Guardian System

[Abdicators]

Think it should also be brought in the amount of times one person has been banned on that account.

I think it will be. They checked this with Hobbas (you was allowed to be banned a maximum of three times to be considered); but I think they are now going to check total bans across your id.

[MKR&*42]

If it is based on bans, unfortunate for those who've endured false bans in the past 2 years haha.

IT IMMEDIATELY EXCLUDES ME BECAUSE OF MY 50+ Bans. (Not to mention how many are for sexual ). I guarantee @McDonalds; has had more than me though haha.

[geo]

If it is based on bans, unfortunate for those who've endured false bans in the past 2 years haha.

IT IMMEDIATELY EXCLUDES ME BECAUSE OF MY 50+ Bans. (Not to mention how many are for sexual ). I guarantee @McDonalds; has had more than me though haha.

I've had so many bans. Usually if I get banned on McDonalds I would moan at mods and then get banned on all my other clones haha. But not recently, I've been really good. I think I've just had two 1 hour mutes.

[MKR&*42]

I've had so many bans. Usually if I get banned on McDonalds I would moan at mods and then get banned on all my other clones haha. But not recently, I've been really good. I think I've just had two 1 hour mutes.

My last ban was months ago as well haha only cause I stopped playing LMAO. I think they just have a hard time telling the difference between sexual jokes and full on sexual activity haha.

AND ALSO, I WAS UNDERWATER ONCE SAYING "SUCKS MY SNORKEL" AND THEY THOUGHT I MEANT... YEAH... AND BANNED ME . I was genuinely in water omg.

[Agesilaus]

I agree with an age limit to stuff like this. There are ways they can properly have it verified. It's good if they decide to do that. If they are going to take bans into consideration when reviewing an account to see if they are right to become a Guardian, they should at least double check to see if they are legitimant before saying yes or no. They should also not accept people who have too many bans or get banned all of the time or have been banned recently, providing the bans are fair.

There is so much they should do in order to help keep the system as clean as possible.

Habbo have a test hotel where the system could already be fully implemented, however in public builds it's only just being introduced.

That makes sense. =]

[iBlueBox]

I agree with an age limit to stuff like this. There are ways they can properly have it verified. It's good if they decide to do that. If they are going to take bans into consideration when reviewing an account to see if they are right to become a Guardian, they should at least double check to see if they are legitimant before saying yes or no. They should also not accept people who have too many bans or get banned all of the time or have been banned recently, providing the bans are fair.

There is so much they should do in order to help keep the system as clean as possible.



That makes sense. =]

I agree that you should have to be a certain age.

But how exactly would that be proving? I mean the Hobba program shown that people still lied about the ages.
Very hard to prove over the internet,

Unless habbo would want a scan of your ID.

[santa-my-nana]

meeting some lame criteria should not entitle you to become a guardian (if it even happens, which is doubtful). in my opinion, only people who pass a strict criteria (including proving you're 18+) should enable you to apply, but whether you become one or not is down to a personal written application.

I would just like to pick up on this point from earlier on. Why should staff members/Guardians be 18+, Whats wrong with 16+. If by law at 16 you can work and get paid for it. If its a question of maturity there is a lot of young site owners out there who are very mature and begin the site at a young age. Say you had just met someone, they impressed you and you did not know what age they were, if you turned them away because of there age it would be discriminatory, habbo has already been attacked once, I don't think they want it again but for discrimination

[Tidings]

looks interesting, they way we have to review the moderators.. like they cant do their job properly..

[Okeanos]

But how exactly would that be proving? I mean the Hobba program shown that people still lied about the ages.
Very hard to prove over the internet,

A CRB check would prove someone's age and make sure they're not a creepy perv at the same time. But maybe that's a bit too ott. I don't recall any UK hobbas who lied about their age, certainly not any gold/super hobbas.

I would just like to pick up on this point from earlier on. Why should staff members/Guardians be 18+, Whats wrong with 16+. If by law at 16 you can work and get paid for it. If its a question of maturity there is a lot of young site owners out there who are very mature and begin the site at a young age. Say you had just met someone, they impressed you and you did not know what age they were, if you turned them away because of there age it would be discriminatory, habbo has already been attacked once, I don't think they want it again but for discrimination

I'd prefer it to be 21+ because 18 year olds are hardly better than 16 but that will never happen. Obviously people under 18 will disagree but in general they're too petty and silly to be trusted with a position of responsibility. There are exceptions of course, but you have to draw the line somewhere. That said, for all we know guardians might be little better than habbo Xs in which case a minimum age limit wouldnt be needed.

[MKR&*42]

I'd prefer it to be 21+ because 18 year olds are hardly better than 16 but that will never happen. Obviously people under 18 will disagree but in general they're too petty and silly to be trusted with a position of responsibility. There are exceptions of course, but you have to draw the line somewhere. That said, for all we know guardians might be little better than habbo Xs in which case an age limit wouldnt be needed.

Oh. Hmm, why did I quote you. Oh yes I know why haha.

I completely agree with all of that^. Although there are a minority of 16 year olds who do behave maturely and can uphold a high standard of responsibility, the overall stance is that the large % of them aren't responsible or mentally mature enough to deal with moderating a large community. The UN (I believe it's UN Law, not sure) considers people "adults" at 18 for a very good reason, because that's the average age most people... in a sense "mature" and I don't think a few minorities should bring the limit down to 16.

I wouldn't go as far to make it 21+, I'd say 19+. In the US/CA/AU maybe idk, and idk about SG you will be out of school by the time you're 19. I'd rather not see 16/17/18 year olds throw away their education because they're too busy moderating a virtual community.