Thank-you Lee

[Hayleigh]

For all your amazing work in RV's :'( We will miss you. Bye.

[Gina]

aww bye lee

[Jordan]

Thank you Lee!

[orientalframe?]

Thanks Lee for all your hard work! :)

[iLogan]

Thank's Lee, such a shame your account was compromised!

[Mr-Trainor]

Thank you for everything Lee, you really were settling in to your new role very well and it's a shame that your account was compromised :'(.

[Samantha]

You were an amazing Rare Values Reporter, I could always guarentee that you completed the minimums to a great extent, maybe even tripling what was asked. You were a good team player and made very good bonds with certain people in the department and I know you will be missed within it!

Good Luck Lee.

[Mathew]

Yet again, I can't help but find it odd that someone is fired for this. It's not like Lee was out there advertising that he wanted to be hacked and had intention to cause disruption to Habbox. In addition, from the sounds of Kfnx' post, it appears that the work he put into Habbox far outweighs the amount of damage done. David seemed to be able to remove the piece of code in a flash, yet we have a hard-working, "team player with very good bonds" being fired for something which wasn't his fault.

Thanks for your work nonetheless.

[Catzsy]

Bad luck! Thanks for what you did and sorry to see you go. Hope to see you back before too long. :)

[-Danube-]

Awww Lee! You only just get your senior role and then someone comes along and spoils it for you :(

You were one of the most hard working members of staff in that department. I hope you rejoin RVs again in the future!

[Inseriousity.]

That's a shame and even more shocking that the person who hacked you could have gone undetected if it werent for a vigilant member! Good luck with the future :(

[Chris]

Its a shame your account was compromised. :( Good luck with everything. :)

[Stephen]

think it's stupid how people get fired when they get hacked lol

[vz]

Thanks you, and good luck.

[Lamz]

idk what happened, looks to me like you were fired for something you didn't do (unfair imo)

Thanks for the help & all, good luck with future obsticles :)
o/

[geo]

Thanks for all your work Lee. Hope you stick around. :)

[Gina]

What does compromised mean? lmao
unlucky
dedicated member

[Samantha]

What does compromised mean? lmao
unlucky
dedicated member

I think it means that the security was comprimised thus someone gained access to his account without his consent, therefore he was hacked.


Yet again, I can't help but find it odd that someone is fired for this. It's not like Lee was out there advertising that he wanted to be hacked and had intention to cause disruption to Habbox. In addition, from the sounds of Kfnx' post, it appears that the work he put into Habbox far outweighs the amount of damage done. David seemed to be able to remove the piece of code in a flash, yet we have a hard-working, "team player with very good bonds" being fired for something which wasn't his fault.

Thanks for your work nonetheless.

I feel that it is unfair when they get fired for getting hacked. Most times it isn't their fault therefore they shouldn't be punished for it. If someone got hacked on habbo like many have at the moment the hacker could easily ask a member of staff who are also on their team, and ask them for information that shouldn't be spread about to people who aren't in the department. However, they wouldn't get banned, but if they do anything to the site or the forum then they would. In my opinion getting hacked on Habbo is just as bad but the 'hackees' from habbo don't even get punished, if anything the old owners of the account get banned and the hackers continue.

If you know someone who has been hacked on Habbo then surely they should be banned for getting hacked too? I remember me getting hacked on christmas day 09 I didn't get banned? Based on the fact that no information was comprimised so I think it should be the same for anyone who happened to get hacked, or at least allow the person who got hacked have a second chance if they regain full control of their account.

Anyhow, I probably just waffled on then! I do agree though that Lee will be missed in the department, he thoroughly deserved his place as a Head Rare Values Reporter but I guess it wasn't meant to be! He got hacked before but he didn't get fired?

[j0rd]

Thanks Lee, I'm sure you where a great ARVM!

[Andii]

Aww what =[ =[ aww man lee cnt believe ur gone now aswell =[ =[ i remember the gud ol days when we would mess bout n talk bout crap all in spam thread lolol. . . RARE VALUES has just lost one sound lad :O :O :O . . .

n cnt believe u got hacked =[

[Samantha]

Thanks Lee, I'm sure you where a great ARVM!

HRVR*

Hope you apply soon Lee/get recommended.

[flatface]

Yet again, I can't help but find it odd that someone is fired for this. It's not like Lee was out there advertising that he wanted to be hacked and had intention to cause disruption to Habbox. In addition, from the sounds of Kfnx' post, it appears that the work he put into Habbox far outweighs the amount of damage done. David seemed to be able to remove the piece of code in a flash, yet we have a hard-working, "team player with very good bonds" being fired for something which wasn't his fault.

Thanks for your work nonetheless.

Couldn't agree more.

[HotelUser]

Several years ago I remember staff members, even a manager or two having been dismissed because their account(s) were compromised. I used to think that's so unfair, and I gave my full sympathies toward the hacked member - because it's no fun for them. At present day I still feel bad for individuals who leave this way, but as unfortunate as it is I wouldn't say it isn't fair now. Last night we were faced with a dilemma, a staff member whom had access to several different interfaces on the website in which could be taken advantage of had their account compromised and because of that all our other members and staff members who visit Habbox.com were put at risk. We could have A) reversed the damage and dismissed this staff member or B) reversed the damage and allowed the staff member to still be part of the team in hopes that they didn't get hacked again. It has always been our way at Habbox to pursue option A and dismiss the staff member who'd been hacked, therefore we chose A. There are two fundamental reasons why we do this:

1. It's not completely someone's fault when they're hacked. But, there are precautions one can take as to avoid being hacked. We can only do as much as to preach security to staff members. We can't oversee that they're using strong unguessable passwords, secure email accounts, not using desktop sharing, logging into Habbox accounts at public spaces or scanning their computers for trojans. Especially when a staff member is hacked and damage is caused we cannot just undo that damage and hand their account and authority back to them, where is the assurance that the same thing wont happen again a week from now? It's just too big a security risk for Habbox to take.

2. Habbox has been targeted many times in the past and continues to be now (most recently with the latest Habbo security exploit). We absolutely have to take security seriously. We cannot afford to turn blind eyes or respond slowly to threats. The most thorough way of doing this is often, regrettably, removing the hacked individual's staff role. This is foremost a security precaution but also serves as a sort of lesson to the individual to take security more seriously in the future.

So with that in mind I feel very bad that Ouft was hacked, and dismissed but I stand by the decision. On another note I can name staff members who were hacked in the past who waited the 30 days, returned with a clean slate and in the end even became managers of their departments. So I hope Ouft sticks around, and doesn't let what's happened affect him too much.

[Hayleigh]

Several years ago I remember staff members, even a manager or two having been dismissed because their account(s) were compromised. I used to think that's so unfair, and I gave my full sympathies toward the hacked member - because it's no fun for them. At present day I still feel bad for individuals who leave this way, but as unfortunate as it is I wouldn't say it isn't fair now. Last night we were faced with a dilemma, a staff member whom had access to several different interfaces on the website in which could be taken advantage of had their account compromised and because of that all our other members and staff members who visit Habbox.com were put at risk. We could have A) reversed the damage and dismissed this staff member or B) reversed the damage and allowed the staff member to still be part of the team in hopes that they didn't get hacked again. It has always been our way at Habbox to pursue option A and dismiss the staff member who'd been hacked, therefore we chose A. There are two fundamental reasons why we do this:

1. It's not completely someone's fault when they're hacked. But, there are precautions one can take as to avoid being hacked. We can only do as much as to preach security to staff members. We can't oversee that they're using strong unguessable passwords, secure email accounts, not using desktop sharing, logging into Habbox accounts at public spaces or scanning their computers for trojans. Especially when a staff member is hacked and damage is caused we cannot just undo that damage and hand their account and authority back to them, where is the assurance that the same thing wont happen again a week from now? It's just too big a security risk for Habbox to take.

2. Habbox has been targeted many times in the past and continues to be now (most recently with the latest Habbo security exploit). We absolutely have to take security seriously. We cannot afford to turn blind eyes or respond slowly to threats. The most thorough way of doing this is often, regrettably, removing the hacked individual's staff role. This is foremost a security precaution but also serves as a sort of lesson to the individual to take security more seriously in the future.

So with that in mind I feel very bad that Ouft was hacked, and dismissed but I stand by the decision. On another note I can name staff members who were hacked in the past who waited the 30 days, returned with a clean slate and in the end even became managers of their departments. So I hope Ouft sticks around, and doesn't let what's happened affect him too much.
Tbh though theres no difference between the dismissing the staff member or letting them return a month later. All it does is causes aggravation to the staff member. I don't really see how you can stop hacking unless your constantly checking every single little thing. But meh ;s. All things said Lee never messed around and did his job exceedingly well. He wouldn't let his stuff be comprimissed on purpose.

OH BTW Im not saying what David said is wrong so I don't want an argument, I'm just saying what I think heheh

[Richie]

Tbh though theres no difference between the dismissing the staff member or letting them return a month later. All it does is causes aggravation to the staff member. I don't really see how you can stop hacking unless your constantly checking every single little thing. But meh ;s. All things said Lee never messed around and did his job exceedingly well. He wouldn't let his stuff be comprimissed on purpose.

OH BTW Im not saying what David said is wrong so I don't want an argument, I'm just saying what I think heheh

Don't be silly, it gives them time to fix the flaws in their security and it teaches them a lesson. They'll be more secure in the future.

Cya bud, best of luck.

[Jurv]

Unlucky!

Thanks for all your work and good luck with the future. :)

[Zak]

Yet again, I can't help but find it odd that someone is fired for this. It's not like Lee was out there advertising that he wanted to be hacked and had intention to cause disruption to Habbox. In addition, from the sounds of Kfnx' post, it appears that the work he put into Habbox far outweighs the amount of damage done. David seemed to be able to remove the piece of code in a flash, yet we have a hard-working, "team player with very good bonds" being fired for something which wasn't his fault.

Thanks for your work nonetheless.

o how I agree.

[JerseySafety]

Yeah well it is ********.

Considering the thread about being hacked, then being dismissed wasn't stickied within the staff forums, it was made when I wasn't staff so how was I meant to know about it.

It wasn't in the staff handbook, it isn't a rule - so it's obviously just people who management don't care about who get hacked, they fire them. Funny how no GM's have been fired - I'm sure someone would of been hacked.

Thanks guys. But Habbox is done. Sick of the ******** here - need some real rules.

I'll go to a fansite who actually wants me.

Will +rep all tonight :D