positive rep

[scottish]

Yeah, there should be so many posts they have to do on public forums per month and failing that it'd be noted in their report that they failed to meet the activity required (i.e. the 5 hour rule in hxhd) then 3 consecutive weeks of it = fired, or any sequence (i.e. meets it 1 week skips 2 meets it next etc to attempt to avoid consequences/detection)

[Kyle]

staff dont sign up to become staff on the forum so i dont see why they should be made to post, but i think if you're offering them an incentive then it should be offered to all.

[Richie]

I say

• Let people give +rep as they please
• Give the posting competition feature that staff have to everyone
• Keep monitoring negative rep
• Continue to give rep out in events and other competitions

[Mathew]

Once you start dismissing people for not posting then it creates an extremely negative atmosphere as people are constantly running the risk of losing their jobs. People should be encouraged to post and interact with the community through positive reinforcement, not negative. Users are always claiming that staff are treated differently (receiving rep for posting) and it's seen as a bad thing. Why not apply that logic to this situation, because it's only seen as a problem when it appears to benefit them?

[Richie]

Once you start dismissing people for not posting then it creates an extremely negative atmosphere as people are constantly running the risk of losing their jobs. People should be encouraged to post and interact with the community through positive reinforcement, not negative. Users are always claiming that staff are treated differently (receiving rep for posting) and it's seen as a bad thing. Why not apply that logic to this situation, because it's only seen as a problem when it appears to benefit them?

If the new feature is working then I don't see how introducing the feature to all users would suddenly make staff stop posting I disagree with warning people for not posting around the forums, it's like remelkiid or grig telling me I must attend events or I'd be fired, they'd be told to stuff it.

[Martin]

I definitely don't think staff should be fired for not reaching a post count, I think thats a bit too far. You may as well issue normal members with a ban if they don't reach it too in that case. I don't get this whole division between normal members and staff in terms of posting- If people want to post they should do it because they are genuinely interested in doing so. Otherwise you just get a load of crap posts with crap quality churned out because people are trying to hit a number rather than actually creating and taking part in interesting and worthwhile discussion. I think that a longterm posting incentive (not competition) overall would be good though. That being said, posting around the forum seems to have improved a little bit lately, without so much blatant spammy type posts around, I have seen lots more genuine discussions. Staff should realise that they are part of a community and make attempts to interact with that community in all aspects (not just on Habbo), but I know for a fact some staff (such as certain DJ's, EO's and other Habbo based roles) see it as just a job that they do to help that area of Habbox, and posting doesnt really come into that. Incentives are good, but competitions designed for posting are bad in my eyes and looks quite desperate when im sure there are other ways to promote discussion and the general activity of the forum.

In terms of the rep issue, I dont personally see how positive rep can be pointless. There seems to be more and more ways to get positive rep now, be it competitions, VIP, people etc, and unless someone is blatantly giving a user reputation every time the system allows them with not even a comment as to why then I guess that would be a bit odd, but its generally a case that the member likes something the other member has said done. I know people often +reo everyone who has thanked them in a congrats thread too and I guess that follows the same principal. Negative rep can definitely be abused and I feel this is the one which needs to be kept as it is and monitored more often. The report rep thread seems to do a good job of this. Not too sure what peoples opinions are on the space between being able to +rep someone more than once but I guess this does help prevent the system being abused too. I just think there is a very wide margin between what people interpret as being pointless rep and could be seen very different in peoples eyes since the reason may not always be evident when someone is issuing the rep.

[Mathew]

If the new feature is working then I don't see how introducing the feature to all users would suddenly make staff stop posting I disagree with warning people for not posting around the forums, it's like remelkiid or grig telling me I must attend events or I'd be fired, they'd be told to stuff it.

Ah, I was replying to Scott when he was saying that staff should be fired for not posting. Normal users aren't penalised for not posting, so staff shouldn't either - after all, we all strive for a bit of equality. Like Hippies. In Hawaii. Peace.

[scottish]

Once you start dismissing people for not posting then it creates an extremely negative atmosphere as people are constantly running the risk of losing their jobs. People should be encouraged to post and interact with the community through positive reinforcement, not negative. Users are always claiming that staff are treated differently (receiving rep for posting) and it's seen as a bad thing. Why not apply that logic to this situation, because it's only seen as a problem when it appears to benefit them?

It's not though as it'd be like a warning per one, and if they had a valid reason for not posting then they'd get let off, the number of posts doesn't need to be stupidly high even a low amount say 20 would show a lot more staff activity and general activity in forum would go up.

They'd have like 3 weeks to post under the limit before being fired.

[xxMATTGxx]

In terms of posting on the actual forum, June was one the best months we have had so far this year.

[Samantha]

I remember telling one of my staff members who kept going on about it wasn't their job to post (they are in 2 community roles therefore I think it's important for them to post) that I wouldn't mind warning them, I remember saying staff will post because they want to not because they have to, I think if someone is so into disagreeing that they should post then they shouldn't really be staff (in said roles they are in) or at least they could join a content role? Their current roles can't do anything really due to the mute so I think they should easily be able to create 30 posts across the week. Now maybe warning them would be harsh but I think if it's a consistent thing (and if they have been active in the staff forums) then they should be warned or at least told. MattG said it was upto the managers if we wanted to warn them or not and I'm always in two minds about it (and haven't done it) as it's a new thing and staff need to settle into it. The main line is that if they don't do 30 posts they don't get 20 rep and again I agree with that (they don't get that incentive but shouldn't then get warned because of it).

I feel putting it to the whole forum would be good though.