Usernotes

[AgnesIO]

Do they expire?

[immense]

no. it's stupid. we should be able to see them. they just say they don't use old ones which is also rubbish lol.

[AgnesIO]

no. it's stupid. we should be able to see them. they just say they don't use old ones which is also rubbish lol.

Lol. I think they should be removed or something.

If I get told off for pointless posting or something (not saying I am pointless posting, just using an example) could I get another thing on my user cp telling me off for it, or after a few months are they not used?

[Martin]

No, usernotes are kept on record and don't expire. :P There are some very old ones floating around.

We do however only take into consideration recentish usernotes, since it's quite clear that people have the capacity to change, and improve on their behaviour etc.

Usernotes really are a useful tool for moderation purposes, and it helps us gain a better idea of what kinds of trouble members have gotten into etc. I would like to stress the point that we would only use recentish usenotes when deciding on whether to take the action of a warning/infraction however. This period is normally around 6 months.



Just to add on, after seeing Jakes post, in the majority of cases, moderators only take action based on recent usernotes, as stated. It is purely a record of the history of rulebreaks, to gain an overall 'bigger picture' I guess. There are many types of usernotes, and some things more serious than others, are sometimes useful for further offences.

I also don't think it's a good idea for them to be viewable to members, they are mostly exact copies of Pm's sent to you anyway.

[AgnesIO]

No, usernotes are kept on record and don't expire. :P There are some very old ones floating around.

We do however only take into consideration recentish usernotes, since it's quite clear that people have the capacity to change, and improve on their behaviour etc.

Usernotes really are a useful tool for moderation purposes, and it helps us gain a better idea of what kinds of trouble members have gotten into etc. I would like to stress the point that we would only use recentish usenotes when deciding on whether to take the action of a warning/infraction however. This period is normally around 6 months.

6 MONTHS? :L

That's quite a long time I would have thought.

Not saying I am gonna cause trouble until warning stages, since I am not, just think that is a long time :P

[immense]

basically they say that and then ban you and are like "WELL U HAVE 50000000 USERNOTES SO U R BAD" and ur like omg -rep

its a right mare

[Sarah]

6 MONTHS? :L

That's quite a long time I would have thought.

Not saying I am gonna cause trouble until warning stages, since I am not, just think that is a long time :P

It would depend on the case, If you broke an rule and it was added to your user notes then six months down the line you break it again but only mildly then it would be up to the Moderators discretion on what action to take.

[Matthew]

Well it really depends on the offence in my opinion...

Obviously if its pointless posting or something we will only take into account very recent usernotes (usually the past week or so i believe), but if it is a more serious offence we are more likely to take older usernotes into account.

[Nixt]

basically they say that and then ban you and are like "WELL U HAVE 50000000 USERNOTES SO U R BAD" and ur like omg -rep

its a right mare

Your ban was an exception to a general rule, and you are fully aware of the details why. You can contest the ban using the support system if you choose to, where further explanation can be given. Let's not turn this thread into a discussion about a one off ban issued in circumstances that are generally not applicable to day-to-day moderation.

[Jamesy]

As Martin said they are simply copies of PMs sent to you, which once received are your responsibility. The only other thing Usernotes contain are links to ban reports if the account is cautioned / banned.

It is entirely at the moderator's discretion when to judge using usernotes, but the maximum they will look at 6 months and if there is only one that old they are not likely to go full on into the harshest possible action.

[Nixt]

I should also point out that user notes are an extremely useful resource for me when doing staff background checks before they are hiring - this is particularly important in the hiring of Moderators but is applicable to other members of staff too. Without user notes, I would be posed with quite a task when it comes to keeping track of staff discipline.

[immense]

yeah i do think they're good i just can't see why you won't tick that box to let use see 'em

[xxMATTGxx]

yeah i do think they're good i just can't see why you won't tick that box to let use see 'em

Because they are used for moderation purposes and should only be seen by that department/admins.

[Sarah]

yeah i do think they're good i just can't see why you won't tick that box to let use see 'em

In theory as Martin said below, User notes are mostly exactly the same as the PM's Moderators send you. So in theory you could already have copies of your user notes.



I also don't think it's a good idea for them to be viewable to members, they are mostly exact copies of Pm's sent to you anyway.

[immense]

yeah but they're used to keep track on us and we're sent a pm so we behave... if we're sent a pm why can't we see 'em it would serve as a permanent reminder as to what usernotes we have and what for and i'm 90% sure people would behave better. i actually think it's a power thing as there is no good reason why we shouldn't be able to see our own usernotes

yes sarah i know i dont want to start copy and pasting them into a word document tho thx

[Tintinnabulate]

Oli did a poll to scrap usernotes and have only warnings. So instead of usernote > warning > infraction, it would be warning > warning > infraction - thus allowing users to see their record in full.
What happened to it?

[immense]

or you could just let people see their usernotes

fine ill change the record... unban me... i used to be agm

[Jamesy]

or you could just let people see their usernotes

fine ill change the record... unban me... i used to be agm

Neither of those are happening :)

[immense]

dw jameseh i'm joking and as fm you will notice those are the three things i will rattle on about :o)

[Catzsy]

No, usernotes are kept on record and don't expire. :P There are some very old ones floating around.

We do however only take into consideration recentish usernotes, since it's quite clear that people have the capacity to change, and improve on their behaviour etc.

Usernotes really are a useful tool for moderation purposes, and it helps us gain a better idea of what kinds of trouble members have gotten into etc. I would like to stress the point that we would only use recentish usenotes when deciding on whether to take the action of a warning/infraction however. This period is normally around 6 months.



Just to add on, after seeing Jakes post, in the majority of cases, moderators only take action based on recent usernotes, as stated. It is purely a record of the history of rulebreaks, to gain an overall 'bigger picture' I guess. There are many types of usernotes, and some things more serious than others, are sometimes useful for further offences.

I also don't think it's a good idea for them to be viewable to members, they are mostly exact copies of Pm's sent to you anyway.



As Martin said they are simply copies of PMs sent to you, which once received are your responsibility. The only other thing Usernotes contain are links to ban reports if the account is cautioned / banned.

It is entirely at the moderator's discretion when to judge using usernotes, but the maximum they will look at 6 months and if there is only one that old they are not likely to go full on into the harshest possible action.

I would agree with all this except for the time period. To my knowledge the period of 6 months is new. As warnings and infractions expire after two months I would say that the user notes for direct consultation to decide on whether a warning/infraction should be given should be two months also. This is what I always used to do otherwise it could make user notes more punitive than the actual warnings/infractions. The only exception I feel is that members who come back from banned accounts to new accounts should have less chances as it can be seen as playing the system which in fact has happened on occasions.




I should also point out that user notes are an extremely useful resource for me when doing staff background checks before they are hiring - this is particularly important in the hiring of Moderators but is applicable to other members of staff too. Without user notes, I would be posed with quite a task when it comes to keeping track of staff discipline.

Agreed.

[Jamesy]

I would agree with all this except for the time period. To my knowledge the period of 6 months is new. As warnings and infractions expire after two months I would say that the user notes for direct consultation to decide on whether a warning/infraction should be given should be two months also. This is what I always used to do otherwise it could make user notes more punitive than the actual warnings/infractions. The only exception I feel is that members who come back from banned accounts to new accounts should have less chances as it can be seen as playing the system which in fact has happened on occasions.


When I was a Moderator and I asked how far back to take into account I was told 6 months. Although I agree that anything that old should not really be used and in all honesty I doubt the moderators take into account anything that old, it's simply the final cutoff point in my opinion. :)

[Catzsy]

No, usernotes are kept on record and don't expire. :P There are some very old ones floating around.

We do however only take into consideration recentish usernotes, since it's quite clear that people have the capacity to change, and improve on their behaviour etc.

Usernotes really are a useful tool for moderation purposes, and it helps us gain a better idea of what kinds of trouble members have gotten into etc. I would like to stress the point that we would only use recentish usenotes when deciding on whether to take the action of a warning/infraction however. This period is normally around 6 months.



Just to add on, after seeing Jakes post, in the majority of cases, moderators only take action based on recent usernotes, as stated. It is purely a record of the history of rulebreaks, to gain an overall 'bigger picture' I guess. There are many types of usernotes, and some things more serious than others, are sometimes useful for further offences.

I also don't think it's a good idea for them to be viewable to members, they are mostly exact copies of Pm's sent to you anyway.


As Martin said they are simply copies of PMs sent to you, which once received are your responsibility. The only other thing Usernotes contain are links to ban reports if the account is cautioned / banned.

It is entirely at the moderator's discretion when to judge using usernotes, but the maximum they will look at 6 months and if there is only one that old they are not likely to go full on into the harshest possible action.


I should also point out that user notes are an extremely useful resource for me when doing staff background checks before they are hiring - this is particularly important in the hiring of Moderators but is applicable to other members of staff too. Without user notes, I would be posed with quite a task when it comes to keeping track of staff discipline.


When I was a Moderator and I asked how far back to take into account I was told 6 months. Although I agree that anything that old should not really be used and in all honesty I doubt the moderators take into account anything that old, it's simply the final cutoff point in my opinion. :)

Yes well in practice if you use a user note over 2 months it is possible that somebody could in effect be punished twice on the same one which cannot be fair. Just my point of view though.

[Tintinnabulate]

Oli did a poll to scrap usernotes and have only warnings. So instead of usernote > warning > infraction, it would be warning > warning > infraction - thus allowing users to see their record in full.
What happened to it?

Yay forum management replied and totally blanked my question.

[Nixt]

Yay forum management replied and totally blanked my question.

If I recall correctly no one liked the idea.

[flatface]

Haven't read the entire thread but taking into account a usernote that is 6 months old is way too old in my opinion, should be 2 months like the warning/infraction system. I always ignored usernotes that were 2+ months old

[Grig]

Haven't read the entire thread but taking into account a usernote that is 6 months old is way too old in my opinion, should be 2 months like the warning/infraction system. I always ignored usernotes that were 2+ months old

I think they should make it a standard rule for moderators to use them 2 months back at maximum because we can't have this 'discretion' crap going on when some may use them to 6 months back, whilst other to 2. Makes it unfair to some etc.

[Richie]

Saurav that'd be dumb because then you wouldn't have any other 'lifelines', it would be an auto infraction.

[Sarah]

I think they should make it a standard rule for moderators to use them 2 months back at maximum because we can't have this 'discretion' crap going on when some may use them to 6 months back, whilst other to 2. Makes it unfair to some etc.

I believe the current rule is 6 months - the discretion bit is if we feel (and can see) that you haven't broke any other rules in the past six months then you can send them a PM rather than a warning/infraction - believe it or not we don't want to give out infractions. I'm sure the rule will be more clearly established by forum/general management.

[Pyroka]

Moral of this thread:

Don't be a daft ****, you won't have any problems with usernotes.

[Nixt]

I think they should make it a standard rule for moderators to use them 2 months back at maximum because we can't have this 'discretion' crap going on when some may use them to 6 months back, whilst other to 2. Makes it unfair to some etc.

The current system is fine and this 'discretion crap' works a lot better than how things used to be where there were strict, unwavering guidelines which led to robotic moderation and repeatedly harsh and unfair decisions. Allowing Moderators an element of discretion was a key part of myself and Oli's rewrite of the rules and revamped Moderator guide which whilst making things quite clear, encouraged Moderators to use an element of common sense in their application of the rules and guidelines which they are expected to follow. Discretion is good, and I think this is reflected in the quality of the Moderation at Habbox Forum today which receives considerably less complaints than in the past.

Regarding user notes specifically, I am confident that all Moderators have an idea that user notes posted months ago do not necessarily reflect the current behaviour of that user and they will consider this when moderating rule breaking posts. All the same, there will inevitably be some situations where older (than two months) user notes will be used and this is down to the discretion of the individual moderator. A case in point - a user bullies someone repeatedly six months ago, and narrowly manages to avoid a ban. They take a six month 'break' and behave perfectly. Then, all of a sudden, bullying of that member resumes with the user being fully aware they have been punished for it in the past. The older user notes will be taken into consideration here to deal with serial offenders or offenders who like to think they can beat the system and go through quiet periods.

The Moderators and Administrators of this forum aren't stupid, and are not going to take into account a pointless post six months ago when dealing with the here and now. Nevertheless, user notes provide a valuable 'bigger picture' and will continue to be used in both their long and short term capacities.

[Tintinnabulate]

Saurav that'd be dumb because then you wouldn't have any other 'lifelines', it would be an auto infraction.

No. Warnings will replace usernotes. Warnings will be less severe and that way we can see our history.

[Nixt]

No. Warnings will replace usernotes. Warnings will be less severe and that way we can see our history.

The general consensus was that warnings, regardless of how we might promote them as "less severe" would be considered a lot more harsh than a polite PM from a Moderator, particularly for newer members who will be quite put off by a strike on their account compared with a friendly and guiding PM from a member of the Moderation team. I am inclined to agree.

[AgnesIO]

The general consensus was that warnings, regardless of how we might promote them as "less severe" would be considered a lot more harsh than a polite PM from a Moderator, particularly for newer members who will be quite put off by a strike on their account compared with a friendly and guiding PM from a member of the Moderation team. I am inclined to agree.

That's all good, however, as an older member, I think the "polite pm's" are sort of cheesy an. More of a "do it again an. We will warn you".

Although I wouldn't want warnings straight off as they make my profile look bad, an. Display on the postbit :L

[Tintinnabulate]

The general consensus was that warnings, regardless of how we might promote them as "less severe" would be considered a lot more harsh than a polite PM from a Moderator, particularly for newer members who will be quite put off by a strike on their account compared with a friendly and guiding PM from a member of the Moderation team. I am inclined to agree.

I understand what you are saying. I thought this might be a bit of a compromise of an idea, thats all. Also infraction PMs can easily be edited so they seem more friendly.

[Catzsy]

The current system is fine and this 'discretion crap' works a lot better than how things used to be where there were strict, unwavering guidelines which led to robotic moderation and repeatedly harsh and unfair decisions. Allowing Moderators an element of discretion was a key part of myself and Oli's rewrite of the rules and revamped Moderator guide which whilst making things quite clear, encouraged Moderators to use an element of common sense in their application of the rules and guidelines which they are expected to follow. Discretion is good, and I think this is reflected in the quality of the Moderation at Habbox Forum today which receives considerably less complaints than in the past.

Regarding user notes specifically, I am confident that all Moderators have an idea that user notes posted months ago do not necessarily reflect the current behaviour of that user and they will consider this when moderating rule breaking posts. All the same, there will inevitably be some situations where older (than two months) user notes will be used and this is down to the discretion of the individual moderator. A case in point - a user bullies someone repeatedly six months ago, and narrowly manages to avoid a ban. They take a six month 'break' and behave perfectly. Then, all of a sudden, bullying of that member resumes with the user being fully aware they have been punished for it in the past. The older user notes will be taken into consideration here to deal with serial offenders or offenders who like to think they can beat the system and go through quiet periods.

The Moderators and Administrators of this forum aren't stupid, and are not going to take into account a pointless post six months ago when dealing with the here and now. Nevertheless, user notes provide a valuable 'bigger picture' and will continue to be used in both their long and short term capacities.

I can see where you are coming from Garion but surely that is the exception to the rule rather than a set standard.
Josh agrees with me that it was 2 months as it matched the the length of the expiry date of the warnings/infractions which seems logical. I have never known it to be 6 months generally since the time that warnings/infractions were reduced to 2 months unless that was changed recently. In fact warnings given on older user notes used to be reversed for this reason, As far as bullying/racism is concerned there shouldn't be a pm as far as I am concerned it should go straight to a warning/infraction and I do believe there is written procedure in the moderation manual that covers this.

[Nixt]

I can see where you are coming from Garion but surely that is the exception to the rule rather than a set standard.
Josh agrees with me that it was 2 months as it matched the the length of the expiry date of the warnings/infractions which seems logical. I have never known it to be 6 months generally since the time that warnings/infractions were reduced to 2 months unless that was changed recently. In fact warnings given on older user notes used to be reversed for this reason, As far as bullying/racism is concerned there shouldn't be a pm as far as I am concerned it should go straight to a warning/infraction and I do believe there is written procedure in the moderation manual that covers this.

In fairness I didn't anywhere in my post say that this was the set standard, I was merely explaining why user notes that exceed the two month period may still be considered and why they remain a valuable tool for Moderators and Administrators alike. The example I gave was purely hypothetical but is applicable to all areas of rule breaking. My post did say that as a general rule Moderators have the common sense and intelligence to only check recent user notes - as demonstrated by both your agreement with Josh and the fact that there has never, to my knowledge, been an obvious problem where user notes from months ago have played a key part in the moderation of today's rule breaking (bar exceptional circumstances).

The fact is this isn't really an issue, and I do feel that an issue is being made out of nothing. It is a given that Moderators will not consider user notes that are months old and they are knowledgeable enough to apply their own discretion as to when a user note is or is not relevant. My post was aimed at expanding on Jamesy's point and explaining the only circumstances in which older user notes will be addressed, and the reasons why.

[Catzsy]

In fairness I didn't anywhere in my post say that this was the set standard, I was merely explaining why user notes that exceed the two month period may still be considered and why they remain a valuable tool for Moderators and Administrators alike. The example I gave was purely hypothetical but is applicable to all areas of rule breaking. My post did say that as a general rule Moderators have the common sense and intelligence to only check recent user notes - as demonstrated by both your agreement with Josh and the fact that there has never, to my knowledge, been an obvious problem where user notes from months ago have played a key part in the moderation of today's rule breaking (bar exceptional circumstances).

The fact is this isn't really an issue, and I do feel that an issue is being made out of nothing. It is a given that Moderators will not consider user notes that are months old and they are knowledgeable enough to apply their own discretion as to when a user note is or is not relevant. My post was aimed at expanding on Jamesy's point and explaining the only circumstances in which older user notes will be addressed, and the reasons why.

Well Jamesy, Martin and Sarah have all said '6 months' which to my best belief was never the norm but the exception so that why I queried it as it does not give the right impression as surely 2 months is the norm with discretion to go back further in exceptional circumstances.

[flatface]

Well Jamesy, Martin and Sarah have all said '6 months' which to my best belief was never the norm but the exception so that why I queried it as it does not give the right impression as surely 2 months is the norm with discretion to go back further in exceptional circumstances.

Couldn't agree more, I never heard of this 6 month cut off when I was in the department. For a standard rule break you shouldn't need to go back further then 2 months so like said above it should be 2 months (not 6) with discretion to go back further in some circumstances. Less confusing and sounds more logical.