Staff resignations

[Richie]

Hey,
I'm not sure if there is a rule but if there isn't there should be some sort of limit on how often someone can resign and then return. Fair enough it might not be a huge problem but it's bloody annoying to see "Blabla has resigned" then a day later "Blabla has returned" i swear people resign then return a few days later depending on their mood. If someone resigns they should not be able to rejoin a day later, if they really wanted to be staff they would take a good long think about resigning before they do it and they clearly haven't thought about it if they return a day later. It's dumb and just makes the announcements look like a load of spam.

I'm trying to win biggest moaner here, na but seriously.

That is all.

[Inseriousity.]

I make them wait til applications re-open. 9 times out of 10 those who resign forgot why they resigned in the first place when they ask to come back so I make them write an application to prove they aren't just coming back for the title and even then it is not guaranteed they'll get a place as proven by the last batch of applications (If I had wanted I could've filled the department with old faces who wanted to return but I always like trying out fresh blood so only hired 1 of them).

Despite that, I really think it is up to the manager to hire/fire whoever they like and while it might be annoying to those who've tried really hard to get into the department, they'd have their reasons for letting said person/people back in.

[Richie]

I make them wait til applications re-open. 9 times out of 10 those who resign forgot why they resigned in the first place when they ask to come back so I make them write an application to prove they aren't just coming back for the title and even then it is not guaranteed they'll get a place as proven by the last batch of applications (If I had wanted I could've filled the department with old faces who wanted to return but I always like trying out fresh blood so only hired 1 of them).

Despite that, I really think it is up to the manager to hire/fire whoever they like and while it might be annoying to those who've tried really hard to get into the department, they'd have their reasons for letting said person/people back in.

I totally agree with the first part and all managers should follow by that. I disagree with the second bit, lets be honest mike the only reason most managers let them back right away is because 1) they feel they need to or 2) they're their friends. I reckon if staff had to wait a month to return they wouldn't resign whenever something pisses in their cornflakes.

[nvrspk4]

I can't remember if this was for firings or resignations as well, but there was a 30 day period in the past I believe. Memory is failing me though. If it was both, then I suggest the 30 day period is reinstated.

If it wasn't there for resignations, I think a 2-4 week period might be reasonable...or managers should just request perms but not announce for 24-36h to give the staff some time to think it over. If after the staff haven't PMd the manager rescinding their resignation, manager goes ahead and announces that, and now the staff can't return for four weeks.

[David]

Yes, the number of staff changes in the HxL and HxHD department is ridiculous imo.

[GommeInc]

If they have other commitments like the exam period, can't they go on official leave rather than resign? Afterall, it seems a few just left for the exams and didn't want to actually leave their duties so maybe you could change their title or have them change their profile to reflect if they are absent or on extended leave. It's just odd that they leave and expect to come back immediately, it's not very respectful :P

[iRaaave.]

This is really annoying.. i see more changes with HxHD than HxL lol

[Lamz]

A different fan site... I wont say the name... when u resign you have to wait 4/6 months before you can re-join the team... & you have to go through the application process & trial all over again.

[David]

A different fan site... I wont say the name... when u resign you have to wait 4/6 months before you can re-join the team... & you have to go through the application process & trial all over again.

4/6 months is a bit extreme, but I agree with the application and trial process.

[iRaaave.]

A different fan site... I wont say the name... when u resign you have to wait 4/6 months before you can re-join the team... & you have to go through the application process & trial all over again.

Would be too long, a month atleast is good enough.

[Lamz]

4/6 months is a bit extreme, but I agree with the application and trial process.

ikr! I think all HxDept. should do 4 weeks b4 you can re-join.

---------- Post added 24-08-2011 at 12:50 PM ----------


Would be too long, a month atleast is good enough.

u know what fan site i'm about.. :L & yeah, 4 weeks is a good length

[GommeInc]

A month seems too short in my eyes. If you're going to faff around resigning with no good reason then you should wait longer than a month. It seems a bit selfish of whoever the resigner is to put all the effort in resigning and expect a place back so soon.

Is there no option to ask for leave or are you suggested to resign? It seems wiser just to let them keep their job but to make it known they are on study leave at school, college or university. To resign is to suggest you have no time to commit yourself in the long-term or lack any sort of passion or work ethic to want to work with and for Habbox.

[Mr-Trainor]

In the rare values department, I changed it so that you must go back through the Trialist stage. So like, people can't resign and then come back two weeks later and expect the same position they were in when they left. There's also a thing where if you want to resign, you have to consider it for a day before making your final decision; which is what all departments have to follow though and not just rare values.


If they have other commitments like the exam period, can't they go on official leave rather than resign? Afterall, it seems a few just left for the exams and didn't want to actually leave their duties so maybe you could change their title or have them change their profile to reflect if they are absent or on extended leave. It's just odd that they leave and expect to come back immediately, it's not very respectful :P

They can, yes, although the maximum away time is 3 weeks. If it's above that, then you might have to resign; which I think is fair really.

---------- Post added 24-08-2011 at 12:59 PM ----------


A month seems too short in my eyes. If you're going to faff around resigning with no good reason then you should wait longer than a month. It seems a bit selfish of whoever the resigner is to put all the effort in resigning and expect a place back so soon.

Is there no option to ask for leave or are you suggested to resign? It seems wiser just to let them keep their job but to make it known they are on study leave at school, college or university. To resign is to suggest you have no time to commit yourself in the long-term or lack any sort of passion or work ethic to want to work with and for Habbox.

I agree with what you've said in terms of expecting a place back so soon. Like I said, in Rare Values you have to go on trial again and start at the bottom of the ladder again. And some other departments do this as well.

As for going away, if it's more than three weeks then you may be asked to resign. I believe that applies to all departments.

[The Don]

If they are good staff members, then there is no reason to not want them to return? Obviously we don't know why said person has resigned so we can't really comment on it. However, I do agree that if someone does continue to resign then return they should be forced to apply in the normal procedure when applications open.

[iRaaave.]

ikr! I think all HxDept. should do 4 weeks b4 you can re-join.

---------- Post added 24-08-2011 at 12:50 PM ----------



u know what fan site i'm about.. :L & yeah, 4 weeks is a good length

Yep, I do and I've been through those 4-5 month rules plenty of times there haha but im sticking with Habbox as it's better :)

[Inseriousity.]

I totally agree with the first part and all managers should follow by that. I disagree with the second bit, lets be honest mike the only reason most managers let them back right away is because 1) they feel they need to or 2) they're their friends. I reckon if staff had to wait a month to return they wouldn't resign whenever something pisses in their cornflakes.

The problem is though that being a small department, I can get away with doing my procedure because the gap left behind when a staff member resigns can be filled easily whereas a hxhd or a hxl manager (for example) who's a bigger department and more Habbo-orientated would have to run their department differently. One method doesn't fit all. So I do believe that it is at the manager's discretion over whether they want to take back staff members. Yes, I'm not going to deny that they could come back because they're friends but at the end of the day, managers want their department to work as best as possible and who are you more likely to work better with? Your friends. There's no getting round that.

[myke]

in smaller departments like mine where it's really limited on the amount of people that i can hire due to skill, i can't not hire someone for a month because they rage quitted, if i need them, i need them and if they're good then i can't say no u resigned 3 months ago wait another month then you can come back

IF YA GET MEEE

---------- Post added 24-08-2011 at 01:50 PM ----------

in smaller departments like mine where it's really limited on the amount of people that i can hire due to skill, i can't not hire someone for a month because they rage quitted, if i need them, i need them and if they're good then i can't say no u resigned 3 months ago wait another month then you can come back

IF YA GET MEEE

[xxMATTGxx]

I know some managers like to wait 24-48 hours when a member of staff decides to resign just to make sure that they have their mind up and do actually want to leave. I can see what you mean by it being annoying that staff decide to leave and then return again within the next day or so. Some departments do need to keep staff where as others could be replaced with applications or within minutes depending on the circumstances at the time.

So really I would say all managers should give them at least 24 hours before requesting for their permissions to go, if they still want to go after those 24 hours. Then they proceed with the permissions being removed and the announcement. Then if they then change their mind hours after they should wait 1-3 weeks at least before they can come back.

3-6 months is extreme and staff members who get fired only have to wait one month.

[Chippiewill]

What really miffs me is when ex-staff don't have to go through the application process to rejoin a department. Perhaps they don't need to be trainee staff, but denying someone else the chance isn't really fair.

I feel that if after the forty-eight hours they haven't changed their mind they should be unofficially a member of that department and be required to wait at least a week before reapplying to the department (Not just rejoining) so that they are very sure that they wish to rejoin.

[Gina]

Some people have to resign as they don't get long enough to post away
at HxL you get 3 weeks like posting away, 4-6 months is abit extreme especially if they resign for that reason

A different fan site... I wont say the name... when u resign you have to wait 4/6 months before you can re-join the team... & you have to go through the application process & trial all over again.

[scott]

Some people have to resign as they don't get long enough to post away
at HxL you get 3 weeks like posting away, 4-6 months is abit extreme especially if they resign for that reason

It's not just HabboxLive it is Habbox staff policy that if you're going to be away for more than 3 weeks then you have to resign :P

[Gina]

It's not just HabboxLive it is Habbox staff policy that if you're going to be away for more than 3 weeks then you have to resign :P
Ive only read the hxl one so I was unsure ;) but yeh

[Chippiewill]

It's not just HabboxLive it is Habbox staff policy that if you're going to be away for more than 3 weeks then you have to resign :P
I like how this means you can't just go on leave for exams which I'd have thought is the (or one of the) primary reason for most to go on leave.

[scott]

I like how this means you can't just go on leave for exams which I'd have thought is the (or one of the) primary reason for most to go on leave.

I'm sure most departments will be a bit more lenient during the exam period, I know I was with Moderators!

[Samantha]

What I hate mainly is when say three people resigned months ago and then applications are open. You then see '[department] staff changes' and 3 slots are filled with those who resigned the months before therefore filling those slots up again and making less applications worthy of getting in.

However, I feel that if you resign from a department for whatever reason, say it's an holiday or somethings cropped up and you are not sure how long you will be away then I feel posting away is more suitable. However, of course if you have lost interest for the department then by all means resign but I'm sure you can't lose interest then be fully motivated to be in the department again in one day, unless you are having an off day.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How ridiculous is this idea thats being floated, why do we need more rules on this forum when most complain about it being over-regulated? why do managers, who usually know how to run their department best/what staff changes need to be made, need to have a pointless rule added so that every couple of days they have to check if they can allow somebody back? I can't think of anything more annoying, time consuming and just pointless than this rule. I may urgently need staff, yet I wouldn't be able to hire a member who's ready to return 'because hes 7 days out of the limit' - can anbody else see what a total waste of time this along with being a waste of talent for the site?

Here's an idea and its an idea that usually gives the best results; let the managers decide how to run their own departments and what staff they can/don't want to hire. I think sometimes people on here forget that Habbox is not a business, its voluntary and that every minute of time that somebody spares for this website is doing it for the website. On complications that will most likely arise; what about school work? family problems? busy social life? it just opens a pandoras box that then results in pointless PMs between senior management and the management of individual departments.

Sometimes I think some people sit on their PC, open up the feedback forum and think of rules they can suggest for the hell of it.

[AgnesIO]

It's not just HabboxLive it is Habbox staff policy that if you're going to be away for more than 3 weeks then you have to resign :P

I don't agree with that though to be honest.

I mean, I know not many people do, but some people go away for more than three weeks?

[nvrspk4]

If they have other commitments like the exam period, can't they go on official leave rather than resign? Afterall, it seems a few just left for the exams and didn't want to actually leave their duties so maybe you could change their title or have them change their profile to reflect if they are absent or on extended leave. It's just odd that they leave and expect to come back immediately, it's not very respectful :P

Absolutely. They used to be allowed up to four (I guess now 3) weeks, and otherwise they had to resign. To address the above posts and others saying, why that time period? For most jobs the applications/recs/whatever will reopen by that time, and they can hire a new staff member for that month. In the period of a month, someone will probably resign. Therefore the department isn't understaffed for that long, but the staff member still will be taken back once they're back from exams.

Exceptions may be made for positions like Super Mod where you don't just "return" to Super Mod, but they may be deactivated for a month or however long if they say they need time off and plan to come back, and then return to their position. But when you're reaching 3 months+, you're out of touch with the dept as is and there's no reason for them to be reserving a SMOD spot for you.

These are a combination of what we did and suggestions of what I think might be good to do. They're not necessarily the current policy - I'm not up to date on that but I think Matt, Scott, and some of the other managers have given you an idea of what their policies are.

[Samantha]

I don't agree with that though to be honest.

I mean, I know not many people do, but some people go away for more than three weeks?

Yeah they do, I know one person on extended leave right now and I feel that it's ok, if you can cope without them for the duration of their away time then why can't they be away for longer. If they are dedicated to the department and do not wish to leave to say start at the bottom again then why should they?

I feel this only occurs though when it is an emergency whereby they need to be excused straight away etc but 3 weeks is usually enough as most holidays that people take are only two week anyway so in that case it isn't a problem same with some illnesses.

[Tom]

A few posts made on the first page is what I was going to put (not read the second page as I feel enough was outspoken on the first).

Personally, I actually believe when you resign - you should at least have a 30-40 day period before you can return, if you want. If left and caught at another fan site, maybe they should re-apply? As they can't just come and go as they choose.

It's been said about other commitments, I agree with this. If they need to do GCSEs, A Levels etc they should be able to have an 'Official Leave' which will last about a month/month and a half and probably would be just reduced activity? As if you're revising etc you wouldn't be revising for 10 hours after college or whatever.

On the other hand, it's also really up to the manager on how they run their department, if they want to let people resign then re-hire if they wish to, then they should be able too. It's their department, if they do/don't want a certain member they should be able to take action. Let them run it on their own then if their department becomes overflowed etc. it's then their problem to sort it.

[GommeInc]

They can, yes, although the maximum away time is 3 weeks. If it's above that, then you might have to resign; which I think is fair really.

I agree with what you've said in terms of expecting a place back so soon. Like I said, in Rare Values you have to go on trial again and start at the bottom of the ladder again. And some other departments do this as well.

As for going away, if it's more than three weeks then you may be asked to resign. I believe that applies to all departments.
Hmmm, seems a bit odd to ask them to resign when they could return soon after. If they are being asked to resign then maybe that's the cause to the problem (of what seems like people resigning and returning soon after). If they are going on long periods of leave and have said they will still do their job then you may as well keep them to eliminate these ideas that they are returning and leaving at their own will. I think making them go through the trialist position is a bit odd when nothing has changed in those 3 weeks - it's not like they've been gone 3 years or been hit hard around the back of the head in that short amount of time :P Naturally it's trying to make them look useless and unwanted for Habbox as they have resigned and are returning, but it's not really solving any issues - it's just trying to make it look less of an obvious problem but failing in the process.

In th real world you just ask for an extended leave notice and the staff are notified of that and an estimated time of return. If you're a manager a replacement is found in the mean time, but as normal staff you just get moved into the background for the time being. You're running a fansite afterall, not a SME where the whole workforce keeps the ship afloat - and they're not being paid so it's no cost to Habbox :P

Perhaps the manager of the department could say "X is taking extended leave and will not be as active for the meantime."

[nvrspk4]

Hmmm, seems a bit odd to ask them to resign when they could return soon after. If they are being asked to resign then maybe that's the cause to the problem (of what seems like people resigning and returning soon after). If they are going on long periods of leave and have said they will still do their job then you may as well keep them to eliminate these ideas that they are returning and leaving at their own will. I think making them go through the trialist position is a bit odd when nothing has changed in those 3 weeks - it's not like they've been gone 3 years or been hit hard around the back of the head in that short amount of time :P Naturally it's trying to make them look useless and unwanted for Habbox as they have resigned and are returning, but it's not really solving any issues - it's just trying to make it look less of an obvious problem but failing in the process.

In th real world you just ask for an extended leave notice and the staff are notified of that and an estimated time of return. If you're a manager a replacement is found in the mean time, but as normal staff you just get moved into the background for the time being. You're running a fansite afterall, not a SME where the whole workforce keeps the ship afloat - and they're not being paid so it's no cost to Habbox :P

Perhaps the manager of the department could say "X is taking extended leave and will not be as active for the meantime."

If they're going on a long period of leave then they probably won't do their job :P Also, from experience, those who go on long periods of leave more often than not do not return to their job as enthusiastically. With definite exceptions, but this way you don't have to decide when it's time to cut them as they're still missing etc.

Also, some departments have (or at least had) hard staff caps for various reasons. I put staff caps on HxHD and HxL (as I'm sure Jess and Scotty remember :eusa_ange) and in my opinion they did a lot of good for the departments, though they do make it difficult to allow people to stay on while on extended leave.

[GommeInc]

If they're going on a long period of leave then they probably won't do their job :P Also, from experience, those who go on long periods of leave more often than not do not return to their job as enthusiastically. With definite exceptions, but this way you don't have to decide when it's time to cut them as they're still missing etc.

Also, some departments have (or at least had) hard staff caps for various reasons. I put staff caps on HxHD and HxL (as I'm sure Jess and Scotty remember :eusa_ange) and in my opinion they did a lot of good for the departments, though they do make it difficult to allow people to stay on while on extended leave.
Innocent until proven guilty then, if they have said they will continue to do their job then stick by that and wait for their return. If the department cannot afford to lose staff or the member returns and isn't interested then fire them (or ask them to resign, as you seem to put it :P) It saves the Managers from piggy-backing a system of regulations which is a waste of time for everyone and deems a Manager a mindless robot void of making any of their own decisions. Let them decide what's best for their department, they're not managers if they can't use their initiative. Besides, there is no harm or risk involved - it's a fansite afterall, I'm not sure why people look over that tidbit of information :P

[Chippiewill]

why do managers, who usually know how to run their department best/what staff changes need to be made, need to have a pointless rule added so that every couple of days they have to check if they can allow somebody back? I can't think of anything more annoying, time consuming and just pointless than this rule.
We all damn well know that you don't like when departments (UK) get dictated rules by management (EU), it doesn't mean that it cannot work effectively. In the end this is Habbox not "The individual departments which once made up the Habbox Federation, of which the unelected leaders lived in Brussels".


I think sometimes people on here forget that Habbox is not a business, its voluntary and that every minute of time that somebody spares for this website is doing it for the website.
There is nothing wrong from treating it slightly like a business if it allows Habbox to run in a more organised and coherent way. They are volunteers, however, in some departments there are a LOT of volunteers who are not given the opportunity because staff turn around four days after leaving a department to say they wish to rejoin and in many cases they are put right at the top of the list.

[The Don]

We all damn well know that you don't like when departments (UK) get dictated rules by management (EU), it doesn't mean that it cannot work effectively. In the end this is Habbox not "The individual departments which once made up the Habbox Federation, of which the unelected leaders lived in Brussels".


There is nothing wrong from treating it slightly like a business if it allows Habbox to run in a more organised and coherent way. They are volunteers, however, in some departments there are a LOT of volunteers who are not given the opportunity because staff turn around four days after leaving a department to say they wish to rejoin and in many cases they are put right at the top of the list.

Like you've just said, there is nothing wrong with treating it like a business, and what would a company choose, hiring new staff and having to train them, or taking back staff who have recently resigned who are trusted, friendly with the other staff and know what to do. It benefits Habbox by re-hiring those who have resigned however unfair it may be on people wanting to become staff, but then again, life isn't always fair.

[GommeInc]

We all damn well know that you don't like when departments (UK) get dictated rules by management (EU), it doesn't mean that it cannot work effectively. In the end this is Habbox not "The individual departments which once made up the Habbox Federation, of which the unelected leaders lived in Brussels".


There is nothing wrong from treating it slightly like a business if it allows Habbox to run in a more organised and coherent way. They are volunteers, however, in some departments there are a LOT of volunteers who are not given the opportunity because staff turn around four days after leaving a department to say they wish to rejoin and in many cases they are put right at the top of the list.
Indeed, there's nothing wrong treating it slightly like a business, but the decision to over-regulate with a "3 week" ban from applying and a "forced-resignation" if away for more than 3 weeks is unbusiness like and unrealistic. Habbox uses volunteers, so to worry about a staff member being away for more than 3 weeks is a bit peculiar when they're not being paid to work for Habbox and it's just as easy to just get the Department Manager, who must know what he is doing to manage their department (some have already proven to have more than the necessary brain cells), to label the member who is having to take an extended leave as "Away" or "On Leave" if they've done a decent amount of work for Habbox and are more than capable of returning and acting like they've never left and I hope Habbox Staff are more than capable of using their judgment to sack someone who hasn't returned or been in contact - but I often have my doubts about this as there seems to be a lot of mindless following of systems even when a system is flawed or unnecessary.

And as The Don said - who would you hire? Someone who knows what they are doing and has experience, or waste the times training someone up? Habbox could reserve spaces for new volunteers (like a few conglomerates do), but to disregard someone capable of the position is unrealistic and crazy :P

[Casanova]

I personally hate this too.
I've moaned about it several times because of the higher up people/more visable people on the forum are quite frequent at leaving and coming back.
I could state one female who left/came back 4-5 times?

I think if you quit three times *under certain circumstances* you should be on the DNH list for at least a year?

[The Don]

I personally hate this too.
I've moaned about it several times because of the higher up people/more visable people on the forum are quite frequent at leaving and coming back.
I could state one female who left/came back 4-5 times?

I think if you quit three times *under certain circumstances* you should be on the DNH list for at least a year?

No, if that persons best for the job, they should be allowed to come back. It's what benefits Habbox the most, and putting people on a DNH list does not benefit Habbox in the slightest.

[Casanova]

No, if that persons best for the job, they should be allowed to come back. It's what benefits Habbox the most, and putting people on a DNH list does not benefit Habbox in the slightest.

Well, I would disagree. What benefits HX the most is having the staff? Not having amazing, unreliable staff?
I know that my boss would rather me being mediocre and reliable that amazing and spontaneous.

[GommeInc]

Well, I would disagree. What benefits HX the most is having the staff? Not having amazing, unreliable staff?
I know that my boss would rather me being mediocre and reliable that amazing and spontaneous.
Depends why they resigned, if they were forced to resign which seems to be an option then maybe they just don't have a very active job role? I'm not sure who you're talking about so it's hard to speculate on why they resign and return so often :P

[Casanova]

The female I mentioned was unreliable and pretty rubbish at her job in all honesty.

[The Don]

Well, I would disagree. What benefits HX the most is having the staff? Not having amazing, unreliable staff?
I know that my boss would rather me being mediocre and reliable that amazing and spontaneous.

If say, an AGM Resigns due to personal issues, comes back and then has to resign again and is placed on a DNH List, then a new AGM replaces them, if the new AGM messes up, say gets banned and there are no staff which are capable of fulfilling the duties, the person on the DNH list would not be able to come back even though they have the experience and qualities necessary to step up to the role. That is why I appose a DNH List.


The female I mentioned was unreliable and pretty rubbish at her job in all honesty.

That's your opinion, we can't see what she did behind the scenes.

[HotelUser]

I have seen a lot of situations where staff members are allowed back more times than what is perhaps appropriate. In such cases those individuals probably should be told prior to resigning something along the lines of, if you resign this time you will have to completely re-apply if you wish to return. I think that would be a good fix for most situations. However, in some circumstances it's best to look at things on a per basis scenario. Sometimes a staff member wishes to resign due to (for example) personal reasons and then wishes to return at a later date, and there isn't anybody else who could fill their shoes. In a situation like that I think we sort of have no choice but to allow the individual back :P


The female I mentioned was unreliable and pretty rubbish at her job in all honesty.

I an exceedingly happy that your opinions on our staff have absolutely no impact with regards to if they're actually hired or not because your attitude you present toward other people could not be more horrific :)

[Inseriousity.]

I agree with casanova. No-one's irreplaceable and those who think they are are probably the type of people that should be replaced. Think a year's ban on the DNH list is a bit harsh though, don't agree with that bit.

[Casanova]

WHO REMOVED MY POST!?
why do you lot keep ******* doing this?

[The Don]

I agree with casanova. No-one's irreplaceable and those who think they are are probably the type of people that should be replaced. Think a year's ban on the DNH list is a bit harsh though, don't agree with that bit.

The person who is best for the job should get it, whether they have resigned a lot in the past, it doesn't matter, I'd rather have a great GM who may not be here for a long period rather than an incompetent staff member who is next in line.

---------- Post added 25-08-2011 at 08:48 PM ----------


WHO REMOVED MY POST!?
why do you lot keep ******* doing this?

It was probably removed because it was a paragraph aimed at Dave rather than a constructive post which was on topic.

[Inseriousity.]

"Person who is best for the job"

You keep saying it but you haven't really defined it. Personally I don't think someone who you're going to worry is going to resign 3 months down the line will ever match up to said title. As for incompetent staff member next in line? How exactly do you know they're incompetent if they're not even given a chance to prove otherwise?

[Chippiewill]

The person who is best for the job should get it, whether they have resigned a lot in the past, it doesn't matter, I'd rather have a great GM who may not be here for a long period rather than an incompetent staff member who is next in line.
I'd rather have a great GM who is loyal than one which isn't.

[HotelUser]

The person who is best for the job should get it, whether they have resigned a lot in the past, it doesn't matter, I'd rather have a great GM who may not be here for a long period rather than an incompetent staff member who is next in line.


I agree with casanova. No-one's irreplaceable and those who think they are are probably the type of people that should be replaced. Think a year's ban on the DNH list is a bit harsh though, don't agree with that bit.

I agree with both of you in a way. Mike you're right, sometimes the amount of times a user is allowed to resign and return is far too frequent. The roles staff members uphold are beyond valuable toward keeping the fansite functioning, however sometimes it is fair to let the new kid on the block take a stab at a staff role if their predecessor forfeited it up willingly. On the other end of the spectrum I also agree with Don. When it's something like the GM position I don't think we have the luxury of moving along down the "hicharcy" sortospeak. The most qualified individual should hold this position. That's why I still think it should be looked at on a per department per basis scenario. I think Managers should have the responsibility and authority of turning down an individual whom wants to return because they've done so too frequently. A manager knows best out of anyone else where their department stands with regards to staffing and if by rejecting someone it will cripple the department, or help it. Therefore so I think they should mandate (like they do right now) when to draw the line at prohibiting someone from returning.

[The Don]

"Person who is best for the job"

You keep saying it but you haven't really defined it. Personally I don't think someone who you're going to worry is going to resign 3 months down the line will ever match up to said title. As for incompetent staff member next in line? How exactly do you know they're incompetent if they're not even given a chance to prove otherwise?

The person who is best for the job is generally the most experienced person, one who can make decisions and enforce them and can manage well. A tried and tested method is generally better, although sometimes there are other staff who deserve the job more, if they aren't right for the job, the person who resigns a lot should be considered if they were good in the position!

[Casanova]

It was probably removed because it was a paragraph aimed at Dave rather than a constructive post which was on topic.

I added something constructive and I was replying to the fact he tries to feebly pick apart everything I said. It was on topic for two reasons, a response to someone is constructive (which it was) and adding an on topic side line makes it on topic?

Have you forgotten how to use a forum?


I'm sure in the past there's been times when people have actually been promoted when they weren't next in line. For instance, cosmic? He was thought better for the job and moved from moderator to features manager? Whereas the normal case (i think) is a super moderator gets moved to features. not straight to manager?

I think it's just unfair and actively works against a "good" member of staff as "good" if they're leaving?
It's fair enough under personal turmoil but a lot of members of staff leave for other jobs, fansites, activity. Not proper personal reasons (such as rosie when her internet didn't work - she didn't even go straight back into her job in that case?)

[The Don]

I'd rather have a great GM who is loyal than one which isn't.

I'd rather have a GM who has resigned a couple of times in the past but who is fantastic in the role rather than a rubbish but persistent GM.

[Casanova]

I'd rather have a GM who has resigned a couple of times in the past but who is fantastic in the role rather than a rubbish but persistent GM.

I get what you're saying but I remember matt being next in line. A few people assumed he wouldn't be up to the job?
I think he has proven time and time again he is the right guy for the job. He has a good following, people respect him and he's quite alright most of the time?

I think it would be unfair to go on assumptions instead of giving a chance to someone new. I think it's only fair people are given a chance even if they aren't the best bet - it's worked before?

Why should you have to take a flaky GM on then?


Oli resigned an awful lot, people assumed he'd be good and it turned out for a lot he wasn't?

[The Don]

I added something constructive and I was replying to the fact he tries to feebly pick apart everything I said. It was on topic for two reasons, a response to someone is constructive (which it was) and adding an on topic side line makes it on topic?

Have you forgotten how to use a forum?


I'm sure in the past there's been times when people have actually been promoted when they weren't next in line. For instance, cosmic? He was thought better for the job and moved from moderator to features manager? Whereas the normal case (i think) is a super moderator gets moved to features. not straight to manager?

I think it's just unfair and actively works against a "good" member of staff as "good" if they're leaving?
It's fair enough under personal turmoil but a lot of members of staff leave for other jobs, fansites, activity. Not proper personal reasons (such as rosie when her internet didn't work - she didn't even go straight back into her job in that case?)

No, I haven't forgotten how to use the forum, it would however, appear that you've forgotten how to use manners.

I think that whoever will be strongest in the role should get the position regardless of past resignations.

[Chippiewill]

I'd rather have a GM who has resigned a couple of times in the past but who is fantastic in the role rather than a rubbish but persistent GM.
Thou hath managed to repeateth thou self and addeth nought to our discussion.

-

Well clearly someone who keeps leaving and returning frequently is causing more of a hassle than they're solving, so much work goes into changing GMs around and then Jin spends a week making his mind up. Not that this change would affect GMs in any case since Jin never really cared much for rules.


I an exceedingly happy that your opinions on our staff have absolutely no impact with regards to if they're actually hired or not because your attitude you present toward other people could not be more horrific
I don't know if actively posting as an AGM automatically makes you bad-mannered or if you're trying to do a terrible impression of Oli because you think it's humorous but there's really no need to make snide comments about a forum user in a position such as yours. I see no reason as to why management can not retain a level of professional even if they take abuse. Granted Casanova really shouldn't be cursing and raging as much as he is since it isn't really that productive (In fact he should probably go lie down for a few hours so he can calm down) but rather than thinking that because you're management it's your right to be rude publicly and slander a forum user perhaps you can do the mature thing and direct a forum moderator to moderate the post and tell him to stop being so rude, rather than moderating it yourself from a biased perspective (Which as far as I can see results in the over the top response of moving the post so no one can see it).

[The Don]

Thou hath managed to repeateth thou self and addeth nought to our discussion.

-

Well clearly someone who keeps leaving and returning frequently is causing more of a hassle than they're solving, so much work goes into changing GMs around and then Jin spends a week making his mind up. Not that this change would affect GMs in any case since Jin never really cared much for rules.


I don't know if actively posting as an AGM automatically makes you bad-mannered or if you're trying to do a terrible impression of Oli because you think it's humorous but there's really no need to make snide comments about a forum user in a position such as yours. I see no reason as to why management can not retain a level of professional even if they take abuse. Granted Casanova really shouldn't be cursing and raging as much as he is since it isn't really that productive (In fact he should probably go lie down for a few hours so he can calm down) but rather than thinking that because you're management it's your right to be rude publicly and slander a forum user perhaps you can do the mature thing and direct a forum moderator to moderate the post and tell him to stop being so rude, rather than moderating it yourself from a biased perspective (Which as far as I can see results in the over the top response of moving the post so no one can see it).

Well this discussion is going nowhere, I've said my opinion a dozen times, it's going round in circles and it's boring me. obviously we have differing opinions which is fair enough, there isn't much more to say. I still disagree with a DNH List.

Oh, and on your comment about Dave, i'm not too sure if you read the post Allan made before it got removed, but it wasn't the most polite paragraph.

[Chippiewill]

Oh, and on your comment about Dave, i'm not too sure if you read the post Allan made before it got removed, but it wasn't the most polite paragraph.
Well, perhaps it deserved removal, but I reckon in this case it's more of a result of overreaction because it's an AGM.


I've said my opinion a dozen times, it's going round in circles and it's boring me.
That was the point I was trying to make about you repeating yourself.

[MissAlice]

I have read some of this thread, and would like to make a suggestion. A Procedure, not a rule.

I don’t know what others think, but as a member when I see resignations regularly being announced, my first instinct rightly or wrongly is, ‘has that department got issues?’ It can give off an air of instability and perhaps weakness in that department. Not the impression I would have thought Habbox wants to portray. The same can be said when we continually see the same applications open again. High staff turnarounds can imply there are problems within that department. Only announce resignations when it's final.

Anyone resigning in a position lower than that of senior management or who are not site staff and moderators (who maintain the boards) should not be allowed to return within 4 weeks, and should return as a trialist if they choose to re-apply. If a member of staff is that dedicated and committed they will think very carefully before resigning.

Senior Management should use their discretion if a Manager of a department wishes to return, after resigning. You guys know if they can be replaced easily, have been difficult to manage or have been bad for morale, or if they are the best person for the job.

I do think staff should be allowed some kind of sabbatical, a set period (perhaps 2-4 weeks maximum) of leave so they can study for exams etc. Their permissions should be removed and a record kept of their expected return date. Providing they return within the date set, they should be reinstated.

[Casanova]

it didn't deserve removal, they won't even message me a quote of what i said, where it was rude etc? So without proof I can't really defend myself on that one.

I think a year on the DNH might be over the top but everything else that's been said i'd agree with :)

[The Don]

Well, perhaps it deserved removal, but I reckon in this case it's more of a result of overreaction because it's an AGM.


That was the point I was trying to make about you repeating yourself.

Yes, I kept repeating myself because this debate was going nowhere, We had reached conclusions and were merely repeating ourselves.

Do you agree with a DNH list?

[Chippiewill]

Do you agree with a DNH list?
No, that's a ridiculous idea. For one I don't think there's a procedure for regular removal from the DNH list so a year limit is hard to enforce. But also I don't think having a solid/hard limit on the ability for a department to hire someone is necessary, only that if there is someone else waiting that they be given the opportunity to perform themselves (Especially if the person leaving is not of any senior or management role in which case they are very replaceable and training someone else to perform their role is not strenuous in anyway and generally those in higher positions are the ones you want to keep).

The main point which has always annoyed me is that very often staff will be let back weeks later without having to enter the application process. I remember a few months ago when a large number of moderators returned after leaving for several months without having to go through the applications most of which did not have to go through a trial, one of which who had previously quit because they had decided that the forum management was terrible and rejoined under the same management and then quit again a couple of weeks later. Via that process you'll be encouraging people to lark about and just come and go as they please making a lot of work for people and wasting opportunities for someone else to do it.

[The Don]

No, that's a ridiculous idea. For one I don't think there's a procedure for regular removal from the DNH list so a year limit is hard to enforce. But also I don't think having a solid/hard limit on the ability for a department to hire someone is necessary, only that if there is someone else waiting that they be given the opportunity to perform themselves (Especially if the person leaving is not of any senior or management role in which case they are very replaceable and training someone else to perform their role is not strenuous in anyway and generally those in higher positions are the ones you want to keep).

The main point which has always annoyed me is that very often staff will be let back weeks later without having to enter the application process. I remember a few months ago when a large number of moderators returned after leaving for several months without having to go through the applications most of which did not have to go through a trial, one of which who had previously quit because they had decided that the forum management was terrible and rejoined under the same management and then quit again a couple of weeks later. Via that process you'll be encouraging people to lark about and just come and go as they please making a lot of work for people and wasting opportunities for someone else to do it.

I do agree with you in some aspects, especially if we are discussing the lower end of the hierarchy where staff are disposable, if they resign, they should have to reapply and become trialist staff if they are better applicants than others who are applying, more people should be given the opportunity to work for habbox rather than recycling the same members, but in senior and managerial positions they shouldn't have to work back up through the ranks if they were good in the role.

But if there is a shortage of staff, and a member who has resigned wants to work for habbox again, they should be allowed to as this saves time rather than training up new members

[Inseriousity.]

The person who is best for the job is generally the most experienced person, one who can make decisions and enforce them and can manage well. A tried and tested method is generally better, although sometimes there are other staff who deserve the job more, if they aren't right for the job, the person who resigns a lot should be considered if they were good in the position!

Well the key word there for me is "generally". In general, those with more experience are likely to do a better job than those who haven't got any. Well, yes I'd say that's true. However, those with no experience get experience by doing. You gain experience as you go and you can only go if you are given the chance. Every GM hired would have started as the newbie at one point. They'd have to have learned the ropes and someone would have to show them. The benefits of a fresh pair of eyes onto situtations are imo better than a more experienced GM who's become blinded by the status quo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

*Removed*






Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post just to target other members negatively or post private information.

[RealClifford]

All I got from this thread was, "Whinge, whinge whinge"
good work guys..

Suggestions okay, but come on guys. Managers run their departments how they run them because that is how they feel it ought to be run and is a tried and well developed method for them. Is this always the right way? No, but you wouldn't find the right method without first trying a bad one. Just a matter of adjusting as new management learn their roles and begin to implement new ideas from fresh eyes.

- Clifford

[Matthew]

I do think that some people resign and return too often, but if the person is best for the job then surely there isn't a problem?

I think that others do need to be given the chance to step up and get promoted or just given the chance with a trial, but if the manager thinks that person x will do a better job than person y, then even if person x had recently resigned, then they should be hired.

[Grig]

All I got from this thread was, "Whinge, whinge whinge"
good work guys..

Suggestions okay, but come on guys. Managers run their departments how they run them because that is how they feel it ought to be run and is a tried and well developed method for them. Is this always the right way? No, but you wouldn't find the right method without first trying a bad one. Just a matter of adjusting as new management learn their roles and begin to implement new ideas from fresh eyes.

- Clifford

First of all this isn't a whinge, but a constructive debate over rules on resignations. Not sure where you got this definition from...

Officially, this is the policy I got told ages ago, that if you resign on a good note and have brought a lot of dedication to the site then you may return and the general manager can over-rule it if the manager refuses (well at least the policy used when Oli was running this joint.) So maybe the word officially is used really loosely here, seeing as I think MattG doesn't like to step in conflict with his managers over this and leaves it to them, which I'm not in full agreement here.

When I was at news, we were able to keep a stable team for months. Creating the right atmosphere, giving the right incentives and making it more fun. I think managers who take things too seriously will not have such stable teams. This is where some management styles suck.

Personally, I disagree with the staff replacement factors for some departments seeing as some staff have a skill that would take far too long to train up in other staff and to add have put a lot of effort into a certain department over years. It would be unfair to bar staff on such circumstances, if they come back within a week. I've been at various departments on Habbox, and I felt that at certain points some departments developed into a training ground for new staff. However, Habbox should raise the bar in being the best fansite and search for the best staff when it comes to the nitty-gritty. My theory is, I would be dumb to not allow a person for a job because "I cant get along with them" and so forth. It's what's best for the department and the development of the site, not what 2-year old tantrum I may have had with someone. This is plain dumb and a sign of **** managing, no offence, I've seen this happen on here as well. Well it happens even in real life, and so does favourtism and plain dumb arse licking.

As for the DNHL, that is fine. If people are stupid enough to hack the site or do silly things, then let them be put on there. Although, I'm sure there are one or two mistakes on there as well.

[Ajthedragon]

I can't remember if this was for firings or resignations as well, but there was a 30 day period in the past I believe. Memory is failing me though. If it was both, then I suggest the 30 day period is reinstated.

If it wasn't there for resignations, I think a 2-4 week period might be reasonable...or managers should just request perms but not announce for 24-36h to give the staff some time to think it over. If after the staff haven't PMd the manager rescinding their resignation, manager goes ahead and announces that, and now the staff can't return for four weeks.

I agree 100% with this word for word!

A resignation should be for 30 days, not just for christmas. ;) (That was awful!)