Staff /+ forum usernames

[scottish]

oh I thought Kyle mentioned rep, i don't care about community staff names.

[Kyle]

Possibly. It was just to see how interested people would be if it was changed and it turns out that most people don't really care either way. For that reason, we decided that changing it would be more of a disadvantage than an advantage.

what the bloody hell is this nonsense lmfao the vote was 16/16 between those that 'don't care' and those that stated that they WOULD become staff because of it. that's against only 6 votes that said they wouldn't, who, if you read the thread, are either already staff or simply have no desire to become staff regardless.

the arguments against it were that it might become difficult to find or keep track of staff - chippiewill pointed out multiple times that that was not the case.

16 people would probably double the current active community staff pool and you've denied it because what? some people it doesn't apply to don't care about it? kk.

strongly advise that you avoid community polls if you aren't going to take their results and comments within their designated threads into account when making decisions.

[Chris]

what the bloody hell is this nonsense lmfao the vote was 16/16 between those that 'don't care' and those that stated that they WOULD become staff because of it. that's against only 6 votes that said they wouldn't, who, if you read the thread, are either already staff or simply have no desire to become staff regardless.

the arguments against it were that it might become difficult to find or keep track of staff - chippiewill pointed out multiple times that that was not the case.

16 people would probably double the current active community staff pool and you've denied it because what? some people it doesn't apply to don't care about it? kk.

strongly advise that you avoid community polls if you aren't going to take their results and comments within their designated threads into account when making decisions.

Right, look at this:

Voter 1 = Manager, name should be Habbo matched. (It needs changing)
Voter 2 = Manager but Habbo name not currently required.
Voter 3 = Manager but Habbo name not currently required.
Voter 4 = Staff, Habbo name not currently required.
Voter 5 = Has been staff previously. Has Habbo name anyway.
Voter 6 = Is community staff.
Voter 7 = Has been community staff in the past
Voter 8 = Is community staff
Voter 9 = Has been community staff in the past
Voter 10 = Is communtiy staff
Voter 11 = Is community staff
Voter 12 = Has been community staff in the past
Voter 13 = Is community staff
Voter 14 = Is community staff
Voter 15 = Is community staff
Voter 16 = Has been community staff

• 8 of the 16 voters are already community staff that are using their Habbo names.
• 5 of the 16 voters have been community staff in the past and have used their Habbo names. One of which still goes by their Habbo name.
• A mere 3 of the 16 voters have never been community staff or are not currently using their Habbo name.

So my points are this:

• If 8 people who votes yes already use their Habbo name, then what was the point in voting?
• if 5 of the people who voted yes didn't have a problem with using their Habbo name in the past, what is the problem now?

I'm sure you'll have something to say about that, but thats one of the reasons it was decided against.

[Kyle]

Right, look at this:

Voter 1 = Manager, name should be Habbo matched. (It needs changing)
Voter 2 = Manager but Habbo name not currently required.
Voter 3 = Manager but Habbo name not currently required.
Voter 4 = Staff, Habbo name not currently required.
Voter 5 = Has been staff previously. Has Habbo name anyway.
Voter 6 = Is community staff.
Voter 7 = Has been community staff in the past
Voter 8 = Is community staff
Voter 9 = Has been community staff in the past
Voter 10 = Is communtiy staff
Voter 11 = Is community staff
Voter 12 = Has been community staff in the past
Voter 13 = Is community staff
Voter 14 = Is community staff
Voter 15 = Is community staff
Voter 16 = Has been community staff

• 8 of the 16 voters are already community staff that are using their Habbo names.
• 5 of the 16 voters have been community staff in the past and have used their Habbo names. One of which still goes by their Habbo name.
• A mere 3 of the 16 voters have never been community staff or are not currently using their Habbo name.

So my points are this:

• If 8 people who votes yes already use their Habbo name, then what was the point in voting?
• if 5 of the people who voted yes didn't have a problem with using their Habbo name in the past, what is the problem now?

I'm sure you'll have something to say about that, but thats one of the reasons it was decided against.

This data has a lot less meaning unless it is presented alongside data of the no and don't care voters.

I don't believe that using the vote as some sort of recruitment drive was your intended purpose, it was - or should have been - to gather a consensus on what should be done about a long-redundant rule. Nevertheless, I'll highlight the fact that people who have been community staff in the past may be dissuaded from contributing further because of the obligation to change their name, that the staff member that voted yes who doesn't currently have to change his name used the vote as a suggestion that a more hands-on community-based role would be more appealing should he be allowed to keep his current name, and that the people who are already community staff voted yes because they want the freedom to express themselves on the forum with less association to their presentation of themselves within the hotel.

Could you provide the stats of the other votes

and you say "one of the reasons" but "what's the point voting if you're already using your habbo name?" is not, in my eyes, an actual reason. so what are your other arguments for keeping the rule in place, I wonder?

[lemons]

Edited by Calum0812 (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly, thanks

[Chris]

This data has a lot less meaning unless it is presented alongside data of the no and don't care voters.

I don't believe that using the vote as some sort of recruitment drive was your intended purpose, it was - or should have been - to gather a consensus on what should be done about a long-redundant rule. Nevertheless, I'll highlight the fact that people who have been community staff in the past may be dissuaded from contributing further because of the obligation to change their name, that the staff member that voted yes who doesn't currently have to change his name used the vote as a suggestion that a more hands-on community-based role would be more appealing should he be allowed to keep his current name, and that the people who are already community staff voted yes because they want the freedom to express themselves on the forum with less association to their presentation of themselves within the hotel.

Could you provide the stats of the other votes

and you say "one of the reasons" but "what's the point voting if you're already using your habbo name?" is not, in my eyes, an actual reason. so what are your other arguments for keeping the rule in place, I wonder?

Well no it doesn't need to be compared whatsoever. We're purely looking for potential additions to the community departments so we're uninterested in those who aren't going to have their minds changed by something as trivial as a username.

[Kyle]

Well no it doesn't need to be compared whatsoever. We're purely looking for potential additions to the community departments so we're uninterested in those who aren't going to have their minds changed by something as trivial as a username.

You're the one trivialising the issue. Why should somebody be barred from joining a department because of "something as trivial as a username"? My request for a comparison was to see how many of the no and don't care voters are (community) staff so would also not, in your view, contribute to the end result.

You yourself stated that 8 of the yes voters voted so because they were put off becoming community staff because of the rule. The fact that people have conformed to the rule in the past does not mean that they agreed with it, it was simply a minor issue that could be overcome. This isn't about it being a huge obstacle, it's about the impact of the potential removal of the rule on staff numbers. No obstacle is better than a small one. A factor of 8 would double the current events team and offer a large boost to other community departments. It's not an insignificant number. Plus there's the other 8 community staff who might be more inclined to stick with their roles if they have just that little more freedom around the forum.

[Chris]

You're the one trivialising the issue. Why should somebody be barred from joining a department because of "something as trivial as a username"? My request for a comparison was to see how many of the no and don't care voters are (community) staff so would also not, in your view, contribute to the end result.

You yourself stated that 8 of the yes voters voted so because they were put off becoming community staff because of the rule. The fact that people have conformed to the rule in the past does not mean that they agreed with it, it was simply a minor issue that could be overcome. This isn't about it being a huge obstacle, it's about the impact of the potential removal of the rule on staff numbers. No obstacle is better than a small one. A factor of 8 would double the current events team and offer a large boost to other community departments. It's not an insignificant number. Plus there's the other 8 community staff who might be more inclined to stick with their roles if they have just that little more freedom around the forum.

Well yes I am because thats all it is. It's a trivial issue that really does not matter and has not mattered for the many years it has been in place. I'm not against making changes if it makes sense to do so, but in this case it does not make sense to have to rework a system that already works well. We would still need to keep track of their Habbo names and having it as it is now not only makes it convenient for us, but convenient for other members too.

The majority of the yes voters are already community staff so it wouldn't affect them. 5 of those yes votes have been staff in the past, so they obviously don't have a problem with joining a community department under the current rules. Those 5 people might prefer to use their own name, but I don't think it would prevent them from joining again if they have already done so in the past.

I'm really just struggling to see the benefits of changing it. Yes we MIGHT gain a few staff members, but it isn't a magic fix for the underlying problems and it certainly isn't going to be enough to attract enough staff members that could make a change. After Christmas myself and Sho have agreed to make the events department our primary focus. We want to go to other fansites that have full timetables to find out exactly what they're doing that we're not and then we want to implement our findings into our own department.

I have posted the poll results below if you really want to go and get the stats for each member yourself, but I'm not going waste anymore time on fact finding when it isn't going to change my mind on this.

----------------------------------

Yes -:Undertaker:- bikini Drew e5 Evanora Expling Kyle lawrawrrr lemons lesbon mdport. Sharon Shonly Stealth XxZammyXx Zelda

No -Nick Empired FlyingJesus Inseriousity. MyChemicalRomance scottish

I don't care Arfar Chippiewill Chloe7355 CrazyLemurs Dolphins emoji Jssy Jurv Nick Paige. Plebings Richie Samanfa The Don Yupt Zealoux

[Phil]

Just going to weigh in here. It really doesn't make a difference to me because I'm not Community Staff.

I think for some departments having a requirement where your Habbo name is required makes complete sense and is very practical (this is coming from an ex-Events Manager point of view!!!). However, I think the only Departments that this is really necessary for are Events, HabboxLive and MAYBE HxHD.

I don't think changing it so nobody needs to have a Habbo name will really make that much of a difference. If it was changed it's not like a lot of members will suddenly become staff and if they did, it probably wouldn't be for very long.

[Kyle]

Well yes I am because thats all it is. It's a trivial issue that really does not matter and has not mattered for the many years it has been in place. I'm not against making changes if it makes sense to do so, but in this case it does not make sense to have to rework a system that already works well. We would still need to keep track of their Habbo names and having it as it is now not only makes it convenient for us, but convenient for other members too.

The majority of the yes voters are already community staff so it wouldn't affect them. 5 of those yes votes have been staff in the past, so they obviously don't have a problem with joining a community department under the current rules. Those 5 people might prefer to use their own name, but I don't think it would prevent them from joining again if they have already done so in the past.

I'm really just struggling to see the benefits of changing it. Yes we MIGHT gain a few staff members, but it isn't a magic fix for the underlying problems and it certainly isn't going to be enough to attract enough staff members that could make a change. After Christmas myself and Sho have agreed to make the events department our primary focus. We want to go to other fansites that have full timetables to find out exactly what they're doing that we're not and then we want to implement our findings into our own department.

I have posted the poll results below if you really want to go and get the stats for each member yourself, but I'm not going waste anymore time on fact finding when it isn't going to change my mind on this.

----------------------------------

Yes -:Undertaker:- bikini Drew e5 Evanora Expling Kyle lawrawrrr lemons lesbon mdport. Sharon Shonly Stealth XxZammyXx Zelda

No -Nick Empired FlyingJesus Inseriousity. MyChemicalRomance scottish

I don't care Arfar Chippiewill Chloe7355 CrazyLemurs Dolphins emoji Jssy Jurv Nick Paige. Plebings Richie Samanfa The Don Yupt Zealoux

It really is like getting blood from a stone trying to get a sensible response around here sometimes Though I'm not the biggest fan of the rule, I do appreciate the reasoning.

For the sake of argument I would like to point out, however, that half of the 6 no voters already use their habbo names and the other half either don't play habbo or have no desire to become members of staff based on their track record. Of the don't care vote, 12 already use their habbo names, one has never been staff and never will but has the habbo name of their usual forum name available to them should they wish to use it and the other three are either old and retired from community roles (but have pushed for the rule change in the past) or are too focused on other roles to consider joining another department.

+8
-0
/~2

Anybody au fait with the legal system will tell you that legislation is constantly added to or rectified in places where it has proven to be problematic in the past. Just because a problem can be overcome with the right motivation does not mean it does not exist. I realise that the decision has been made, I just think it was the wrong one.