Staff resignations

[Casanova]

It was probably removed because it was a paragraph aimed at Dave rather than a constructive post which was on topic.

I added something constructive and I was replying to the fact he tries to feebly pick apart everything I said. It was on topic for two reasons, a response to someone is constructive (which it was) and adding an on topic side line makes it on topic?

Have you forgotten how to use a forum?


I'm sure in the past there's been times when people have actually been promoted when they weren't next in line. For instance, cosmic? He was thought better for the job and moved from moderator to features manager? Whereas the normal case (i think) is a super moderator gets moved to features. not straight to manager?

I think it's just unfair and actively works against a "good" member of staff as "good" if they're leaving?
It's fair enough under personal turmoil but a lot of members of staff leave for other jobs, fansites, activity. Not proper personal reasons (such as rosie when her internet didn't work - she didn't even go straight back into her job in that case?)

[The Don]

I'd rather have a great GM who is loyal than one which isn't.

I'd rather have a GM who has resigned a couple of times in the past but who is fantastic in the role rather than a rubbish but persistent GM.

[Casanova]

I'd rather have a GM who has resigned a couple of times in the past but who is fantastic in the role rather than a rubbish but persistent GM.

I get what you're saying but I remember matt being next in line. A few people assumed he wouldn't be up to the job?
I think he has proven time and time again he is the right guy for the job. He has a good following, people respect him and he's quite alright most of the time?

I think it would be unfair to go on assumptions instead of giving a chance to someone new. I think it's only fair people are given a chance even if they aren't the best bet - it's worked before?

Why should you have to take a flaky GM on then?


Oli resigned an awful lot, people assumed he'd be good and it turned out for a lot he wasn't?

[The Don]

I added something constructive and I was replying to the fact he tries to feebly pick apart everything I said. It was on topic for two reasons, a response to someone is constructive (which it was) and adding an on topic side line makes it on topic?

Have you forgotten how to use a forum?


I'm sure in the past there's been times when people have actually been promoted when they weren't next in line. For instance, cosmic? He was thought better for the job and moved from moderator to features manager? Whereas the normal case (i think) is a super moderator gets moved to features. not straight to manager?

I think it's just unfair and actively works against a "good" member of staff as "good" if they're leaving?
It's fair enough under personal turmoil but a lot of members of staff leave for other jobs, fansites, activity. Not proper personal reasons (such as rosie when her internet didn't work - she didn't even go straight back into her job in that case?)

No, I haven't forgotten how to use the forum, it would however, appear that you've forgotten how to use manners.

I think that whoever will be strongest in the role should get the position regardless of past resignations.

[Chippiewill]

I'd rather have a GM who has resigned a couple of times in the past but who is fantastic in the role rather than a rubbish but persistent GM.

Thou hath managed to repeateth thou self and addeth nought to our discussion.

-

Well clearly someone who keeps leaving and returning frequently is causing more of a hassle than they're solving, so much work goes into changing GMs around and then Jin spends a week making his mind up. Not that this change would affect GMs in any case since Jin never really cared much for rules.

I an exceedingly happy that your opinions on our staff have absolutely no impact with regards to if they're actually hired or not because your attitude you present toward other people could not be more horrific

I don't know if actively posting as an AGM automatically makes you bad-mannered or if you're trying to do a terrible impression of Oli because you think it's humorous but there's really no need to make snide comments about a forum user in a position such as yours. I see no reason as to why management can not retain a level of professional even if they take abuse. Granted Casanova really shouldn't be cursing and raging as much as he is since it isn't really that productive (In fact he should probably go lie down for a few hours so he can calm down) but rather than thinking that because you're management it's your right to be rude publicly and slander a forum user perhaps you can do the mature thing and direct a forum moderator to moderate the post and tell him to stop being so rude, rather than moderating it yourself from a biased perspective (Which as far as I can see results in the over the top response of moving the post so no one can see it).

[The Don]

Thou hath managed to repeateth thou self and addeth nought to our discussion.

-

Well clearly someone who keeps leaving and returning frequently is causing more of a hassle than they're solving, so much work goes into changing GMs around and then Jin spends a week making his mind up. Not that this change would affect GMs in any case since Jin never really cared much for rules.


I don't know if actively posting as an AGM automatically makes you bad-mannered or if you're trying to do a terrible impression of Oli because you think it's humorous but there's really no need to make snide comments about a forum user in a position such as yours. I see no reason as to why management can not retain a level of professional even if they take abuse. Granted Casanova really shouldn't be cursing and raging as much as he is since it isn't really that productive (In fact he should probably go lie down for a few hours so he can calm down) but rather than thinking that because you're management it's your right to be rude publicly and slander a forum user perhaps you can do the mature thing and direct a forum moderator to moderate the post and tell him to stop being so rude, rather than moderating it yourself from a biased perspective (Which as far as I can see results in the over the top response of moving the post so no one can see it).

Well this discussion is going nowhere, I've said my opinion a dozen times, it's going round in circles and it's boring me. obviously we have differing opinions which is fair enough, there isn't much more to say. I still disagree with a DNH List.

Oh, and on your comment about Dave, i'm not too sure if you read the post Allan made before it got removed, but it wasn't the most polite paragraph.

[Chippiewill]

Oh, and on your comment about Dave, i'm not too sure if you read the post Allan made before it got removed, but it wasn't the most polite paragraph.

Well, perhaps it deserved removal, but I reckon in this case it's more of a result of overreaction because it's an AGM.

I've said my opinion a dozen times, it's going round in circles and it's boring me.

That was the point I was trying to make about you repeating yourself.

[MissAlice]

I have read some of this thread, and would like to make a suggestion. A Procedure, not a rule.

I don’t know what others think, but as a member when I see resignations regularly being announced, my first instinct rightly or wrongly is, ‘has that department got issues?’ It can give off an air of instability and perhaps weakness in that department. Not the impression I would have thought Habbox wants to portray. The same can be said when we continually see the same applications open again. High staff turnarounds can imply there are problems within that department. Only announce resignations when it's final.

Anyone resigning in a position lower than that of senior management or who are not site staff and moderators (who maintain the boards) should not be allowed to return within 4 weeks, and should return as a trialist if they choose to re-apply. If a member of staff is that dedicated and committed they will think very carefully before resigning.

Senior Management should use their discretion if a Manager of a department wishes to return, after resigning. You guys know if they can be replaced easily, have been difficult to manage or have been bad for morale, or if they are the best person for the job.

I do think staff should be allowed some kind of sabbatical, a set period (perhaps 2-4 weeks maximum) of leave so they can study for exams etc. Their permissions should be removed and a record kept of their expected return date. Providing they return within the date set, they should be reinstated.

[Casanova]

it didn't deserve removal, they won't even message me a quote of what i said, where it was rude etc? So without proof I can't really defend myself on that one.

I think a year on the DNH might be over the top but everything else that's been said i'd agree with

[The Don]

Well, perhaps it deserved removal, but I reckon in this case it's more of a result of overreaction because it's an AGM.


That was the point I was trying to make about you repeating yourself.

Yes, I kept repeating myself because this debate was going nowhere, We had reached conclusions and were merely repeating ourselves.

Do you agree with a DNH list?