Staff resignations

[Chippiewill]

Do you agree with a DNH list?

No, that's a ridiculous idea. For one I don't think there's a procedure for regular removal from the DNH list so a year limit is hard to enforce. But also I don't think having a solid/hard limit on the ability for a department to hire someone is necessary, only that if there is someone else waiting that they be given the opportunity to perform themselves (Especially if the person leaving is not of any senior or management role in which case they are very replaceable and training someone else to perform their role is not strenuous in anyway and generally those in higher positions are the ones you want to keep).

The main point which has always annoyed me is that very often staff will be let back weeks later without having to enter the application process. I remember a few months ago when a large number of moderators returned after leaving for several months without having to go through the applications most of which did not have to go through a trial, one of which who had previously quit because they had decided that the forum management was terrible and rejoined under the same management and then quit again a couple of weeks later. Via that process you'll be encouraging people to lark about and just come and go as they please making a lot of work for people and wasting opportunities for someone else to do it.

[The Don]

No, that's a ridiculous idea. For one I don't think there's a procedure for regular removal from the DNH list so a year limit is hard to enforce. But also I don't think having a solid/hard limit on the ability for a department to hire someone is necessary, only that if there is someone else waiting that they be given the opportunity to perform themselves (Especially if the person leaving is not of any senior or management role in which case they are very replaceable and training someone else to perform their role is not strenuous in anyway and generally those in higher positions are the ones you want to keep).

The main point which has always annoyed me is that very often staff will be let back weeks later without having to enter the application process. I remember a few months ago when a large number of moderators returned after leaving for several months without having to go through the applications most of which did not have to go through a trial, one of which who had previously quit because they had decided that the forum management was terrible and rejoined under the same management and then quit again a couple of weeks later. Via that process you'll be encouraging people to lark about and just come and go as they please making a lot of work for people and wasting opportunities for someone else to do it.

I do agree with you in some aspects, especially if we are discussing the lower end of the hierarchy where staff are disposable, if they resign, they should have to reapply and become trialist staff if they are better applicants than others who are applying, more people should be given the opportunity to work for habbox rather than recycling the same members, but in senior and managerial positions they shouldn't have to work back up through the ranks if they were good in the role.

But if there is a shortage of staff, and a member who has resigned wants to work for habbox again, they should be allowed to as this saves time rather than training up new members

[Inseriousity.]

The person who is best for the job is generally the most experienced person, one who can make decisions and enforce them and can manage well. A tried and tested method is generally better, although sometimes there are other staff who deserve the job more, if they aren't right for the job, the person who resigns a lot should be considered if they were good in the position!

Well the key word there for me is "generally". In general, those with more experience are likely to do a better job than those who haven't got any. Well, yes I'd say that's true. However, those with no experience get experience by doing. You gain experience as you go and you can only go if you are given the chance. Every GM hired would have started as the newbie at one point. They'd have to have learned the ropes and someone would have to show them. The benefits of a fresh pair of eyes onto situtations are imo better than a more experienced GM who's become blinded by the status quo.

[-:Undertaker:-]

*Removed*

Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post just to target other members negatively or post private information.

[RealClifford]

All I got from this thread was, "Whinge, whinge whinge"
good work guys..

Suggestions okay, but come on guys. Managers run their departments how they run them because that is how they feel it ought to be run and is a tried and well developed method for them. Is this always the right way? No, but you wouldn't find the right method without first trying a bad one. Just a matter of adjusting as new management learn their roles and begin to implement new ideas from fresh eyes.

- Clifford

[Matthew]

I do think that some people resign and return too often, but if the person is best for the job then surely there isn't a problem?

I think that others do need to be given the chance to step up and get promoted or just given the chance with a trial, but if the manager thinks that person x will do a better job than person y, then even if person x had recently resigned, then they should be hired.

[Grig]

All I got from this thread was, "Whinge, whinge whinge"
good work guys..

Suggestions okay, but come on guys. Managers run their departments how they run them because that is how they feel it ought to be run and is a tried and well developed method for them. Is this always the right way? No, but you wouldn't find the right method without first trying a bad one. Just a matter of adjusting as new management learn their roles and begin to implement new ideas from fresh eyes.

- Clifford

First of all this isn't a whinge, but a constructive debate over rules on resignations. Not sure where you got this definition from...

Officially, this is the policy I got told ages ago, that if you resign on a good note and have brought a lot of dedication to the site then you may return and the general manager can over-rule it if the manager refuses (well at least the policy used when Oli was running this joint.) So maybe the word officially is used really loosely here, seeing as I think MattG doesn't like to step in conflict with his managers over this and leaves it to them, which I'm not in full agreement here.

When I was at news, we were able to keep a stable team for months. Creating the right atmosphere, giving the right incentives and making it more fun. I think managers who take things too seriously will not have such stable teams. This is where some management styles suck.

Personally, I disagree with the staff replacement factors for some departments seeing as some staff have a skill that would take far too long to train up in other staff and to add have put a lot of effort into a certain department over years. It would be unfair to bar staff on such circumstances, if they come back within a week. I've been at various departments on Habbox, and I felt that at certain points some departments developed into a training ground for new staff. However, Habbox should raise the bar in being the best fansite and search for the best staff when it comes to the nitty-gritty. My theory is, I would be dumb to not allow a person for a job because "I cant get along with them" and so forth. It's what's best for the department and the development of the site, not what 2-year old tantrum I may have had with someone. This is plain dumb and a sign of **** managing, no offence, I've seen this happen on here as well. Well it happens even in real life, and so does favourtism and plain dumb arse licking.

As for the DNHL, that is fine. If people are stupid enough to hack the site or do silly things, then let them be put on there. Although, I'm sure there are one or two mistakes on there as well.

[Ajthedragon]

I can't remember if this was for firings or resignations as well, but there was a 30 day period in the past I believe. Memory is failing me though. If it was both, then I suggest the 30 day period is reinstated.

If it wasn't there for resignations, I think a 2-4 week period might be reasonable...or managers should just request perms but not announce for 24-36h to give the staff some time to think it over. If after the staff haven't PMd the manager rescinding their resignation, manager goes ahead and announces that, and now the staff can't return for four weeks.

I agree 100% with this word for word!

A resignation should be for 30 days, not just for christmas. (That was awful!)