Staff Breaking Rules

[AgnesIO]

Right, that title probably gives the impression I am about to rant about staff favouritism or something, but I am not!

I am not sure if it is still the same, but when I was staff it always had to be Oli who tells you off for posting badly or something (well whoever the staff AGM was, I think it was Oli last time). Well anyway, if this is still the case, why not offload some of that off of Oli and allow super moderators to warn staff etc - I am sure they can be trusted to do so, and it would mean Oli could spend more time on things that actually require his skills - rather than having to do a moderators job at the same time!

If needed, super moderators could always forward the messages to Oli/a special account so he can still check on staff.

Sorry if this is not the case :)

[HotelUser]

Super Moderators are already allowed to deal with minor staff rulebreaks such as oversized images in signatures or avatars, pointless posting or moving threads. More serious rulebreaks - if a a staffmember was targeting another forum member as an example, or if they had to be infracted for instance, are handled by the Staff AGM (Oli).

[AgnesIO]

Super Moderators are already allowed to deal with minor staff rulebreaks such as oversized images in signatures or avatars, pointless posting or moving threads. More serious rulebreaks - if a a staffmember was targeting another forum member as an example, or if they had to be infracted for instance, are handled by the Staff AGM (Oli).

If this responsibility was to be passed on to Super Moderators, do you think it would give you guys too much work, or would be inappropriate?

Just wondering :)

[GommeInc]

Seems wiser just to treat all staff like members - if a staff member is infracted then you infract the staff member and tell the Staff AGM that the action has been taken and to review it further. Seems like unnecessary faffing around to rely on the AGM, even though it happens very rarely. It's not been a problem, but something I've never understood but interesting to know why it's always been the case :P

[AgnesIO]

Seems wiser just to treat all staff like members - if a staff member is infracted then you infract the staff member and tell the Staff AGM that the action has been taken and to review it further. Seems like unnecessary faffing around to rely on the AGM, even though it happens very rarely. It's not been a problem, but something I've never understood but interesting to know why it's always been the case :P

Yeah - I wouldn't leave normal moderators to do it personally, not sure why - it just doesn't seem right.

I am only suggesting this, I don't know how many rule breaks there are but I know whenever I am staff I manage to break more rules than I do when I am not staff (either that or I am noticed more :P)

[Inseriousity.]

If I remember correctly I'm sure I read a thread somewhere that said that super moderators would now be allowed to do what you just said :D. Sounds like it's been limited to the minor offences which sounds fair enough really.

[AgnesIO]

If I remember correctly I'm sure I read a thread somewhere that said that super moderators would now be allowed to do what you just said :D. Sounds like it's been limited to the minor offences which sounds fair enough really.

I am not sure - sorry if it has already been posted :P

It just seems to make sense, considering the amount AGMs already have to do.

[Hecktix]

After a week or so of me being AGM (Staff) I passed on the menial forum rule breaking side of things to Super Moderators because as Gomme says, Staff should be treated like members. Something that infuriated me beyond belief when I was moderation staff and later Forum Management was that staff would get 2, 3, 4 PM warnings before getting infracted and I thought this was unbelievably unjust as staff are members too, so this was the first thing I changed, staff now follow the same punishment system as members, PM -> Warning -> Infraction - that was my first major move.

The second major move I took was to let Super Moderators have the power to deal with staff in first instance rule breaking, here's a list of what's in the Super moderator guide in regards to staff:



Here's what you can deal with (all should be CC me!!)

- Pointless posts (unless repeated offence)
- Bumping
- First-time filter avoidance
- First time inappropriate/illegal content
- Oversized avatars & signatures
- Accusing others of hacking/scamming


Here's what you can't deal with (you should contact me in these situations):

- Rudeness
- Bullying
- Racism
- Severe inappropriate content
- Second offence filter avoidance
- Issue any infraction or warning for any offence.
- Any rule break by a manager or moderator

This generally meant that all basic staff rule breaking could now be dealt with by Super Moderators which has been a better system all round, the reason the more serious stuff including infractions and warnings is left to me is because Staff are ambassadors for Habbox therefore although they get the same sanction, it's just that little bit stronger coming from me with a little message reminding them of their responsibilites as an ambassador of Habbox.

So in all, staff rule breaking is now dealt with a lot quicker, fairer and easier and staff are treated just like members unless they go too far, then with cautions/bans would be their dismissal.

[Chippiewill]

If it's anything serious it would have to go by Oli anyway because it can lead to firings, so at the moment it's probably fine as it is. Although if it is serious It would be nice if super moderators could edit away the offending material until Oli can handle it to prevent arguments / staff being targeted (I'm not sure if this is already done).

[Catzsy]

If I remember correctly I'm sure I read a thread somewhere that said that super moderators would now be allowed to do what you just said :D. Sounds like it's been limited to the minor offences which sounds fair enough really.

I think this is fine. It could cause problems if Smods were allowed to warn/infract staff. The system is much smoother these days, mods report to smods and rule breaks do seem to be sorted faster because of it. As the AGM (Staff) there is lots to do and I am sure he does not want to be bothered about the menial rule breaks although every step we take he is aware as we copy it to him. If the material is offensive we do remove it from the forum and report to Oli. :)

[Hecktix]

If it's anything serious it would have to go by Oli anyway because it can lead to firings, so at the moment it's probably fine as it is. Although if it is serious It would be nice if super moderators could edit away the offending material until Oli can handle it to prevent arguments / staff being targeted (I'm not sure if this is already done).

The standard practice at the moment is if the material needs me to deal with it and is quite serious the Super Moderator will usually remove the post and drop me a PM to where it resides in our unacceptables forum, for instance today Catzsy removed a racist post by a staff member, I then went to it and infracted it.

All good ideas guys, but I beat you by coming up with them first :D :P

To add, I've been through this on both ends, as the moderator reporting to the AGM (Staff) and the AGM (Staff) recieving from the moderator, as a moderator it was incredibly frustrating to find a rule break by staff to send to the AGM staff for it to take ages to get dealt with and if it was only a pointless post it took the piss a bit :P As AGM (Staff) recieving aload of PMs saying "XXX has pointlessly posted here" the response was more "grrrr ive gotta deal with that now when i've got 10 other important things to do blah blah blah", whereas now the Super Moderators do it quickly, effectively and I'm still aware of it through them cc'ing me in PMs and if it's serious I get involved, gotta give it to the S'mods they've worked damn good since the change in November on this matter :)

[Inseriousity.]

I am not sure - sorry if it has already been posted :P

It just seems to make sense, considering the amount AGMs already have to do.

I think it was in the staff forums so unless you go trawling through the archive when you're staff (don't judge me, i get bored easily), you probably wouldn't have noticed it :D

[Mathew]

Yeah it's been changed so Super Mods can deal with general forum rule breaks, etc as it was a bit silly Oli moaning to someone about their signature when there's much more stuff for him to be doing :P

I do think it would be inappropriate for a moderator to have the authority to punish another staff member. All staff should be treated equally and I think even though that's the overall intention and rule now, moderators do tend to gain a lot more respect than a HabboxLive DJ (for example) - even though their position in terms of management and positioning is exactly the same.

I suppose the forum is where all the departments come together and it's up to the moderators to organise it, hence the respect. Hey, whatever - maybe I'm looking into this way too far.

[Ajthedragon]

See it from time to time, doesn't bother me. I just think they set a bad example and that be that.

[ChickenFaces]

Because Oli likes to think he's scarier than all the other mods.

He wants all the staff members to quiver in their boots when they get a pm from them.
That's why he does it. No disrespect or anything I think it kind of makes sense in a way. I would probably take him a bit more seriously than a super mod since he's AGM and you know that's where all the cool kids are.

I mean from all the PMs I got from him when I was staff I didn't really quiver in my boots but on the other hand if it was a Moderator sending me the PM I would have just lol'd and deleted the message like it meant nothing to me.

[AgnesIO]

Closing this thread as it has been answered.

Thanks :)