spend more time issuing warnings and infractions without re-assessing the issue before taking action. It seems we can all do that without hesitation. So, even if someone hacked minty, it wouldn't be hard to be him. All you do it edit posts.

[The Professor]

I respect you Alex in a sense that you are a good guy but sometimes you dance on my last nerve when you post because you are always trying to find a backdoor to every problem. Why not go forward to find a method to fix this instead of always looking the other way. Admitting to your mistakes is like being given another chance, maybe too many chances most of the time. Moderators a human, we get that...but that isn't the point. If the users want a community that works with proper rules, then they should get it. They should not have to deal with moderators, with smods, with staff but they should have to deal with management because those are the people who will make changes. Why not all the mods bug out of feedback threads so that management can deal with these more closely.

Unfortunately, it is my nature to be intuative and often try to think around problems as opposed to running at them head on. What you have to realise is that as long as there is a set of rules, people will disagree with them, and people will inerpret them differently. Court cases can go on for years because one party interprets a law slightly different to another party, both of which are perfectly reasonable interpretations.

The wise move in this case would be to work with the forum rules we have, none of which are difficult to follow, and use them to our advantage. That's what they're there for. In this case, the problem can be easily avoided by either sticking to the topic and PMing the user your "additional" message, making sure your post as something to do with the topic (which it should do if it replies to a previous post in the thread) or otherwise make 200% sure that your post can't possible contrevene any plausible interpretation of the rules. You'll see members that have been here a long time (usually ruby upwards) doing just that, and receiving no edits at all.

An as for "moderators should bug out of feedback threads" when its kinda aimed at us, I think we have a right to comment on the criticisms being made.

[:....:mike:....:]

Unfortunately, it is my nature to be intuative and often try to think around problems as opposed to running at them head on. What you have to realise is that as long as there is a set of rules, people will disagree with them, and people will inerpret them differently. Court cases can go on for years because one party interprets a law slightly different to another party, both of which are perfectly reasonable interpretations.

The wise move in this case would be to work with the forum rules we have, none of which are difficult to follow, and use them to our advantage. That's what they're there for. In this case, the problem can be easily avoided by either sticking to the topic and PMing the user your "additional" message, making sure your post as something to do with the topic (which it should do if it replies to a previous post in the thread) or otherwise make 200% sure that your post can't possible contrevene any plausible interpretation of the rules. You'll see members that have been here a long time (usually ruby upwards) doing just that, and receiving no edits at all.

An as for "moderators should bug out of feedback threads" when its kinda aimed at us, I think we have a right to comment on the criticisms being made.
I didn't understand 95% of what you were talking about. I did however pick out that people have two sides of a story and that people should use the PM system to send messages if a message was not relevant to the thread.

I agree, people will always have a different side of a story but they must meet at a point where they will both agree on. But admitting to your mistakes isn't enough to convince everyone that you did something wrong. I certainly am not convinced that moderators won't do these stupid edits again just to get the attention.

As for your comment to "moderators should bug out of feedback threads", I think you guys should post in these threads but don't try to change someone's point of view just to save your butt.

[The Professor]

As for your comment to "moderators should bug out of feedback threads", I think you guys should post in these threads but don't try to change someone's point of view just to save your butt.

We're not trying to change peoples' points of view, we're trying to offer solutions and advice about the problems. I don't quite see what there is to have a point of view about anyway, we've established the problem and the reason for the problem.

[:....:mike:....:]

We're not trying to change peoples' points of view, we're trying to offer solutions and advice about the problems. I don't quite see what there is to have a point of view about anyway, we've established the problem and the reason for the problem.
I don't see anything about solving the problem?

[Mrs.McCall]

What if you make the same mistake over and over again? What will happen then?


First of all, I am not stupid! The likelihood of me repeating the mistake again is slim and if I make the same mistake constantly over and over i'd be fired because that'd make me incompetent.

Which I am not :P

[Nick-]

LOOOL :redface_b
my bad. i didnt realise what you were saying lol

and nick, its pretty obvious how to moderate :P. Expecially if you have done it before :)

Editing posts is simple, the problems occur when judging which posts need an infraction and which don't. Some problems can also occur when actually issuing the infraction, if not carried out properly, the user it was issued to is entitled to an automatic reversal as a result.
I'll give a fairly recent example of such a problem.
Now and again the word 'shiz' gets posted somewhere on the forum, we all know that this word isn't offensive or rude or even vulgar but its unusually close to a word that is all three of these therefore this can be construed as filter avoidance. If the rule wasn't clarified to the Moderators once this issue was raised, a new Moderator may issue an unjust infraction for this which would certainly raise a few flags in the SMod camp. ;)
Yes, previous experience is important when becoming a Moderator but, if you consider the current circumstances, a hacker isn't likely to have had previous experience of moderation on a forum with this many users and 4 million posts because they just wouldn't be dependable enough to be hired let alone maintain the position. :8


I am sort of offended from that comment about me not lasting as a mod. There is no evidence of that being anywhere near true, besides, I wouldn't want to be a slave for people who can't operate a normal community. There are no real mistakes in moderating, you have two decisions to decide from every time you read a post. NO one ever said moderating was easy, if you make a mistake you should know what or who you have to deal with. You are dealing with people your age, maybe younger or older.

Even though mods admitted they made mistakes, what is really the benefit out of that? They will probably make the same mistake again, again, again and again until they end up fired. If I were you, I'd fix that grey area since you seem to be defending mod's mistakes.

After being Staff on here for a year and a half I've seen Moderators change and learn lessons once the procedures have been made crystal clear. I had to have a couple of things cleared up after I first became a Moderator and I haven't made the same mistakes again. Now that I think about it I don't ever remember a single Moderator being fired for repeatedly making the same mistake, if mistakes are observed or are pointed out by people they are swiftly picked up on and, once the moderator is warned about them, learns to overcome them.
Also, 'No one ever said moderating was easy', doesn't that contradict what you've typed in direct response to my post? :S


I respect you Alex in a sense that you are a good guy but sometimes you dance on my last nerve when you post because you are always trying to find a backdoor to every problem. Why not go forward to find a method to fix this instead of always looking the other way. Admitting to your mistakes is like being given another chance, maybe too many chances most of the time. Moderators a human, we get that...but that isn't the point. If the users want a community that works with proper rules, then they should get it. They should not have to deal with moderators, with smods, with staff but they should have to deal with management because those are the people who will make changes. Why not all the mods bug out of feedback threads so that management can deal with these more closely.

It's not my place to get involved between you and Alex but I would like to point out that such a place does exist, its the complaints section. All threads created in the complaints section are answered by management who will then make changes if needed.


They do things in a sense that it doesn't flow with the forum, all of this red text and infractions, it is all just a game to them. They try to be on top of the game on a daily basis. At the end of the day, they end up getting fired because they are too judgmental and will always find a way to use their power to look good in instances where a specific post/thread has no real rule breaking. It isn't their responsibility to be looking for previous rules hidden in the forum someplace. They are given a guide which should be updated every so often.

They do those things so that genuine rule breaking is highlighted for all, especially the rule breaker, to see. This response danced on my last nerve quite a bit too simply because its riddled with assumptions. You don't know the reason why moderators are fired, no one does, unless the ex Staff member tells someone via PM and then spreads the word, this assumption is not a valid argument to base feedback upon. Similarly, you also don't know the specifics of the Moderator Guide. FYI, it is updated frequently. It was updated yesterday, for example. I received a PM explaining the rule changes and why they were put in place. Once again, this assumption is not a valid basis for feedback.


Your job isn't to decide how people perceive the post, it is your job to decide whether it is directly at someone or not. IF someone reports the post, then you will know definitely that the post/thread was offensive to them. That is how mods make the same mistakes repeatedly.

It is not your place to tell a Moderator how to do their job. That's my job. :P
Unfortunately it's common place for people to deliberately avoid reporting an insulting post so that they can have the opportunity to fight back. That's just human nature to want to do that so not all posts are reported when someone is offended and sometimes a Moderator must step in to avoid the situation getting out of hand.


Please let us know how you did it that way we don't start to pick up pitch forks and start a riot.

Why do you not trust the Forum Manager to sort out issues related to the very Staff he hired? :S
I am not at the liberty to say exactly how Elkaa dealt with this feedback because its a private matter but I can say that he definitely dealt with it because I was CC'ed a copy of it.


I think most mods think they can do the job but deep down, they are awful and can't figure out what the heck they need to do when editing a post that they cannot decide on. That is when abusive edits come in.

That's an unnecessary remark to make about Moderators and is not the sort of feedback we want in here. SMods are frequently PMed about uncertain situations and they are always happy to help and steer them in the right direction. Moderators are often encouraged to do so, in fact, I've been typing out the latest Moderator Report over the last 24 hours and I've said in several of the feedback comments that the SMods inbox is always open. They are encouraged on a regular basis to contact Super Moderators so that mistakes can be minimised. Yet again you've made an assumption that just isn't valid.


You make it seem like knowing the material as a moderator is hard, we all see what mods do. Maybe not the modCP stuff but most of the other stuff and it turns out they spend more time issuing warnings and infractions without re-assessing the issue before taking action. It seems we can all do that without hesitation. So, even if someone hacked minty, it wouldn't be hard to be him. All you do it edit posts.

Actually, unless you've been a Moderator on here, you can't possibly make that sort of generalisation. You see what Moderators do externally which is essentially editing posts and PMing users about minor rule breaking. Internally, there is quite a bit more to it that you cannot possibly know about as you have not been a member of the moderation team. For the third time you've made an invalid assumption that cannot be used as the foundations of feedback. Moderators don't even have access to ModCP which proves that even the assumption that you've made is as flimsy as crêpe paper.
I would also like to refer back to your response to an earlier post that I pointed out as a contradiction of this post. No one ever said moderating was easy? I think you just did. ;)

[Thetan]

Well, the truth is that Habbox has had trouble with its rules not being clear enough in the past. It ends up confusing everyone. Somebody should update the rules, instead of assuming everyone remembers an announcement made a back in 2006, when some users weren't even on at that time.

[Dr.Rdx]

I was edited and warned for saying the common 4chan term, new***. I just don't know anymore.

[Nick-]

As you have just proven, that word is filtered and has therefore been deemed as inappropriate for this forum. Just because other forums allow it, doesn't mean we have to. :)

[Thetan]

I was edited and warned for saying the common 4chan term, new***. I just don't know anymore.


Thats funny, I made a thread on that and they havent warned me yet.