Moderators need to review rule B11

[The Professor]

Management treats us like dirt, obviously moderators arnt going to say that because they will most likely get fired. All they do is take you on, tell you to read the guide and get on with it. 'Mistakes are expected'
Mistakes arnt recieved that well with forum members receiving pointless infractions and edits etc.

I have to say I completely disagree there. Counting management as the super mods and Elkaa (and J1MI when he was forum manager) each has been very helpful when I have made decisions that were seen to be wrong. They weren't patronising or arrogant about it, simply pointed out errors.

As for the way trialists are introduced, this is pretty standard across all departments. The guide is often more than adequate at explaining what should be done in most situations, and the moderator's judgement does the rest. Trying to guide a person too much is detremental to the performance of the person, and simply demotivates them and makes them feel controlled. Giving them free riegn and nudging them back when they step out of line is far more effective.

Hmmm, there seems to be a problem with communication between moderators and the manager... What does this guide go through exactly? Because you don't really need a redicuously big guide to follow, a short pocket version is good enough... Or you could code one on the habbox site which works like a Habbo FAQ system, where you click a link which briefly sums up what it's about in a sentence and opens a full, detailed paragraph or so of what to do etc. It would beat a guide, as moderating is common sense (if I remember correctly from working as a moderator). A guide that explains too much confuses people.

Personally I think the guide should be made public so the members can see EXACTLY how we moderate, so we can't keep using the excuse "the guide told us to" and members getting annoyed because they can't argue that. There isn't anything to hide in the guide, simply 50,000 pages of guidelines that need consensing, and I'm sure the members and council can assist with that

[sierk]

I think that the rule about posting pointlessly should only be applied when members post complete nonsense. If there is any kind of relation to a previous post it should be allowed.

[GommeInc]

Personally I think the guide should be made public so the members can see EXACTLY how we moderate, so we can't keep using the excuse "the guide told us to" and members getting annoyed because they can't argue that. There isn't anything to hide in the guide, simply 50,000 pages of guidelines that need consensing, and I'm sure the members and council can assist with that

That would be a good idea, because moderators and management could lie themselves out of a situation (not that they would, or I hope they wouldn't ) so it would be good if a short guide about moderating was shown. Like how they deal with events, because in a way it will reflect how a member should act. But judging by some of Elkaa's posts that include not mentioning even the slightest detail about 'behind the scenes', he will be against it.

I think that the rule about posting pointlessly should only be applied when members post complete nonsense. If there is any kind of relation to a previous post it should be allowed.

Indeed, perhaps a remind of the forum/moderator manager should be done?

[risque]

I think that the rule about posting pointlessly should only be applied when members post complete nonsense. If there is any kind of relation to a previous post it should be allowed.

I concur.

[today]

I think that the rule about posting pointlessly should only be applied when members post complete nonsense. If there is any kind of relation to a previous post it should be allowed.

Hmm i agree there

[Slowpoke]

It's a pretty harsh rule I agree. I have had two warnings for pointless posting and I don't agree with it.

[today]

I always thought the pointless posting was simply a post edit only!?

[Jordy]

I speak from experience here and it is true, Moderator's aren't pressured into target's or logs. You where just expected to get a reasonable amount of logs, if you didn't it was just accepted and you where expected to improve, and the case was if you didn't get enough in the monthly-a-so Moderator report quite regularly you got the sack, which I think is very fair. There is no set target's and your not pressured at all into getting loads.

Some Moderator's just tend to make targets for themselves, so they either 'Go up in the world' or just to make a mark in the forums, this isn't Habbox's fault.

I agree Pointless Posting is getting a bit silly and it does need to re-worded. Despite all this 'Habbox is Big Brother, I don't think the Pointless Posting rule is hard enough. I won't drop any names but loads of people are continually making useless replies cause of 'Loop-holes'. Here's a lame example, sorry I couldn't think of a better one

Someone creates a thread 'What is the date of bonfire night?'
'5th of November'
'It's the the 5th of November'
'I agree it's the 5th of November'
'I think it's the 5th of November
'5th of November'

It happens so much and people are ranking up their post-count so easily by repeating what has already been said, it makes reading threads a right nuisance at times. I'd really like to see this 'Loop-hole' looked into, as it's Pointless posting but they can get away with saying what's already been said.

[today]

I agree there when people repeat what others say over and over again when its not needed. It really is annoying and i would count it as spam.

Specially in the case of above example.

[Slowpoke]

I always thought the pointless posting was simply a post edit only!?

obviously not