The forum review

[Grig]

I quite like the changes, it should hopefully mean easier moderation! I would like to think mods will need to notch up their commitments though, as there are not many! Would also be good to hire global mods who have knowledge of certain areas such as tech. Also love the brown name, makes me feel nostalgic ;).

Discuss.

[Minstrels]

Global moderation is a good idea.

[Jordan]

Excellent Changes, I hope this all goes well.

[Mark]

Really like it, I wonder when the limited staff members will grow to 8 or 10 staff members rather than 6, I think 6 may be too little especially when one or two MODs are posted away.

[Calvin]

Really like it, I wonder when the limited staff members will grow to 8 or 10 staff members rather than 6, I think 6 may be too little especially when one or two MODs are posted away.Yeah, I'm not sure if 6 is enough if some are away.

Will there be any sunday updates today?

[AgnesIO]

I think it is a good idea, although I can see some new moderators when they are given the job being somewhat power hungry. I think the feedback section should be left for super moderators, but what ever.

Also did Dictionaries actually do anything wrong? If not I think firing him is a joke.

[scott]

How come when Tom resigned you said "Past few months" and for Dictionaries it's "Past few weeks" when they were hired at the same time?

Anyway, I suppose it'll be a bit better but I don't know if only 3 moderators will be enough, I suppose time will tell :)!

[AgnesIO]

Could I point out only one moderator is online at the moment?

I am not accusing the moderators of not being online enough - because that would be really, really unfair.

But surely you need enough moderators - you are expecting each moderator to be online for four hours a day moderating? Voluntarily?

[Hecktix]

How come when Tom resigned you said "Past few months" and for Dictionaries it's "Past few weeks" when they were hired at the same time?

Anyway, I suppose it'll be a bit better but I don't know if only 3 moderators will be enough, I suppose time will tell :)!

Recursion was in my last set of trialists, Dictionaries wasn't so they weren't hired at the same time! I think these changes will work very well, 6 moderators with global permissions should mean a forum of this size in it's current climate can be moderated effectively, obviously the numbers were larger before as we had individual moderators in individual forums - now everybody is everywhere.

Dom, one online is enough online, there are also several administrators so if anything happened it would be easily covered.

[scott]

I think it is a good idea, although I can see some new moderators when they are given the job being somewhat power hungry. I think the feedback section should be left for super moderators, but what ever.

Also did Dictionaries actually do anything wrong? If not I think firing him is a joke.

mhmm I was thinking the same tbh, I know when I was a Super Moderator he did do a lot, shame to see him go if he never done anything to be removed!

[Jamesy]

Could I point out only one moderator is online at the moment?

I am not accusing the moderators of not being online enough - because that would be really, really unfair.

But surely you need enough moderators - you are expecting each moderator to be online for four hours a day moderating? Voluntarily?

I didn't mention this in the announcement as it wasn't something that affected the public, but all moderators now have access to post reports. So while they are all expected to browse the forums - post reports should be more efficient - thus the reduction to 3 + 3.

[The Don]

I would've thought we would have had more moderators than this. 6 to cover the entire forum? I'd imagine it would be closer to 8-10 that would be needed as like someone else said, when staff are posted away it just gets harder for the remaining few. Also, I think Super Moderators should be able to correct changes that moderators make as Super Moderators have been here much longer and can help out when a new moderator makes a mistake rather than the forum managment getting loads of pm's aswell as having to deal with their own issues, It will take much longer to correct those mistakes and put unnecessary pressure on managment...

However I like most of the updates.

[AgnesIO]

Recursion was in my last set of trialists, Dictionaries wasn't so they weren't hired at the same time! I think these changes will work very well, 6 moderators with global permissions should mean a forum of this size in it's current climate can be moderated effectively, obviously the numbers were larger before as we had individual moderators in individual forums - now everybody is everywhere.

I do not feel it is my job to shoot this idea down, so I am giving it a chance, although I personally don't think six moderators is enough - especially when we get to peak times (half term in the UK atm) and nine in the evening.

I still think, unless Dictionaries actually did something wrong, firing him - without need to reduce the moderation departments side - is a mistake.

[Grig]

This does put pressure, I do agree as you are not minimizing any forums, but radically working on a reduced mod team compared to a few months ago.

[Inseriousity.]

I think it's a good update and I loled at jamesy finally getting his favourite colour back. The whole trouble I had when I was a moderator was being confined to one section, which makes logs difficult if everyone's misbehaving somewhere else so yeah that's pretty good. although I agree that firing someone for something out of their control is a bit of a slap in the face (if that is the full story).

[luce]

yeah i tyhink they are good and needed changes, hopefully other departments will see fit to also merge or reduce staff or something along those lines because some thing needs to be done in a way of reorganizing habbox!

[AgnesIO]

Recursion was in my last set of trialists, Dictionaries wasn't so they weren't hired at the same time! I think these changes will work very well, 6 moderators with global permissions should mean a forum of this size in it's current climate can be moderated effectively, obviously the numbers were larger before as we had individual moderators in individual forums - now everybody is everywhere.

Dom, one online is enough online, there are also several administrators so if anything happened it would be easily covered.

I will see! As I have said, I am willing to give it a chance, before I get my gun out and shoot it down. That will happen tomorrow :L


I think it's a good update and I loled at jamesy finally getting his favourite colour back. The whole trouble I had when I was a moderator was being confined to one section, which makes logs difficult if everyone's misbehaving somewhere else so yeah that's pretty good. although I agree that firing someone for something out of their control is a bit of a slap in the face (if that is the full story).

Lol - I thought removing that colour was stupid anyway - if stuff didn't like it, nothing stopped them buying vip :L

---

I do see the reasoning that all moderators seeing post reports is a good idea. I have found in the past, that relying on section moderators to actually be online is not a great idea. As I have said, you cannot expect voluntary staff to be online 24/7, so I can see the positives out of 'The Forum Review'!

Do we get sunday updates today - they are always a good read - when it isn't simply 'Rule Z374 has been reworded' :P

[Hecktix]

James, Matt, Sarah and myself have much moderation experience here at Habbox and we sat down for a long time and discussed numbers, if moderator statistics are compared to posting statistics, the efforts of moderation have not decreased in the 18 months I've been involved with the moderation of the forum. When we were in climates similar to this, for example March 2010, the forum could easily have been maintained to an acceptable standard by the four super moderators.

3 Super Moderators and 3 Global Moderators are ideal numbers as within these 6 individuals we have people who can cover different times of the day, in theory now all moderators are Global - one moderator online at any one time accompanied by an Administrator is enough to deal with a situation which would need dealing with immediately, all other rule breaking will be dealt with within 24 hours as we have always thrived to achieve.

I am confident this will improve the moderation of the forum as the 3 global moderators should get into their roles a lot more, moderating the whole forum is very different to moderating an individual section and it's a lot more exciting.

[AgnesIO]

James, Matt, Sarah and myself have much moderation experience here at Habbox and we sat down for a long time and discussed numbers, if moderator statistics are compared to posting statistics, the efforts of moderation have not decreased in the 18 months I've been involved with the moderation of the forum. When we were in climates similar to this, for example March 2010, the forum could easily have been maintained to an acceptable standard by the four super moderators.

3 Super Moderators and 3 Global Moderators are ideal numbers as within these 6 individuals we have people who can cover different times of the day, in theory now all moderators are Global - one moderator online at any one time accompanied by an Administrator is enough to deal with a situation which would need dealing with immediately, all other rule breaking will be dealt with within 24 hours as we have always thrived to achieve.

I am confident this will improve the moderation of the forum as the 3 global moderators should get into their roles a lot more, moderating the whole forum is very different to moderating an individual section and it's a lot more exciting.

Having experience doesn't make you any good though.

I don't think my question has been answered yet though - did Dictionaries actually do anything wrong?

I can see the positives and the negatives to this, and will try and make a list of pro's and con's (in my view) later.

I was joking for the first bit.

[Jamesy]

We don't say the reasons for staff being let go. He wasn't fired, there was an internal process which was made as fair as we could possibly make it and unfortunately thats just how it ended up.

[AgnesIO]

We don't say the reasons for staff being let go. He wasn't fired, there was an internal process which was made as fair as we could possibly make it and unfortunately thats just how it ended up.

If he wasn't fired, he didn't do anything wrong then?

Is that correct?

[Hecktix]

Having experience doesn't make you any good though.

I don't think my question has been answered yet though - did Dictionaries actually do anything wrong?

I can see the positives and the negatives to this, and will try and make a list of pro's and con's (in my view) later.

I was joking for the first bit.

Having experience is nothing about being good or not, it was said in regards to knowing how the department works and what is needed to cover moderation.

In regards to dictionaries, as James said the process used was fair.

[Josh]

I hope Dictionaires gets a free trial when someone resigns because I think that's ****. Other than that, good update.

[sammy]

Poor Dictionaires! He shouldn't have been fired just because you wanted a certain amount of moderators, no harm in having just one extra really is there lool... I don't really see the difference between moderators and super moderators now either, they seem to be basically the same role now!! :S

Other than that it seems like a good update :)

[AgnesIO]

Having experience is nothing about being good or not, it was said in regards to knowing how the department works and what is needed to cover moderation.

In regards to dictionaries, as James said the process used was fair.

I was joking about the first bit.

But I can't see how firing someone, just to make it 3+3 is a fair reason?

One extra moderator can't do harm.

[Apple]

I really like the idea of Global Moderators. When I was a moderator I remember often coming across rule breaking posts that I wasn't able to deal with due to them not being in my section. However with this I guess that will never have to be a problem for mods again. So yeh, great update!

[Hecktix]

I was joking about the first bit.

But I can't see how firing someone, just to make it 3+3 is a fair reason?

One extra moderator can't do harm.

The whole idea of the reform is to test a smaller staff team with global permissions, we have reduced the moderation team from 8 to 6 to do this - there are many reasons behind this including that we don't want masses of positions with global moderator powers.

[AgnesIO]

The whole idea of the reform is to test a smaller staff team with global permissions, we have reduced the moderation team from 8 to 6 to do this - there are many reasons behind this including that we don't want masses of positions with global moderator powers.

Dictionaries was trusted. You could have kept him - nobody says you have to hire someone else when they leave though.

[Josh]

I know that there was some sort of choosing thing but I still don't think it's fair to get rid of a moderator (who has been around since 05) just because you want to minimise staff with those powers.

Also, this is going to make the moderator position very coveted (is that a word) and will apps open for like, one job slot?

[Hecktix]

If we keep someone on there's no point in reforming, it defeats the whole point. All moderators agreed to the reform and thought it was a good idea, they accepted the situation and unluckily it didn't work out in Dictionaries favour, this time.

[Josh]

unluckily

Yeah, it's all dependent on luck? ???

Anyway, surely someone is going to resign over the next month or two when you continue you change the forum.

Will he get first pick or a free trial when someone leaves?

i expect a lovely big thread when i wake up tomorrow and i also want to see dictionaries has been reinstated as global moberator honestly. goodnight.

[AgnesIO]

If we keep someone on there's no point in reforming, it defeats the whole point. All moderators agreed to the reform and thought it was a good idea, they accepted the situation and unluckily it didn't work out in Dictionaries favour, this time.

Of course. I can see how the forum would have gone downhill if you kept a good moderator on.

Posts merged by Nicola (Forum Super Moderator): due to forum lag

[Hecktix]

Yeah, it's all dependent on luck? ???

Anyway, surely someone is going to resign over the next month or two when you continue you change the forum.

Will he get first pick or a free trial when someone leaves?

i expect a lovely big thread when i wake up tomorrow and i also want to see dictionaries has been reinstated as global moberator honestly. goodnight.

No it was most definitely not down to luck - although I will say it is unlucky for the member of staff, just as it is unlucky when any member of staff loses their job.

The reasons for a member of staff's departure are confidential and no more shall be said on the matter, in terms of if someone else leaves and should a position need filling, I am of the opinion applications will open even if it is for one position.

[AgnesIO]

No it was most definitely not down to luck - although I will say it is unlucky for the member of staff, just as it is unlucky when any member of staff loses their job.

The reasons for a member of staff's departure are confidential and no more shall be said on the matter, in terms of if someone else leaves and should a position need filling, I am of the opinion applications will open even if it is for one position.

I think your reasons are already public.

[Nixt]

These changes are definitely a positive step in the right direction. Six Moderators with global powers is plenty to cover the forum rule breaks, any more would definitely be overkill.

It is unfortunate about Dictionaries but at the end of the day when you are streamlining and modernising a department sometimes cutbacks have to be made, although unfortunate, it is inevitable and necessary - I am sure the selection was done fairly and it really isn't our place to question it.

The main focus now is ensuring that future Moderators are still considered on the basis of the forum browsing preferences. An issue in the past is sometimes forums would get neglected by Moderators with global powers so to ensure the forum is covered this still needs to be kept in mind, and obviously Moderators reminded that they are to browse all forums and not just their favourites. This has always been the case though and I am sure it has been kept in mind, but that's the only problem I think could really arise out of this and providing that is kept in check I think it's perfect.

Excellent changes and I look forward to the future reviews!

[Mathew]

I think this is a good update, I've never really seen the point in restricting moderators to one section when they can just browse it all. The restriction is what has put me off applying in the past, fear of not having enough to do.

[Hecktix]

I think your reasons are already public.

Not at all. People seem very quick to make accusations when they have no insight into the work put in behind these things.

[Inseriousity.]

It's only cos he's from Middlesbrough! Suffering severe redundancies irl (going to be the worst hit town in the uk according to a BBC survey). Pfft we can't even keep our jobs on an online forum, what chance have we got in life! :P

I'm sure it was a fair system, still a slap in the face, fair or not. Free month's VIP compensation, I reckon :D

[Josh]

I am sure the selection was done fairly and it really isn't our place to question it.

Dictionaries has said it was mainly due to his section not having enough activity which lead to not enough moderator action. However that could just be his side of the story and of course I will never hear the other side. All I'm saying is, it may not have been fair.

[immense]

If this management was a political party you would be CONSERVATIVE. People losing their jobs. How devastating.

[AgnesIO]

Not at all. People seem very quick to make accusations when they have no insight into the work put in behind these things.

I am not basing my feelings on nothing. I have heard one side of the story.

Now obviously, when people do not know both sides of the stories, they are going to believe the only story they have heard.

Which in this case is not in hx's favour.

[Nixt]

Dictionaries has said it was mainly due to his section not having enough activity which lead to not enough moderator action. However that could just be his side of the story and of course I will never hear the other side. All I'm saying is, it may not have been fair.

It potentially could be. It's unfortunate but the fairest way to do it would be to look at activity and choose the people with the most activity. That's not limited to Moderator logs - I am sure they will have taken into account all the things we used to take into account when giving moderators their reports: Infractions given and their quality, number of infractions reversed, hours spent online, whether or not they post often, involvement in the forum team, how often they report things to Super Moderators (signatures etc) and much more. It wouldn't have been a decision made lightly, and although activity within the category may have played a part there are LOADS of other things they would have taken into consideration too.


If this management was a political party you would be CONSERVATIVE. People losing their jobs. How devastating.

Nazis omg

[AgnesIO]

I always find it amusing that moderators get reports partially based on how many people they have infracted

[Hecktix]

I am not basing my feelings on nothing. I have heard one side of the story.

Now obviously, when people do not know both sides of the stories, they are going to believe the only story they have heard.

Which in this case is not in hx's favour.

Well, as you know very well our policies and procedures prevent us from revealing any further information, which is only fair for the member - afterall it is him you are supporting here. The thing is, if these reviews hadn't happened today, and Dictionaries had been fired anyway - nobody would have made anything of it, so I am afraid you are making assumptions on the half story you have.

Milestone, again - how would you be aware of that? Moderators are assessed on many aspects and infractions are not counted towards the moderators report (reversed infractions are however), moderators are also assessed on posting around the forum, moderator logs and "report rule breaking to super moderator" logs. Even in a dead section, should a moderator wish to, they could work hard in other areas which would cancel out the quietness of their section. Of course, this is all hypothetical and nothing to do with Dictionaries getting fired - I just felt I would correct you saying "moderators get judged on infractions".

[Josh]

Hypothetically, if Dictionaries told you it's okay to release the details, would you?

[Nixt]

I always find it amusing that moderators get reports partially based on how many people they have infracted

It's hardly a key to the decision, it's merely an observation. For example if a Moderator in the General Category has issued 0 infractions then you know there is something up, because there are generally more rule breaks in there than anywhere else. It's a small indicator of activity but only plays a small part of the overall report which take into account a huge number of things. You don't know the system that myself and Oli created and spent a lot of time doing, which has been developed monthly by respective FMs since then. It's more than adequate a judge of moderator activity and standard and isn't based solely on infractions, but it is certainly something that needs to be considered, as issuing infractions are a key part of their job.

[AgnesIO]

Well, as you know very well our policies and procedures prevent us from revealing any further information, which is only fair for the member - afterall it is him you are supporting here. The thing is, if these reviews hadn't happened today, and Dictionaries had been fired anyway - nobody would have made anything of it, so I am afraid you are making assumptions on the half story you have.

Obviously not. However the review clearly says:


Staff Changes
Due to these changes, General Management have seen fit to reduce the staff limit for the department. It will now consist of:
3 Global Moderators
3 Forum Super Moderators

Thus, it's regretful to say that Dictionairies. is no longer a Forum Moderator. We thank him for this hard work and time over the past few weeks, and wish him all the best for the future :)

Which, without even trying to think about it, clearly suggests he has been fired so you can have a perfect number. That's why it is seen as an unfair move.

And once again, I have said myself I am making assumptions based on one side of the story. What else do you expect me to do? Use my physic powers to guess what your side is?

[immense]

p.s. in all seriousness changes had to be made. don't think this will really make much of a difference to us (users) but should help moderators and make the department more effective. although, in theory we could be waiting a while to get unfair infractions to be removed. i like how there are the same amount of moderators (6) as the owners and general management team (6) - nice touch.

[Nixt]

Obviously not. However the review clearly says:



Which, without even trying to think about it, clearly suggests he has been fired so you can have a perfect number. That's why it is seen as an unfair move.

And once again, I have said myself I am making assumptions based on one side of the story. What else do you expect me to do? Use my physic powers to guess what your side is?

That's because he essentially has been fired. "Removed from the team" obviously because he was the least active on the basis of the reasons I posted above and probably more. It's almost certainly fair and if he thinks it is unfair there are plenty of people he can appeal to. I seriously think people should get over it. People moan when they say the forum needs improving and when they make really important and high standard changes people still have to nitpick and moan.

He was fairly dismissed to streamline the department. Big deal.

[Josh]

That's because he essentially has been fired. "Removed from the team" obviously because he was the least active on the basis of the reasons I posted above and probably more. It's almost certainly fair and if he thinks it is unfair there are plenty of people he can appeal to. I seriously think people should get over it. People moan when they say the forum needs improving and when they make really important and high standard changes people still have to nitpick and moan.

He was fairly dismissed to streamline the department. Big deal.

This is an online forum and having one extra moderator for a few months/weeks WOULDN'T HAVE AFFECTED the forum in a bad way. If it was a real life job, it would be an understandable decision to make money; however, they aren't being paid and it wouldn't have hurt for a few months because people do resign as you can see over the last few months.

[Nixt]

This is an online forum and having one extra moderator for a few months/weeks WOULDN'T HAVE AFFECTED the forum in a bad way. If it was a real life job, it would be an understandable decision to make money; however, they aren't being paid and it wouldn't have hurt for a few months because people do resign as you can see over the last few months.

It could well have unfairly spread the work load. There is such thing as OVER Moderation. Better to strike a balance than have too many or too little, imo. Get the balance right and you have a perfect moderation team.

Not to mention the fact that he probably WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED anyway. Can you not get the obvious hints being dropped through this thread lol. J/S

[AgnesIO]

That's because he essentially has been fired. "Removed from the team" obviously because he was the least active on the basis of the reasons I posted above and probably more. It's almost certainly fair and if he thinks it is unfair there are plenty of people he can appeal to. I seriously think people should get over it. People moan when they say the forum needs improving and when they make really important and high standard changes people still have to nitpick and moan.

He was fairly dismissed to streamline the department. Big deal.

That's what I don't understand.

We are expected to not be one sided, yet if we only have ONE SIDE to the story, how can you not be ONE SIDED.

I have clearly stated at the start of the thread what I think was good/bad about the moderation changes, we are in the feedback section after all.

--

I have nothing against a user being fired, however if you are going to fire a user to make the forum review look nice a smart, at least all back up each other lol

[Mathew]

Why is everyone suddenly complaining about tiny, unimportant and sometimes petty things these days? Or is there only me who doesn't care? :S

Come on, it's Sunday and the start of the holidays; do we really need to go around analysing each others posts to look for a flaws in each others argument?

[immense]

I do feel for that Dictionaries though there was a point when I really wanted to be staff and although I wouldn't care now I would have done a few years ago. I think they should have waited for one of the moderators to resign and just not replace them. When I was a RVR 4 years ago or whatever I would have hated to be told after working hard to pass my trial there was no room and I was the unlucky one to be cut. Awfully unfair. As is life however. Maybe it shows management are willing to make harsh decisions for what they see as the best and can be taken as a sign of intent. Maybe, most likely, I'm looking too deep into things and it's a Habbo related forum.

[Nixt]

That's what I don't understand.

We are expected to not be one sided, yet if we only have ONE SIDE to the story, how can you not be ONE SIDED.

I have clearly stated at the start of the thread what I think was good/bad about the moderation changes, we are in the feedback section after all.

--

I have nothing against a user being fired, however if you are going to fire a user to make the forum review look nice a smart, at least all back up each other lol

Because they have made it bloody obvious through subtle hints that the guy did bugger all and would have been fired eventually regardless. His excuse is of course that there wasn't enough or whatever, but I think it's safe to say that he clearly hasn't done anything and that is not limited to things like actual moderator actions it's stuff like POSTING AROUND THE FORUM, REPORTING TO SUPER MODERATORS, REPORTING POSTS OUTSIDE OF YOUR FORUMS ETC ETC.

For goodness sake people it's obvious why he's been fired and if he has a problem with it he can escalate it to general management who will spell it out even clearer for him.

If you're all that worried: http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/

[Mrs.McCall]

I like the changes, they make real sense.

I think one point that you might come unstuck is to do with the issue of trials. If one of your moderators quits I'm assuming you may open trial applications. That means you'll be advertising for one trialist. Then that person will undergo a trial and perhaps they don't pass. You'll then have to choose another and possibly another.

I mean, I don't know if you have planned around this already but I would presume a method of hiring 3 trialists and then picking the best one?

[AgnesIO]

It could well have unfairly spread the work load. There is such thing as OVER Moderation. Better to strike a balance than have too many or too little, imo. Get the balance right and you have a perfect moderation team.

Not to mention the fact that he probably WOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED anyway. Can you not get the obvious hints being dropped through this thread lol. J/S

The fact remains then, if he was going to be fired for another reason, then the appropriate thread should have been made - it shouldn't have said he has been fired to make the numbers right.

---

Anyway enough of the moaning - I look forward to Part two :D

[Hecktix]

That's what I don't understand.

We are expected to not be one sided, yet if we only have ONE SIDE to the story, how can you not be ONE SIDED.

I have clearly stated at the start of the thread what I think was good/bad about the moderation changes, we are in the feedback section after all.

--

I have nothing against a user being fired, however if you are going to fire a user to make the forum review look nice a smart, at least all back up each other lol

Garion doesn't seem to be being one sided and he doesn't have access to the details either? We would never fire someone unfairly, most of my job involves moderating dismissal decisions and I take it seriously. Should dictionaries require more reasoning for his dismissal he is welcome to PM me.

[AgnesIO]

Because they have made it bloody obvious through subtle hints that the guy did bugger all and would have been fired eventually regardless. His excuse is of course that there wasn't enough or whatever, but I think it's safe to say that he clearly hasn't done anything and that is not limited to things like actual moderator actions it's stuff like POSTING AROUND THE FORUM, REPORTING TO SUPER MODERATORS, REPORTING POSTS OUTSIDE OF YOUR FORUMS ETC ETC.

For goodness sake people it's obvious why he's been fired and if he has a problem with it he can escalate it to general management who will spell it out even clearer for him.

If you're all that worried: http://www.employmenttribunals.gov.uk/

Last thing, the thread that said he had been fired said he was fired to make the numbers right. I am sure it shouldn't have been worded like this, but at the end of the day it was?


I like the changes, they make real sense.

I think one point that you might come unstuck is to do with the issue of trials. If one of your moderators quits I'm assuming you may open trial applications. That means you'll be advertising for one trialist. Then that person will undergo a trial and perhaps they don't pass. You'll then have to choose another and possibly another.

I mean, I don't know if you have planned around this already but I would presume a method of hiring 3 trialists and then picking the best one?

That is a really good idea. Hiring three trialists for one spot would be a fantastic way to find out who really deserves the final spot. +Rep

[Nixt]

The fact remains then, if he was going to be fired for another reason, then the appropriate thread should have been made - it shouldn't have said he has been fired to make the numbers right.

---

Anyway enough of the moaning - I look forward to Part two :D

Well potentially the review just brought forward the inevitable, so there's nothing really major about it being added to a forum review which must have included the activity and competence of staff. I mean is where it was posted a big deal? I think not. But yes.. part two, woo.

[Josh]

Well potentially the review just brought forward the inevitable, so there's nothing really major about it being added to a forum review which must have included the activity and competence of staff. I mean is where it was posted a big deal? I think not. But yes.. part two, woo.

Maybe he was a good moderator but he was being restricted by the section he had and never got a chance to show his full potential. I'm going to leave this argument now because it's going to start circling because my argumentive skills are nil at 1 in the morning. Night. Oh, and nice idea Mrs.McCall

[AgnesIO]

Well potentially the review just brought forward the inevitable, so there's nothing really major about it being added to a forum review which must have included the activity and competence of staff. I mean is where it was posted a big deal? I think not. But yes.. part two, woo.

Stop giving me something to reply to :( I just think it should have been posted in a separate thread - and as Oli has quite rightly said no one would have cared/realised. However I stand by what I said, that the way it was posted suggested it was simply due making the numbers work.

---

Just out of interest does Part 2 come next week, or later today?

[Hecktix]

Stop giving me something to reply to :( I just think it should have been posted in a separate thread - and as Oli has quite rightly said no one would have cared/realised. However I stand by what I said, that the way it was posted suggested it was simply due making the numbers work.

---

Just out of interest does Part 2 come next week, or later today?

PII will be next week :)

[Matthew]

Maybe he was a good moderator but he was being restricted by the section he had and never got a chance to show his full potential. I'm going to leave this argument now because it's going to start circling because my argumentive skills are nil at 1 in the morning. Night. Oh, and nice idea Mrs.McCall
Thats what I was worried about when I was moderating only the Habbo section... At best I only got one rule break a day, and in a month I didn't issue a single warning or infraction.
As I said, I was worried about the lack of work I got, so all I did is PM'd James and he assigned me to the General section aswell. Simple.

If Dictionaries was worried about the lack of posts that there were to edit, all he had to do was spend a few seconds PMing James about it.
He didn't... Enough said?

[AgnesIO]

PII will be next week :)

Omgg

I hate all the waiting and stuff

Is PIII gonna be called 'The Site Review' and be version six? Oh joking :P

---

Any, erm, previews?

[Jamesy]

I think we've heard enough about Dictionairies. I apologise for putting it in that bad context, my bad that. As we are changing quite a lot over the next few weeks, suggesting things we can try to work on within this period would be good, and probably far morelikely to be discussed than at any other point in the forum's past :)

[AgnesIO]

I think we've heard enough about Dictionairies. I apologise for putting it in that bad context, my bad that. As we are changing quite a lot over the next few weeks, suggesting things we can try to work on within this period would be good, and probably far morelikely to be discussed than at any other point in the forum's past :)

I will give you my essay post later x)

[Mathew]

Is PIII gonna be called 'The Site Review' and be version six? Oh joking :P
You can't be telling me you expect V6 to be here in 2 weeks? :P

[immense]

Nah dw Matt I heard it was gna be here spring 2010 x

[AgnesIO]

You can't be telling me you expect V6 to be here in 2 weeks? :P

ARE YOU TELLING ME IT WON'T BE HERE?

Of course I am not expecting it :)

I heard 2020 was the predicted release date.

[Nuxty]

I think these changes are excellent to be honest. Moderation will be more efficient, communication will be a lot better and I also think that if it is a set team of six people it gives a more warm and calm approach. Whilst I've been here I have felt that when moderation teams have been too large it just feels like there is no connection between the moderators and the users. I think this is a change for the better to be honest.

Nice changes, looking forward to Part 2. :)

[Mathew]

I heard 2020 was the predicted release date.

http://i55.tinypic.com/6rori8.png

[Suspective]

Its a good call. Its so much more easier to moderate now, and action should hopefully be taken a lot more swiftly.

[Middlesbrough]

Thats what I was worried about when I was moderating only the Habbo section... At best I only got one rule break a day, and in a month I didn't issue a single warning or infraction.
As I said, I was worried about the lack of work I got, so all I did is PM'd James and he assigned me to the General section aswell. Simple.

If Dictionaries was worried about the lack of posts that there were to edit, all he had to do was spend a few seconds PMing James about it.
He didn't... Enough said?

In all fairness I had spoken to James and another SMod about the section being dead, at the time their was no open slots because Apple was moderating general, just to clear it up games was the only place I could be.

[Matthew]

In all fairness I had spoken to James and another SMod about the section being dead, at the time their was no open slots because Apple was moderating general, just to clear it up games was the only place I could be.
In that case I take back what I said and I apologize.

[Middlesbrough]

In that case I take back what I said and I apologize.

Its okay I know how easy it is to assume things :)

[immense]

Its okay I know how easy it is to assume things :)

This is what you call a good guy, taking things on the chin :)

[Grig]

kinda guyz dey need m8s

[immense]

Kinda guy who would make a good mod. Are applications open?

[today]

lmao @ u jake

Edited by HotelUser (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly, thanks.

[Con]

I think these changes have come at the right time. There has been a lot of moaning/criticism lately of Habbox and it's sites. So, these reviews are perfect.
I love the changes made and I'm sure the rest to come will be great too.


Maybe he was a good moderator but he was being restricted by the section he had and never got a chance to show his full potential.
Sorry, I'm quoting you but I've seen other people say this. If a moderator feels like they do not have enough to moderate then they could have requested another forum to moderate. I did that in my trial after realising Graphics, having only 3 forums, didn't really need a huge amount of moderating so I requested another section to mod.
It is a shame he left, but as said the method of choosing the remaining moderators was fair and we all agreed on the terms and consequences given.

[N!ck]

I like the changes, however I do not think 3 Global moderators is enough. 5 would probably be better.

[Matthew]

I like the changes, however I do not think 3 Global moderators is enough. 5 would probably be better.

I think that 3 is perfect.
We now have 6 moderators, all of whom can moderate the whole forum; its plenty.
Yes you need more when 75% of the mods can only moderate in one forum, but we can all moderate in every forum, so it works well :)

[MissAlice]

Definitely a step in the right direction, and only time will tell whether the number of staff is right or wrong. Well done to who ever suggested the changes. It's a real positive one :)

[Panda]

i like this forum a lot more than the immigration hot spot. bravo

[N!ck]

I think that 3 is perfect.
We now have 6 moderators, all of whom can moderate the whole forum; its plenty.
Yes you need more when 75% of the mods can only moderate in one forum, but we can all moderate in every forum, so it works well :)

Yes, however it is natural that certain mods prefer/are more active in a particular area of the forum. I think you need more to make sure all areas are properly covered. Maybe have some kind of poll in the moderator forum the see which areas people are actually active in?

[samsaBEAR]

Yes, however it is natural that certain mods prefer/are more active in a particular area of the forum. I think you need more to make sure all areas are properly covered. Maybe have some kind of poll in the moderator forum the see which areas people are actually active in?
Agreed with this, six moderators is no where near enough to cover the whole forum. I can understand the idea around having global mods, and I definitely think it's a good idea, but six just doesn't seem enough to me.

[Jsoh]

liking the idea, not sure if this leaves much difference between a super moderator and just a normal moderator, though.

[immense]

well last stats showed 800-2k posts a day

5% break rules = 40-100 rule breaking posts i think 6 is about right

obviously the 5% of posts that break rules is just a guess

[Grig]

I say remove super mods now and just have 6 global mods, as the jobs are so similar it may be no point- the global mods can cover the one or two things that smods do. Just means you got to vet new staff more thoroughly.

[Martin]

That would mean giving global mods the Moderator Control panel access though, and I think that could pose as more of a security risk since it's best to have as few people with access to that as possible.

There are still plenty of things which smods can do, such as dealing with avatars/signatures/profile pictures, which in itself is a big job. We also have the power to do the manual cautions, check IP's, ban users etc.

We're still there to essentially help moderators out where needed, and act as a support for them should they need any advice on things. Quite a few of the moderators are new at the moment and so it's important that they have people on hand to ask etc.

I think having 6 "supermoderators" would be quite bad really, since everyone would just get on each others toes and most likely deal with the same stuff, wheras at least like this there are still divisions.

You need to gain trust and show you know what you're talking about to be a super moderator and I don't think it would be wise at all to give control panel access to people who have not long been in a department, and through them straight in to dealing with a whole bunch of things other than general post moderating. They already have more to learn and take on board now with post reports etc, and this in itself is a big enough change in my opinion which should do the forum some good, whilst ensuring the two roles are still different. We are essentially just "senior moderators" and we do our best to ensure the mods have someone to come to if they need help, ofcourse along with forum management.

[Shar]

I say remove super mods now and just have 6 global mods, as the jobs are so similar it may be no point- the global mods can cover the one or two things that smods do. Just means you got to vet new staff more thoroughly.
However smods have a few extra privileges and earn their title so it would be stupid to just remove them.

[Jamesy]

Super Mods are staying, they still play a vital role in forum moderation and the department. I believe 6 to be enough, any more and they begin to clash (deal with the same rulebreak at the same time) far more often - however in future if it's showed to be not working we can always change it :)