Moderator Applications

[FlyingJesus]

And? I must be missing your point...

Not sure what further explanation such a point needs it's simply "x made y decision, x isn't always right therefore y may not have been a good choice"

That's not to say that he hasn't done a great job over the years, for the vast vast majority I do think he's been great, I just don't think that the owner disliking a member ought to override what a department manager feels that person can bring to the table - if that's to be the case there's no point having managers

[Johnysk8r]

I have been browsing this forum for the past hour or so and read about this guy being chosen as moderator, despite only being registered for 2 months.

One question. Why the hell is a heap of people having a cry because their application was clearly rubbish.

Can I just say something too, I registered on this forum 3 years ago, but never active. What if I were to apply as a moderator, even with my extremely low activity. Would I expect to be accepted, haha **** no. Even if I were to have an amazing application, would I expect to be accepted? **** no. Why? Because I am not active, and not useful on this forum. Who gives a **** if you've been on this forum for **** knows how long, it is based on ability and attitude.
Clearly this Apple guy has the right attitude, and isn't a complete fool.

Obviously I don't have a CLEAR understanding of what is happening, but you know, I have a little understanding and if you're complaining, you're a fool.

[Samantha]

Thats a complete and utter lie / excuse, I got hired as habbox staff a while back & got fired hours later because 'management had made a mistake'. Don't say its different because its not. I hope your not saying general management were being unfair / unprofessional on my part

THIS!!

I just completely realised that I got offered a Rare Values Trial as I applied and my application was to an high standard, I didn't provide a rare value report as Dan (Undertaker) knew my strengths from the past, and hours later it was taken away from me as I was on the do not hire list.
I then managed to have an extreme word with Matt Garner as I had always applied for jobs, not knowing I was on the list.
So basically, if I didn't know I was on the list, surely if they made a mistake, they could have observed me to see if I broke anymore rules, not to take the trial away as I applied and my application was strong.

So basically agree with you Richie in that respect, I know it's a completely different reason but in my opinion I feel it's quite similar, it's just taking someone's trial just because they don't meet the standards needed.
However, I did not want the trial by the time I got fired again, and was on the verge of resignation myself, so Matt Garner did me a favour in that respect.


However, I do feel Apple should have been given the trial!


Also, I applied for moderation on this current account i'm on now in May 2010, as you can see it isn't 3 months old, and I noticed that so told the manager at the time, that on my other (banned) account, I had been active for over a year. My application was by far the most pathetic excuse of an application ever, and I knew that, but I didn't know about the dnhl at the time, but as I said Apple was worthy of the trial.

[Grig]

As management I always wanted to take risks and it was my downfall at the end for arguing on a risk taking move. Risks should be made and I am in full support in this.

[nvrspk4]

Not sure what further explanation such a point needs it's simply "x made y decision, x isn't always right therefore y may not have been a good choice"

That's not to say that he hasn't done a great job over the years, for the vast vast majority I do think he's been great, I just don't think that the owner disliking a member ought to override what a department manager feels that person can bring to the table - if that's to be the case there's no point having managers

I guess you missed my point, anyone can make mistakes and that's well and good, the owner's judgement is still going to matter the most regardless of whether he does or doesn't make mistakes. The department manager can make their case, but the owner has the final say.

Managers are responsible to those above them - just because they can be overruled doesn't make them pointless. And the assumption is being made that it was because he "didn't like them." There was probably a specific reason that can't be disclosed. I know from my own experience that there have been many times when Managers didn't wait for staff to be fully vetted before announcing and I made them withdraw the offer because there was something unacceptable.

As far as whether or not it can be done, I think people are mistaking Bolt's opinion for Habbox Policy. From what I see from Bolt's post, its his opinion that the reversal of a trial shouldn't occur. While I don't necessarily agree, he can have that opinion and he won't initiate any reversals himself. I'm sure if General Management or the ownership saw a problem with the hiring, they will override it I'm sure, and as manager Bolt could present his case, but it would be ultimately their decision. Unless General Management is also of the same position, in which case its a change in Habbox Policy, which does happen.

[Callum.]

Biggest thing is probably how active you are. I applied a few times, but was never fully active and just did it for the sake of it, even though I had little experience. It doesn't take long to become adapted to a forum, 2 months is way more than needed so the whole "know the ins and outs" as someone complained in another thread is pretty irrelivent. Getting like 900 posts in 2 months, not including spam so probably in the thousands obviously shows activity and he seems a mature guy and will most likely pass his trial.

I do think it should have just been 'He's been accepted, final' though, without the need of these excuses which then get things like this, rightly so as well.

[Chippiewill]

In my honest opinion, two months of being on the forum with good behaviour should be treated exactly the same as two months of good behaviour after a terrible record.

[Jamesy]

In my honest opinion, two months of being on the forum with good behaviour should be treated exactly the same as two months of good behaviour after a terrible record.

Thats rather a prejudiced view. Why should they be treated the same? One user who has registered and really gotten on board in the community is no way comparable to a member who pissed about for god knows how long and then had a good streak. Although people change, it's silly to tar both with the same brush.

[Chippiewill]

Actually there was more than just one point there, just because you don't know someone's past doesn't mean you should trust them.

That person could have come from a different forum after screwing up there and wanting to improve. Why should either have different opportunities?

[Callum.]

Yeah I've always wondered about the whole good behaviour thing. Most people have mucked around at one time or other, unless they had other Habbox jobs and worked their way up. I messed around for a bit, which is probably why I didn't get hired.

People who haven't been here as long just haven't had their muck around phase yet... and it normally comes. With the whole rebel against some stupid decision and then mess around to show how cool you are then realising you put the rest of your Habbox future jobs in jepardy.