I like the idea of suspension probs 2 weeks not 1 week tho but like their perms wud go n everything.
Printable View
I like the idea of suspension probs 2 weeks not 1 week tho but like their perms wud go n everything.
Mathew and any other Habbox Staff, here is one of the reminder threads about the policy:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=679380
Bit late now as few have been fired for damaging Habbox. They didn't know that if they did or someone else did on their account they would of got fired as it wasn't clearly listed!Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
Wasn't stickied Mattg. I think with these kind of situations there should be no specific outcome because Jordesh's hacking n Lee's were so different that one rule cant really decide upon an outcome which is fair to both. I never have seen why jord was fiyad.
I didn't mean to post it for that, Mathew mentioned he couldn't find a thread stating such things so I thought I would post the link to one of them. I'll make it more clearer very shortly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordesh
I was fired for getting my account compromised then the person using it to trash the help desk :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Hayleigh
I do agree that a 2 week suspension would be good. Not only are you getting the patronising aspect of teaching these poor souls how to take care of their account, but you're not really publicly embarassing them and tarnishing their record with a firing. Just think, if Ouft was to receive the suspension... he'd be straight back into it before you know it and people like him wouldn't be lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayleigh
A thread on the 17th December 2010 that wasn't stickied? Surely you can't expect the new staff to see that? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
Also @Undertaker... in the cheekiest way possible, I do somewhat agree in twith holding GM responsible if Habbox gets hacked.. :P
Well I happen to think its every Managers responsibility to ensure the staff they hire understand and have read the handbook. Don't you? It's part of Managing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordesh
Got a point about it not being in the staff handbook so hows it a rule? Obviously you shouldn't really go back on your decision on firing him as you'd be going back to 2004 looking for who's been fired for being hacked, It'd be one loooong process.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha, someone thinks that being hacked is the be all and end all of everything and therefore requires the most stern punishment of being fired rather than a slap on the wrists. Oh Matt, you so funny. I could understand a safety ban/firing but a full on firing for something so trivial.Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
It's laughable that you would fire someone for a targeted attack (Especially since HotelUser would be so vulnerable to one). What on earth makes you think that the fact of being informed that they were hacked wouldn't be enough of an encouragement to avoid doing it in the future.
I do hope that Habbox is therefore enforcing a no IE rule amongst others, and I guess you're enforcing all staff to not use winamp at all since that's had vulnerabilities in the past and something and something and something. I suppose you might as well disallow macs, too easy to hack if you're going after them.
I'm guessing that HotelUser and Matt didn't visit JewishBear's browser crashing page? Since every technically minded person should know that they are a common source of remote code execution. Nah, I guess not, life's for living eh?
Because they live in Brussels, Matt is secretly Van Rompuy. *gets on side*Quote:
When Habbox itself is hacked or a security breach ever arises, why aren't General Management fired?