Competitons Staff.

[Chippiewill]

Could there please be a ban on competitions staff spamming <stupid comps url>

It was kinda funny at first however now it's thread hijacking, douchey, off-topic and just generally a nuisance.

This is what I mean:

I reckon v6 should be directly hyperlinked to <stupid comps url>

Keep the ideas coming in fellas, the more the better

Completely off topic statement and then a completely pointless statement so they don't get told off for posting off topic.

If a department has to resort to this for visits then they need to be replaced.

Edit, removed those comps urls for you.

[Inseriousity.]

Firstly, thanks for advertising. Much appreciated. Twice in one post, brilliant. Want a job?

Okay serious now, it's one post in a very big thread. Sure it's not exactly subtle and I think he should have posted an on-topic statement rather than hoping a generalised 'welcome to the forum' type reply would suffice. But certainly not something I'll be making a rule for.

[Chippiewill]

Okay serious now, it's one post in a very big thread. Sure it's not exactly subtle and I think he should have posted an on-topic statement rather than hoping a generalised 'welcome to the forum' type reply would suffice. But certainly not something I'll be making a rule for.

Put the URL in your signature first before you start invading Feedback threads otherwise I'll unleash a hella-fury of complaints onto your department because this is just stupid.

[Inseriousity.]

I often post the URL in my signature. Fancied a change.

now then, invasion. Do you work for the Daily Mail or something? What's with the scaremongering language? Let's put this into perspective now shall we? It is one post in a 3 page thread. Had the rest of the department gone in the thread and posted www.habbox.com/comps into it as well then I'd agree with you. However, it is simply something you could easily ignore and continue to add to the proper conversation while the moderators/Oli can be left to deal with the staff member under the existing rule of pointless posting. No need to make another rule.

As for complaints, feel free. I always like feedback

[Alex3213]

Although the post was off topic and didn't really relate much, I still do not think it should be banned. I think it's silly not to advertise, I know that I found it disappointing when no department was advertised. If I'm purely honest, before the URL in 2009, Competitions would certainly not be the department I am working for as it wasn't advertised enough and thus staying in the shadows.

Thanks for the feedback nonetheless but I feel it is stupid to implement a rule.

Oh and as to your comment on complaints, feel free as it can only improve the department. That is of course if they are actually related to the department.

[Chippiewill]

now then, invasion. Do you work for the Daily Mail or something? What's with the scaremongering language? Let's put this into perspective now shall we? It is one post in a 3 page thread. Had the rest of the department gone in the thread and posted <stupid comps url> into it as well then I'd agree with you. However, it is simply something you could easily ignore and continue to add to the proper conversation while the moderators/Oli can be left to deal with the staff member under the existing rule of pointless posting. No need to make another rule.

I'm not exactly sure how the frequency at which it is spammed around the forum is relevant. If a department is failing then exposure is the least of your problems.

[j0rd]

Seriously, could you of complained about anything less pathetic?

Mike might of advertised comps in one post, but you have just advertised that a completely pointless thread can actually get posts and waste peoples time

[Chippiewill]

This is to the same standard as the spam bots which occasionally get onto this forum, and just like them it shouldn't be allowed.

[Inseriousity.]

I'm not exactly sure how the frequency at which it is spammed around the forum is relevant. If a department is failing then exposure is the least of your problems.

Good thing it's not then
And it is relevant because you're suggesting making a new rule to stamp it out when actually it's not that frequent, therefore no rule required.

[Chippiewill]

Good thing it's not then
And it is relevant because you're suggesting making a new rule to stamp it out when actually it's not that frequent, therefore no rule required.

Are you saying that if only every 5000 posts someone makes a racist joke it should be allowed because it's 'not that frequent', no that's dumb.