Can moderating just stay as it is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Don't think you can dispute that edit really, there's a rule, your broke it. End of really no need for a feedback thread everytime someone doesn't like an edit we give them.

---

No, that's not true. Maybe if you're going to be concise you should at least back it up with real evidence?

When we have a discussion with someone we engage in several ways, not just verbal. So, I'll use tone, speed, facial expression and body language to CONVEY what I mean.
If I say "you're a complete cow!" but say it with a smirk, open arms, eyebrow raised and follow it by a laugh then I'm jesting. Whereas if I say "You're a complete cow!" and it's said with closed arms, feet pointed awkwardly, a closed smile and lowered eyebrows in a deep tone then I'm clearly being offensive and attempting to start an arguement.

Online it's common knowledge we can't use any of this, we can only go by context and what's intended.
If I'm joking around and comment after Richie just called me stupid "shut it you sl..ag!" it would be meant in a joke, now normally I could be open to infraction/warning ONLY due to it being an offensive word to read NOT because it's actually offensive TO say?

Whereas if I use "you're a complete ****!" in a discussion without any provocation or anything it's led on from I'm clearly targetting a member.




I think it's ludicrious that people wouldn't use context and leads to understand someone's intention and the outcome desired. If you can't read this, can't interpret then moderation isn't for you - if you want to dispute this or understand where I'd find evidence look for Redtiz; she clearly states (old) Habbo Moderators would look for inclination, smileys and sarcasm/context. Ie if I say "Oh noez I'm gonna hax you :p" it's clearly a joke. If i say "I'm going to hack you!" it's not so much....


People need to grow up, grow a set and stop being complete jobsworth. @Chris of all people knows this so I don't understand Moderators wouldn't?

Depends how bad it is @laura;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen!

Can anyone tell me how GoldenMerc passed his trial? My last pm I got from him looks like it was typed by a 5 year old

---

Maybe it was?

--

I hardly think that typing ability is a real criteria for a forum moderator. This is the most pointless complaint about a moderator I've ever heard.

Ross has always had an issue with grammar and punctuality. It's not exactly a downfall considering it's quite common. Tad petty Richie.

@laura; I think it depends what department, News for example would need spelling and punctuation more whereas Events wouldn't. In this case I don't think moderation does (need it as) much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Samanfa

@laura; I think it depends what department, News for example would need spelling and punctuation more whereas Events wouldn't. In this case I don't think moderation does (need it as) much.

---

well obviously

but

this is a thread about moderation and Stephen! mentioned Ross' passing and grammar, so I was commenting on that...


--

It doesn't make him a bad moderator - maybe there should be PM layouts (precise ones). Or copy from previous usernotes, that's what I tended to do before I got into the swing of it!!

its not nice receiving a generic, ready made reply.

I haven't notice anything wrong with Ross' grammar really. If it was a serious issue then it may cause some problems but in this case it isn't.

If his grammar was misunderstood such as "please dont insult others" turns into "plastic donut inside Orla". cos that's just graphic :(.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hulk

its not nice receiving a generic, ready made reply.

---

Can't win either way then... don't want generic, don't want misspellings...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

I haven't notice anything wrong with Ross' grammar really. If it was a serious issue then it may cause some problems but in this case it isn't.

---

He knows that his spag isn't great but it's not his fault - like I said before it doesn't make him a bad moderator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

If his grammar was misunderstood such as "please dont insult others" turns into "plastic donut inside Orla". cos that's just graphic :(.

---

It's not that bad, just little misspellings (your/you're is the main one that bugs me).

"defiantly" :( @GoldenMerc;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laura

Can't win either way then... don't want generic, don't want misspellings...


He knows that his spag isn't great but it's not his fault - like I said before it doesn't make him a bad moderator.


It's not that bad, just little misspellings (your/you're is the main one that bugs me).

---

Exactly! He's doing a good job and thats what matters.

I heard that he gave Chris favours in return for grammar lessons. Bless him!

No seriously, I think moderation does need to look more to the context and not to the sentence. that lead's to problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Exactly! He's doing a good job and thats what matters.

---

That's exactly what I thought. Little bit of coaching when it comes to the PMs and he'll be fab!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

I heard that he gave Chris favours in return for grammar lessons. Bless him!

No seriously, I think moderation does need to look more to the context and not to the sentence. that lead's to problems.

---

LOL wouldn't surprise me ;) and yeah I totally agree, not 2 months ago people were complaining there weren't enough moderators, now there are and they're complaining about them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laura

That's exactly what I thought. Little bit of coaching when it comes to the PMs and he'll be fab!



LOL wouldn't surprise me ;) and yeah I totally agree, not 2 months ago people were complaining there weren't enough moderators, now there are and they're complaining about them!

---

only one person has said anything lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comity

only one person has said anything lol

---

You mustn't have noticed the 22 pages of this thread then eh? Clearly there's more than one person discussing moderation. As for the sarcasm I doubt it's needed. Sure there's somewhere you could be crawling up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comity

only one person has said anything lol

---

yes i never said otherwise

i said people were complaining about before (true) now people (person - same person?? idk wasnt there for that debarcle really) are complaining now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

You mustn't have noticed the 22 pages of this thread then eh? Clearly there's more than one person discussing moderation. As for the sarcasm I doubt it's needed. Sure there's somewhere you could be crawling up?

---

I wasn't on about that, i was on about one person complaining about ross :)!
Yeah probably cause that's all people do on this forum according to you lol.... btw i still dunno who you are :S
@laura; people makes it sounds like loads, i just meant its only Stephen and when has anyone taken him seriously lol

Have the rules been updated to reflect the flaws of the moderation text? It seems HxF moderation needs to remember what context means, a flaw they've had since records began. Go by the intentions of a post rather than what is in a post and go on a whim to try and find a rule break. Moderators need to learn to read into a discussion rather than quickly shoot off when they see a potential rule break which is just mild banter. Splashing the eye-sore red warning signs everywhere is crude and makes a forum page look somewhat revolting - HxF is the only forum I know that gives out mod warnings in posts like leaflets in the street, quite a few do things privately or add warnings which blend into posts (e.g. same colour scheme) rather than stick out like a sore thumb.

If we're starting the big grammar debate, @Chris is guilty of bad sentence structure too, not that it matters :P

"Nick and GoldenMerc have passed their 2 week trials and are will be staying on as Forum Moderators. Well done!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Yeah if she/he goes theres a fly in my room f off then.. Personally I wouldn't want to see f off since its soo obvious. I'd class that as avoiding the filter.

---

Matt changed the rules about a year back to allow all abbreviations that didn't offend/target people to be allowed.
such as fs, fml, fo (in context).

maybe you should double check these rules!?
ps check one of my manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyy threads and you'll find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Casanova

Matt changed the rules about a year back to allow all abbreviations that didn't offend/target people to be allowed.
such as fs, fml, fo (in context).

maybe you should double check these rules!?
ps check one of my manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyy threads and you'll find it.

---

No he didn't :P The only abbreviations that are allowed are in the faqs!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

No he didn't :P The only abbreviations that are allowed are in the faqs!!

---

I really hope they're not. You should be focusing on context and allow for flexibility. Would you really ban/warn someone for using a new, harmless abbreviation? I hope not, blindly following a system shows ignorance rather than intelligence.

EDIT: As far as the FAQ goes, all abbreviations are fine. It is not okay to use them to insult others. Surely the Forum Manager of all people should know the rules and the FAQs as it's their department :/

who cares

Edited by Matts (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

I really hope they're not. You should be focusing on context and allow for flexibility. Would you really ban/warn someone for using a new, harmless abbreviation? I hope not, blindly following a system shows ignorance rather than intelligence.

EDIT: As far as the FAQ goes, all abbreviations are fine. It is not okay to use them to insult others. Surely the Forum Manager of all people should know the rules and the FAQs as it's their department :/

---

I do. - http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?f...aringandfilter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

I do. - http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?f...aringandfilter

---

"etc" would imply that others are also allowed to be used rather than the ones just listed there.....

Quote:

---

It is allowed to use abbreviated phrases, phrases such as; LMFAO, FML, WTF, FFS, OMFG and IDGAF etc are all acceptable.
However, it is not allowed to use abbreviated phrases to insult others.

---

That rule obviously makes out that all abbreviated phrases are allowed..... just not too insult people :S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comity

"etc" would imply that others are also allowed to be used rather than the ones just listed there.....



That rule obviously makes out that all abbreviated phrases are allowed..... just not too insult people :S

---

Well thats a change that was not known to me or the moderators by the looks of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

Well thats a change that was not known to me or the moderators by the looks of things.

---

I searched for when it was changed and that section was last changed in January? Maybe people should brush up on the rules again every time they return to the mod department if they don't already have to do that? IDK if that date is right for when it was last changed though, its what the forum says anyways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comity

I searched for when it was changed and that section was last changed in January? Maybe people should brush up on the rules again every time they return to the mod department if they don't already have to do that? IDK if that date is right for when it was last changed though, its what the forum says anyways...

---

I don't remember it ever being discussed with the department or even being mentioned to us at the time, but I could be wrong.

Thank you @Comity for putting it so succinctly ;) Had etc not been there, the rule in itself would make no sense as there are loads of harmless abbreviations out there not already listed, hence moderators should act when an abbreviation is used to offend rather than used to make a statement.

If you weren't told about any changes @Chris, blame upper-management who yet again are doing the job of the Forum Manager (which I've always argued is an incredibly pointless position as they lack any real power and seem to be a sub-division of Community Manager).

Also, when are the "What are your" threads going to be moved back to their respective forums? The two members who argued for the change seemed to of disappeared when their arguments broke down and it was revealed that the change was to spite new members (a terrible idea) and the change came about because of made up rule or a poorly interpreted account of a rule that currently exists.

Thanks for the blame on upper-management but I do believe the change was put into place when Scott or Brandon was in the Forum Manager role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brandon

Yes I think that's the way we're going to have to go otherwise it's far too confusing still :(, I've tweaked it slightly again. So to clarify, you can use all of these abbreviated phrases now including FU but if they are deemed to be used offensively they'll be removed under rule A1 - correct.

---

Isn't this is what we are talking about? If not then I'm not quite sure when it is changed but it wasn't personally changed by me. It was done by one of the Forum Managers for sure.

I think that change happened during the period when both Chris and Martin rage quit so it's not really anyone's fault, and if we are blaming someone, shouldn't Chris have looked at the rules again/any updates when he got forum manager?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Thank you @Comity for putting it so succinctly ;) Had etc not been there, the rule in itself would make no sense as there are loads of harmless abbreviations out there not already listed, hence moderators should act when an abbreviation is used to offend rather than used to make a statement.

If you weren't told about any changes @Chris, blame upper-management who yet again are doing the job of the Forum Manager (which I've always argued is an incredibly pointless position as they lack any real power and seem to be a sub-division of Community Manager).

Also, when are the "What are your" threads going to be moved back to their respective forums? The two members who argued for the change seemed to of disappeared when their arguments broke down and it was revealed that the change was to spite new members (a terrible idea) and the change came about because of made up rule or a poorly interpreted account of a rule that currently exists.

---

The role isn't a pointless one, but you're welcome to think what you like.

As for the "What are you" threads, they aren't being moved back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx

Thanks for the blame on upper-management but I do believe the change was put into place when Scott or Brandon was in the Forum Manager role.



Isn't this is what we are talking about? If not then I'm not quite sure when it is changed but it wasn't personally changed by me. It was done by one of the Forum Managers for sure.

---

Thanks for finding that :P If that wasn't announced in the development section then no one was to know of the change officially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I think that change happened during the period when both Chris and Martin rage quit so it's not really anyone's fault, and if we are blaming someone, shouldn't Chris have looked at the rules again/any updates when he got forum manager?

---

No because any major changes should have been announced, besides which I was never gone for long anyway so I was always kept in the loop on things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

The role isn't a pointless one, but you're welcome to think what you like.

As for the "What are you" threads, they aren't being moved back.



Thanks for finding that :P If that wasn't announced in the development section then no one was to know of the change officially.


No because any major changes should have been announced, besides which I was never gone for long anyway so I was always kept in the loop on things.

---

changing a rule slightly isn't a major change and if you kept in the loop we wouldn't be having this discussion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

As for the "What are you" threads, they aren't being moved back.

---

So you listened to the two members whose reasons didn't make sense? The matter has actually been discussed for once and the change is now regarded as pointless. Seems a bit unfair :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

changing a rule slightly isn't a major change and if you kept in the loop we wouldn't be having this discussion

---

He's become political and put a spin on things :P He clearly isn't in the loop but he will claim he is. It's very Cameron-esque!

That said, knowing where the rule change came in doesn't really matter. The rule clearly reflects brandon's change, and that's all that really matters :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

changing a rule slightly isn't a major change and if you kept in the loop we wouldn't be having this discussion

---

If any rule is changed then its announced and the moderators are informed. If it's not then how do you expect anyone to know about it? I was kept in the loop on things which were actually announced, since this was not then no one was to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

So you listened to the two members whose reasons didn't make sense? The matter has actually been discussed for once and the change is now regarded as pointless. Seems a bit unfair :/

---

We're not changing it back because theres no need to. It isn't having an effect on the forum activity and no one except you seems to care anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

We're not changing it back because theres no need to. It isn't having an effect on the forum activity and no one except you seems to care anyway.

---

There was no need to move the threads in the first place, so why make the change? As for having no effect on the forum activity, before it wasn't causing any problems hence it's change for the sake of change. You've sort of admitted you made the change for the sake of it, by suggesting it hasn't had an effect on forum activity... It really makes no sense :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

If any rule is changed then its announced and the moderators are informed. If it's not then how do you expect anyone to know about it? I was kept in the loop on things which were actually announced, since this was not then no one was to know.

---

So you weren't in the loop then? You're in the loop whether it's announced or not. It's sort of the definition and usage of the phrase...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

There was no need to move the threads in the first place, so why make the change? As for having no effect on the forum activity, before it wasn't causing any problems hence it's change for the sake of change. You've sort of admitted you made the change for the sake of it, by suggesting it hasn't had an effect on forum activity... It really makes no sense :P


So you weren't in the loop then? You're in the loop whether it's announced or not. It's sort of the definition and usage of the phrase...

---

It was created because the threads generate no discussion and people didn't like the fact that you got post count from them. This wouldn't have been an issue if it wasn't habbox and its silly ways but to be honest I couldn't have cared less whether they were moved or not. At the end of the day the argument was that a forum is for discussion and those threads weren't creating any.

I was in the loop as to what was happening in the department...if moderators at the time would have been told about it then I'm sure I would have known, but it wasn't and nobody was aware of the change except for the people who read the feedback thread. Does it really matter anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

It was created because the threads generate no discussion and people didn't like the fact that you got post count from them. This wouldn't have been an issue if it wasn't habbox and its silly ways but to be honest I couldn't have cared less whether they were moved or not. At the end of the day the argument was that a forum is for discussion and those threads weren't creating any.

---

You should probably read the other thread about this by @-:Undertaker:- as that's where the discussion lies. In short, the people who wanted the change said:

1. These threads are against the rules
2. People brag about post counts.
3. Post counts are important.
4. New users were abusing these threads.

However, these claims are incredibly weak.

Firstlly, they're not against the rules as the rule states that posts are pointless if they contain fewer than two words. There was an average of 5 in the "What are you listening to..." thread.
Secondly, no one brags about post counts.
Thirdly, the ranking system shows that post counts aren't that important. A bit of math in some of these threads and you would discover the average number of posts was about 938 posts per person a year, which isn't a lot.
Lastly, if new users are keeping active on the forum because of these threads then they should be praised as member count is incredibly important and to make change for the sake of change without considering member actively is completely ridiculous.

Also, the argument for "a forum is a place of discussion" is silly. A forum is actually a place to share ideas, tastes, hobbies, interests etc. etc. Whether discussion comes out of it is up to the users, and quite a few threads do not really make for a discussion - quite a few users as far as I can tell just make one post in a thread and that's it. Are you going to attack members in the Tech forum who reply to "help" threads once and never come back? That's hardly a discussion, more a contribution. Besides, if people are putting the effort into posting then surely these threads have a point?

As far as I'm concerned, if it hasn't dented forum activity then it really doesn't matter where the threads are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Firstlly, they're not against the rules as the rule states that posts are pointless if they contain fewer than two words. There was an average of 5 in the "What are you listening to..." thread.

---

So a post can't be pointless if it has over 2 words? You're just being pedantic now.

Quote:

---

Secondly, no one brags about post counts.

---

Yes they do.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, the ranking system shows that post counts aren't that important. A bit of math in some of these threads and you would discover the average number of posts was about 938 posts per person a year, which isn't a lot.

---

Don't really get what your point here is. They are superfluous, yes I agree, but they should still reflect a user's actual activity, not the amount one person can spam a thread pointlessly.

Quote:

---

Lastly, if new users are keeping active on the forum because of these threads then they should be praised as member count is incredibly important and to make change for the sake of change without considering member actively is completely ridiculous.

---

So you're suggesting rewarding and congratulating members for spamming with pointless posts? They can still post in them - like you said, post counts aren't important so why would a new member care if their post count went up or not? Your argument is full of loopholes.

Quote:

---

Also, the argument for "a forum is a place of discussion" is silly. A forum is actually a place to share ideas, tastes, hobbies, interests etc. etc. Whether discussion comes out of it is up to the users, and quite a few threads do not really make for a discussion - quite a few users as far as I can tell just make one post in a thread and that's it. Are you going to attack members in the Tech forum who reply to "help" threads once and never come back? That's hardly a discussion, more a contribution. Besides, if people are putting the effort into posting then surely these threads have a point?

---

If a thread doesn't promote discussion at all, then it is a spam thread, at the end of the day. Threads such as - 'Who is you favourite artist?' would promote discussion (probably) as members could compare and suggest similar artists to people who share a similar music taste.

As for members who make 1 post then never return to the thread - the change wasn't made because of that; it was made because of the people that post thousands of times in it, boosting their post count so they can get extra privileges, and boast about it to other people. Contributing is fine; spamming is not.

Think about it - what's the POINT of a 'Post what you're listening to' thread? All other threads have a point - to let people know about the latest Habbo updates; to get help fixing a technology problem; whereas the threads in the Assorted/Misc forum literally have no point to them (aka pointless which is what we class as spam) as the majority of users couldn't give a flying rat's ass what everyone else is listening to.