Urmmm no offence, but looking at your posts in there, you dont come across in any better light than they do o.0Quote:
Originally Posted by Favourtism
Printable View
Urmmm no offence, but looking at your posts in there, you dont come across in any better light than they do o.0Quote:
Originally Posted by Favourtism
I havent offended anyone or been rude in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01101101entor
Early this morning I had a littlej oke with agesilaus by posting a spam thread which is what spam is for but it did not break any rules.
No, of course you wouldn't dare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Favourtism
Nore is anyone else in there... O.oQuote:
Originally Posted by Favourtism
The notes system back in 2004 would of been better today. The infractions system really is for a small community. Also, I am sure confusing the snot out of members is member cruelty...Quote:
Originally Posted by nvrspk4
The above is aload of rubbish. The infraction system never existed in 2004... Before the infraction system was a much more direct and personal response using notes. The problem with the infraction system, which to be frank, causes more issues than it solves, is it shows you who infracted you and doesn't tell you a good enough reason other than "disruptive/rude behaviour." The note system didn't tell you that you were in trouble other than a PM which made it obvious, but the note system made it alot more easier to moderate users, because a moderator could look at names and there you have it, a list of notes detailing issues with the member (if any notes are available).Quote:
Its quite frankly ridiculous. Next time you think the rules here resemble "Nazi Germany" and that we are too harsh now, consider this:
- On the 2004 forum, members were consistently banned for two fairly rude posts, especially if they insulted staff. On the 2006 forum they would be warned once and infracted once, possibly infracted twice.
- On the 2004 forum, members were often banned without a reason, a reason was emailed to them on request, and appeals were much less forgiving than they are today.
- On the 2004 forum, members has absolutely 0 warning as to how many times they had broken the rules. The only way to know, and what Admins based their bans on, was the number of posts they had had edited. All the posts they had ever had edited. So a search was needed to figure out how many times they had broken the rules.
- On the 2005 forum (I think it was 05) we used Usernotes. With usernotes, users had even LESS of a clue what was going on, because all of a user's rulebreaks were kept on a record that was not accessible to the user. Furthermore, moderators often weren't allowed to disclose the contents of a person's usernotes to that user. Bans would come out of nowhere, for 18 usernotes, 12 of which the user probably had no clue about.
- On the 2004-2005 forum, usernotes and edits never expired. Everything you ever did in your Habbox career was considered. No two month rule.
- On the 2004-2005 forum, management would simply ban troublemakers, not indulge them.
And if you got banned easily back then (which is still aload of rubbish), how comes myself, Seacat and JackHb are still members when we all were disruptive (granted JackHb and Seacat were staff)? Habbox Forum was far more laid back than it was today; staff could post freely about anything while now they're restricted to make any sort of humour in their posts because obviously you'll get infracted/told off, even when for example, a humourous, appropriate post is looked at as rude and inapproprite, when no one in the right mind would find it offensive, rude or inappropriate other than the moderators, administrators (if they still exist?) and super moderators who lack common sense and reasonability.
No, they're not stricted, they just make themselves seem stricter when infact they're there to look a mess. Most of the rules could be grouped to make one simpler rule which at the same time could be generalised and made simpler. Anything pointless = goes into the pointless post rules, anything rude goes into the swearing, behavioural rules. Why does Habbox have to make new rules out of rules that already existed?Quote:
The years may be off, but the content is right, cause that's from personal exerience. The rules aren't stricter now. They're more complicated to provide more loopholes for members.
Actually, a perfect community would have staff who's main focus is the forum and other staff who's main focus is the site. Looking over the staff list, most of the staff have 2 or more jobs which obviously means that staff member would need more time in their hands, time which doesn't and will not exist.Quote:
The amount members expect is immense. They expect a staff that is solely committed to making a perfect forum for them, with staff enjoyment of their job as a secondary. Habbox is not a business. Habbox is a venture for fun where its run by volunteers who give up their time to keep the community they love running. But often the community they keep running doesn't appreciate a single damned thing they do, and they're not even able to enjoy what they keep going. I could rant, and I would have a long rant, and I'd feel better, but in all honesty a rant would accomplish nothing. So, I'm not going to rant.
This is where Habbox fails most, there are too little staff with too much on their plate. All of the AGMs shouldn't be AGMs, because their jobs are not general. They should just keep to their Manager titles and with those titles (which seems to be the only reason they had AGM in the first place) is to have a say in Habbox matters. In the past, most managers had a say in Habbox issues anyway... If it effected their departments. Now you just get this heap of mess which seems to be staff roles and titles.
Have you looked into having a Role Manager elected? Because I'm sure one would be able to sort through this heap.
As stated, something is clearly wrong with Habbox that it has become a bit less likeable and for most they only say that because they care about the community they have gotten themselves involved with for a long period of time. Most likeable things would have people criticising it because they have some interest, not all things are black and white :rolleyes:Quote:
If its completely unlikeable I am not really sure why you're here. If you have absolutely no interest in Habbox and think its a lost cause, I'm sure you could better spend your time running your own site ;) I know how much you love to criticise us but come now.
What was it before? Because I believe 500 rep points per rep power would be more adequate. 1000 is a big jump from wherever it was before.Quote:
That's what we did, 1000 rep = 1 rep power. We're, as has been said, looking at the other numbers again.
I used 1000 rep points per rep power because I was of the opinion loads of people had lot, must be my mistake. Maybe having it between 300-800 is better, like 500 rep ponts per rep power with the addition rep powers from posts and membership time?Quote:
Your changes to the rep system seem similar? Are you saying that the numbers were too high or are you suggesting a different approach? (Not trying to be confrontational, I'm genuinely trying to understand :P)
If people are bullied, they'll report it and then you can take action on the bully by removing a certain amount of rep and/or cautioning them, that is afterall what the caution member group is for... If that member makes a new account or moves to another one, caution them or PM with discussing why they are being total twits.Quote:
Also, the hierarchy of the rep power and the bullying and *behind*-licking that came with it were major reasons why we were forced to make changes.
The rep council is just another feedback forum with elected members and new sub-forums, in my eyes :PQuote:
I could see that happening, I give it a 50/50 chance. It depends how members react to it. There's a possibility they will actually recognize it, and there's a possibility that they'll forget it exists, or because every single thing they want hasn't been accomplished they might conclude that the council is ineffective.
You don't need to 'belong working,' granted you should be with the large amounts of jobs you seem to have given yourself:Quote:
Honestly, the reason is because the environment for staff outside of the protective enclave of the staff forums is less than welcoming. Mods are watched with a wary eye just as most of the administrative and management team are. The members seem to think that we belong working, not using the forum. There are occasions when I've made posts, and a member has taken it upon himself to tell me that I should be adding VIP instead. I would love to be able to engage in conversation more, however with the many many complaints I have to wade through I often don't have the time to post in the topics I would like to. Thus I get most of my debate in here :P Otherwise I would probably camp out in the debates forum for a good long time :eusa_danc
VIPs Editor || Events Manager || Staff Editor || Habbox Help Desk Owner
You should really only have two of the titles... Look at the Help Desk for example, can you really say that is working? Give it to someone else OR quit as VIP Editor and Staff Editor, because Events Manager and Habbox Help Desk Owner pretty much go together. This isa nther reason Management get yelled at often, because they do everything and as you can see, can't do everything.
Most are probably users who have registered a few times and left soon after, which looks like it to me.Quote:
PS: Oh yeah your comment about less users is totally off, sorry to burst your bubble :P January 3rd 2008 was the third most popular day on the forum since June '07. And users are at their average levels. (I sort of have the advantage of ACP Stats, so I guess I kind of cheated :P)
I can't blame them to be honest, you make yourself seem like you have a strong say in the forum, which you don't. You give out pointless warnings which won't win you any respect and I have seen you be rude to members...Quote:
Originally Posted by Favouritism
I agree completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
Did you even read what I wrote Baving lol?
Surely everyone in this forum seems lie they have a say in the forum and go mad at decisions etc. I have never been rude over a decision and if I disagree then I would post why.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
If I gave out pointless warnings then they would be reversed. This month I haven't had any reversed too my knowledge which means your point is invalid.
Yes I didQuote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
You have a say in the forum, but not a strong say. You speak down to people as if you were an administrator/part of management and agree with anything management says "/ If you disagree, you don't post by the looks of things...Quote:
Originally Posted by Favourtism
And my point is still valid, because you have posted reversible infractions. I have had a quick look in the infractions forum every now and again and the last month was dreadful! Even I had an infraction which clearly made no sense to the administrator removing it aswell! It's as if you looked at the post and didn't take any notice of the posts it followed!
You're not a bad moderator, no one really can say that, but you certainly need to improve.
Also, my point about you thinking you're higher than others is in your signature. What can you really do with ban problems? If people want to report them, they'll report ban issues to a manager or someone with the proper controls...Not a forum moderator/news reporter :rolleyes: I think you talking about bans goes against a couple of staff and member rules, too...
Quick reader :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Baving