A question to people who post in this section regularly

[Catzsy]

I personally close threads in this forum in particular when I feel that the question has been answered appropriately, or a topic has been exhausted of all meaningful discussion.

I agree that there has to be evidence of arguments actually taking place before threads can be closed; however I find it strange that people can say this forum isn't interesting anymore because argument threads are closed. Does that mean that all you guys come here for is an argument? Clearly the forum has gone to pot, but not by effect of management :S

The reply was in response to something Aflux said but what i think they mean is that they can't air their views i.e. diasgree with each other without it being closed. There is a great deal of difference between constructive disagreement which happens in this forum everyday between members and all levels of management and argument which includes personal abuse or insults. I think its the definition of argument that needs looking at. E.G. Question Time on TV is full of arguments and disagreements but thats acceptable however I do not think that any personal insults would be acceptable on the show.

Members like having fun and a bit of a banter and perhaps they feel it is this that is being censored too much. Just my opinion though.

[GommeInc]

The reply was in response to something Aflux said but what i think they mean is that they can't air their views i.e. diasgree with each other without it being closed. There is a great deal of difference between constructive disagreement which happens in this forum everyday between members and all levels of management and argument which includes personal abuse or insults. I think its the definition of argument that needs looking at. E.G. Question Time on TV is full of arguments and disagreements but thats acceptable however I do not think that any personal insults would be acceptable on the show.

Members like having fun and a bit of a banter and perhaps they feel it is this that is being censored too much. Just my opinion though.

Personal insults should be allowed unless they go a step to far. I doubt anyone on the forum has been upset or distraught after an argument, becuase they're short term insults and really, are just there to liven up discussion.

"It's that you stupid pleb" is acceptable unless the member who was called a pleb thinks otherwise. What Habbox Moderators, Management and Admins need to learn is that they're not the ones being insulted and they should not take offence. It's only if the member being 'insulted' takes offence and reports it. If they do, don't touch the thread unless severe rule breaking breaks out.

They could save themselves alot of time and effort if they enforce members to report posts, that is afterall why that button is there.

[Adzeh]

The reply was in response to something Aflux said but what i think they mean is that they can't air their views i.e. diasgree with each other without it being closed. There is a great deal of difference between constructive disagreement which happens in this forum everyday between members and all levels of management and argument which includes personal abuse or insults. I think its the definition of argument that needs looking at. E.G. Question Time on TV is full of arguments and disagreements but thats acceptable however I do not think that any personal insults would be acceptable on the show.

Members like having fun and a bit of a banter and perhaps they feel it is this that is being censored too much. Just my opinion though.

Well the banter aspect is something you could raise if you were appointed to the Habbox Council, which I personally feel has a great chance of happening.

With regards to disagreements, I do believe that members should be allowed to disagree with each other. However, as you say, the line between argument and disagreement is so fine, that friendly disagreements are often mistaken for full blown arguments and the thread is closed.

I try to overcome this, in this forum in particular, by choosing the close a thread if it meets any of the following criteria:

• Disagreement becomes so far gone that the original point of the thread is no longer being discussed
• Genuine disagreement results in mindless insults being thrown at different members/staff
• The disagreement is filtering in from a different thread, and the appropriate thread is not being used

As I'm sure you'll appreciate as a forum super mod, every moderator has their own style, and interprets the rules in different ways. Where one moderator can see an argument, another may see an interesting discussion. Unfortunately I doubt this problem could be overcome, unless we install some sort of hack which moderates the forums without need for human action; which of course is not possible .

Personal insults should be allowed unless they go a step to far. I doubt anyone on the forum has been upset or distraught after an argument, becuase they're short term insults and really, are just there to liven up discussion.

"It's that you stupid pleb" is acceptable unless the member who was called a pleb thinks otherwise. What Habbox Moderators, Management and Admins need to learn is that they're not the ones being insulted and they should not take offence. It's only if the member being 'insulted' takes offence and reports it. If they do, don't touch the thread unless severe rule breaking breaks out.

They could save themselves alot of time and effort if they enforce members to report posts, that is afterall why that button is there.

As I said in your rep comment, we cannot force members to report posts.

Also, people expect abuse to be sorted without having to report it. Imagine your reaction if somebody was offensive to you, in ront of a police man/woman, and the police man/woman did not do anything until you personally reported it to them that you found it offensive.

People would just act immaturely if we were to allow this sort of thing. They would claim that they found the slightest thing offensive, just to get people in trouble. It happens already, and would just escalate.

[Catzsy]

Well the banter aspect is something you could raise if you were appointed to the Habbox Council, which I personally feel has a great chance of happening.

With regards to disagreements, I do believe that members should be allowed to disagree with each other. However, as you say, the line between argument and disagreement is so fine, that friendly disagreements are often mistaken for full blown arguments and the thread is closed.

I try to overcome this, in this forum in particular, by choosing the close a thread if it meets any of the following criteria:

• Disagreement becomes so far gone that the original point of the thread is no longer being discussed
• Genuine disagreement results in mindless insults being thrown at different members/staff
• The disagreement is filtering in from a different thread, and the appropriate thread is not being used

As I'm sure you'll appreciate as a forum super mod, every moderator has their own style, and interprets the rules in different ways. Where one moderator can see an argument, another may see an interesting discussion. Unfortunately I doubt this problem could be overcome, unless we install some sort of hack which moderates the forums without need for human action; which of course is not possible .

I totally agree with your views apart from where you say that moderators
interpret rules in different ways. Yes they all have their own style which is applauded but a uniform system system of moderation is encouraged and to a great extent delivered under the present and past forum management by checking the standard of new moderators in particular and advising them of what the standard is to make sure it is constant and even handed all over the forum - it is pretty well explaned in the moderator guide which is quite comprehesive from what I remember. There also seems to be a lot of custom' editing' going on which used to be frowned upon deeply but this may have changed.

[GommeInc]

As I said in your rep comment, we cannot force members to report posts.

Also, people expect abuse to be sorted without having to report it. Imagine your reaction if somebody was offensive to you, in ront of a police man/woman, and the police man/woman did not do anything until you personally reported it to them that you found it offensive.

People would just act immaturely if we were to allow this sort of thing. They would claim that they found the slightest thing offensive, just to get people in trouble. It happens already, and would just escalate.

Then re-word it for the common situation.

What if I was arguing and being called names infront of police person, who then warned/banned (lol) my friend, but we were actually just playing around? This is the case loads of members suffer from incompitent moderators who warn first, think later.

I got a warning for calling someone a biznatch which isn't a swear word nor was it used inappropriately, which is the key word in this sentence. What seems inappropriate actually was just there to have fun and joke with friends, which some moderators seem to mis-judge. It's not about what moderator thinks what, it's that you've hired moderators who don't know the blindest bit about moderating...

Perhaps a guide on moderating is in order, and if a moderator warns for stupid reasons, they get warned themselves.

[Adzeh]

I totally agree with your views apart from where you say that moderators
interpret rules in different ways. Yes they all have their own style which is applauded but a uniform system system of moderation is encouraged and to a great extent delivered under the present and past forum management by checking the standard of new moderators in particular and advising them of what the standard is to make sure it is constant and even handed all over the forum - it is pretty well explaned in the moderator guide which is quite comprehesive from what I remember. There also seems to be a lot of custom' editing' going on which used to be frowned upon deeply but this may have changed.

Again, things liek custom edits would be something that would be brought up by the Habbox Council. I know that some of the General Management do not get real chance to post around the forums, and miss things like moderator edits etc..

Yes the moderator guide is good, and the management do coach the moderators and inform them of their mistakes; however it all does really come down to how a moderator perceives a post. It is extremely difficult for a moderator to take action or give an infraction/warning if they do not fully beloeve that rules are being broken. On the reverse, it is extremely easy for a moderator to give infractions/warnings if they do full believe rules are being broken.

We can give our moderators all the advice, coaching, and information in the world, but they still have to use their personal judgement to see that rules are being broken.

[GommeInc]

Informing of mistakes is far too gentle, they should be warned for continually abusing their powers. Afterall, badly reading the threads and infracting for the wrong reasons is, in terms of power, abuse.

What's the current way of dealing with malfunctioning moderators and staff? How do they get warned? A simple PM is far too simple, you need someone to do reports on each moderator (nothing complicated, just something monthly) and see what the appropriate form of action is. I suppose Moderators do have it tough lately, with the complicated rules which suggest any negativity should be removed from the boards immediately.

Ah yes, before I forget. It's not forcing members to report posts, just suggesting they should do if they witness rule breaking or abuse. Afterall, Moderators and the like can't be in two places at once

[Catzsy]

Again, things liek custom edits would be something that would be brought up by the Habbox Council. I know that some of the General Management do not get real chance to post around the forums, and miss things like moderator edits etc..

Yes the moderator guide is good, and the management do coach the moderators and inform them of their mistakes; however it all does really come down to how a moderator perceives a post. It is extremely difficult for a moderator to take action or give an infraction/warning if they do not fully beloeve that rules are being broken. On the reverse, it is extremely easy for a moderator to give infractions/warnings if they do full believe rules are being broken.

We can give our moderators all the advice, coaching, and information in the world, but they still have to use their personal judgement to see that rules are being broken.

Again agreed. The only comment I would have to make is to refer to the original post where Aflux has suggested that you could close a thread because he 'instinctively' knew when a thread was going to turn into an argument and it was never established whether he closed on his instincts or waited to see if it actually did turn into an argument. The thread starter has basically said that the moderation in the Web Section has become way too harsh and they are not allowed to have fun anymore which perhaps should be looked into.

[Adzeh]

Informing of mistakes is far too gentle, they should be warned for continually abusing their powers. Afterall, badly reading the threads and infracting for the wrong reasons is, in terms of power, abuse.

What's the current way of dealing with malfunctioning moderators and staff? How do they get warned? A simple PM is far too simple, you need someone to do reports on each moderator (nothing complicated, just something monthly) and see what the appropriate form of action is. I suppose Moderators do have it tough lately, with the complicated rules which suggest any negativity should be removed from the boards immediately.

Ah yes, before I forget. It's not forcing members to report posts, just suggesting they should do if they witness rule breaking or abuse. Afterall, Moderators and the like can't be in two places at once

A moderator is a person, not a piece of technology, and cannot therefore malfunction . I will also say that a mistake by a moderator does not count as a abuse. Abuse of powers is a serious affair, and is where a moderator knowingly uses their superior powers within a forum, without any need or warrant for it. In this case, the moderator is either severly warned or dismissed completely.

I would never for a moment agree that we should warn our moderators for making mistakes. Education and advice are the best way to ensure that the mistakes are not repeated, since it shows compassion to the staff from the management, instead of cold hard slavedriving. Remember, our moderators are volunteers, and it is not good practice for managers to be harsh on the efforts of a volunteer.

If mistakes are continually being made, then of course further action is needed. But in my experience, once a mistake has been made and the moderator in question has been confronted about it, the mistake will not happen again. The moderators do receive monthly reports by the management in which their infraction reversal ratios are discussed and any problems with moderating by the entire team, or individuals, are discussed.

Again agreed. The only comment I would have to make is to refer to the original post where Aflux has suggested that you could close a thread because he 'instinctively' knew when a thread was going to turn into an argument and it was never established whether he closed on his instincts or waited to see if it actually did turn into an argument. The thread starter has basically said that the moderation in the Web Section has become way too harsh and they are not allowed to have fun anymore which perhaps should be looked into.

Well I would agree that it was wrong to close a thread due to this, however I still back Aflux and his ability as a moderator; he is commited and professional in the way he does his work, qualities which are often hard to come by.

It is places like this that issues need to be brought up, and then the issues can be discussed with staff members in question. Providing the staff member can accept that they are in the wrong, and take measures to ensure that they shape their future work accordingly, I have absolutely no quarrels with a mistake being made.

If users in the Web section feel that moderation is becoming to harsh, they are always welcome to PM the (Assistant) Forum Manager who can look into it. A good measure of excessively harsh moderating is the infraction/warning reversal ratio in particular sections.

[GommeInc]

Malfunctioning was the best way to put it, and there a few moderators who do like to abuse their ability to warn and infract and they don't seem to learn. Their excuse is that "If you want it removed, report it" and they probably know they've done wrong.Obviously you can educate them, but if they don't learn, why keep them when they're causing problems for the administrators who have to remove the warnings? Abusing their powers doesn't necessarily mean, they're going to use them because they're higher than anyone, it means they're using them wrongly by using them whenever they see fit. They are, in this case abusing their powers. If they were abusing members, I would of simply said they're abusing the members, which is completely different.

There is a limit to educating a lost cause, and if they don't learn to read the main part of a story, why keep them when they're causing problems down the line for someone to remove the warnings? This is, of course related to the main reason this thread was created. There is something wrong with the moderation team, they're not learning to read into things. Someone may call another an idiot, but is that offensive? Not entirely, most of the time it's used playfully and truthfully. How else would you call someone idiotic, especially when the person on the receiving end is normally an idiot. It's not about the moderator having a personal look at something, if they remove threads which they predict will be argumentative in the very negative side of the word, then they shouldn't of been hired because their personal judgement is what, in reality, they're hired for. To hire a Moderator, they must have an analytic mind and read the facts before taking action with a personality that does this.