Usernotes

[Tintinnabulate]

Saurav that'd be dumb because then you wouldn't have any other 'lifelines', it would be an auto infraction.

No. Warnings will replace usernotes. Warnings will be less severe and that way we can see our history.

[Nixt]

No. Warnings will replace usernotes. Warnings will be less severe and that way we can see our history.

The general consensus was that warnings, regardless of how we might promote them as "less severe" would be considered a lot more harsh than a polite PM from a Moderator, particularly for newer members who will be quite put off by a strike on their account compared with a friendly and guiding PM from a member of the Moderation team. I am inclined to agree.

[AgnesIO]

The general consensus was that warnings, regardless of how we might promote them as "less severe" would be considered a lot more harsh than a polite PM from a Moderator, particularly for newer members who will be quite put off by a strike on their account compared with a friendly and guiding PM from a member of the Moderation team. I am inclined to agree.

That's all good, however, as an older member, I think the "polite pm's" are sort of cheesy an. More of a "do it again an. We will warn you".

Although I wouldn't want warnings straight off as they make my profile look bad, an. Display on the postbit :L

[Tintinnabulate]

The general consensus was that warnings, regardless of how we might promote them as "less severe" would be considered a lot more harsh than a polite PM from a Moderator, particularly for newer members who will be quite put off by a strike on their account compared with a friendly and guiding PM from a member of the Moderation team. I am inclined to agree.

I understand what you are saying. I thought this might be a bit of a compromise of an idea, thats all. Also infraction PMs can easily be edited so they seem more friendly.

[Catzsy]

The current system is fine and this 'discretion crap' works a lot better than how things used to be where there were strict, unwavering guidelines which led to robotic moderation and repeatedly harsh and unfair decisions. Allowing Moderators an element of discretion was a key part of myself and Oli's rewrite of the rules and revamped Moderator guide which whilst making things quite clear, encouraged Moderators to use an element of common sense in their application of the rules and guidelines which they are expected to follow. Discretion is good, and I think this is reflected in the quality of the Moderation at Habbox Forum today which receives considerably less complaints than in the past.

Regarding user notes specifically, I am confident that all Moderators have an idea that user notes posted months ago do not necessarily reflect the current behaviour of that user and they will consider this when moderating rule breaking posts. All the same, there will inevitably be some situations where older (than two months) user notes will be used and this is down to the discretion of the individual moderator. A case in point - a user bullies someone repeatedly six months ago, and narrowly manages to avoid a ban. They take a six month 'break' and behave perfectly. Then, all of a sudden, bullying of that member resumes with the user being fully aware they have been punished for it in the past. The older user notes will be taken into consideration here to deal with serial offenders or offenders who like to think they can beat the system and go through quiet periods.

The Moderators and Administrators of this forum aren't stupid, and are not going to take into account a pointless post six months ago when dealing with the here and now. Nevertheless, user notes provide a valuable 'bigger picture' and will continue to be used in both their long and short term capacities.

I can see where you are coming from Garion but surely that is the exception to the rule rather than a set standard.
Josh agrees with me that it was 2 months as it matched the the length of the expiry date of the warnings/infractions which seems logical. I have never known it to be 6 months generally since the time that warnings/infractions were reduced to 2 months unless that was changed recently. In fact warnings given on older user notes used to be reversed for this reason, As far as bullying/racism is concerned there shouldn't be a pm as far as I am concerned it should go straight to a warning/infraction and I do believe there is written procedure in the moderation manual that covers this.

[Nixt]

I can see where you are coming from Garion but surely that is the exception to the rule rather than a set standard.
Josh agrees with me that it was 2 months as it matched the the length of the expiry date of the warnings/infractions which seems logical. I have never known it to be 6 months generally since the time that warnings/infractions were reduced to 2 months unless that was changed recently. In fact warnings given on older user notes used to be reversed for this reason, As far as bullying/racism is concerned there shouldn't be a pm as far as I am concerned it should go straight to a warning/infraction and I do believe there is written procedure in the moderation manual that covers this.

In fairness I didn't anywhere in my post say that this was the set standard, I was merely explaining why user notes that exceed the two month period may still be considered and why they remain a valuable tool for Moderators and Administrators alike. The example I gave was purely hypothetical but is applicable to all areas of rule breaking. My post did say that as a general rule Moderators have the common sense and intelligence to only check recent user notes - as demonstrated by both your agreement with Josh and the fact that there has never, to my knowledge, been an obvious problem where user notes from months ago have played a key part in the moderation of today's rule breaking (bar exceptional circumstances).

The fact is this isn't really an issue, and I do feel that an issue is being made out of nothing. It is a given that Moderators will not consider user notes that are months old and they are knowledgeable enough to apply their own discretion as to when a user note is or is not relevant. My post was aimed at expanding on Jamesy's point and explaining the only circumstances in which older user notes will be addressed, and the reasons why.

[Catzsy]

In fairness I didn't anywhere in my post say that this was the set standard, I was merely explaining why user notes that exceed the two month period may still be considered and why they remain a valuable tool for Moderators and Administrators alike. The example I gave was purely hypothetical but is applicable to all areas of rule breaking. My post did say that as a general rule Moderators have the common sense and intelligence to only check recent user notes - as demonstrated by both your agreement with Josh and the fact that there has never, to my knowledge, been an obvious problem where user notes from months ago have played a key part in the moderation of today's rule breaking (bar exceptional circumstances).

The fact is this isn't really an issue, and I do feel that an issue is being made out of nothing. It is a given that Moderators will not consider user notes that are months old and they are knowledgeable enough to apply their own discretion as to when a user note is or is not relevant. My post was aimed at expanding on Jamesy's point and explaining the only circumstances in which older user notes will be addressed, and the reasons why.

Well Jamesy, Martin and Sarah have all said '6 months' which to my best belief was never the norm but the exception so that why I queried it as it does not give the right impression as surely 2 months is the norm with discretion to go back further in exceptional circumstances.

[flatface]

Well Jamesy, Martin and Sarah have all said '6 months' which to my best belief was never the norm but the exception so that why I queried it as it does not give the right impression as surely 2 months is the norm with discretion to go back further in exceptional circumstances.

Couldn't agree more, I never heard of this 6 month cut off when I was in the department. For a standard rule break you shouldn't need to go back further then 2 months so like said above it should be 2 months (not 6) with discretion to go back further in some circumstances. Less confusing and sounds more logical.