Habbox Merit

[-:Undertaker:-]

Apologies for adding on, but just seen this..

The criteria is fine as it is. Simple, objective criteria with enough wiggle room for a subjective look at individual cases. Obviously it can't cover everyone and yes some people in the group would've contributed more than others but you're never going to get around that. The moment you start saying 'they don't deserve it' even though they fit the criteria is the moment you start overcomplicating something that doesn't need to be.

I agree, I think we broadly know members who have contributed a lot (not just one specific thing) over the years whether its in terms of work in a staff position, or simply community input. I also like the way in the merit seems to work at the moment, where it's broadly applied to older members (usually former staff) who meet the criteria - sort of like a semi-retirement home is one way to put it.

I mean take yourself, you are one of those members who i'd class as more or less meeting the criteria in that you've been around for a great number of years, you've contributed a lot not just in terms of being staff but also community. I don't want to go into individual cases and so on, but i'd say somebody such as yourself ought to be awarded the Merit when you step down - as a sort of thank you as it's been applied in past cases. Don't mistake me for knocking you/judging or anything either aha I think you certainly meet the requirements from my general impression of you over the years, and I think i'd be a fitting thank you from Habbox to award you it when you 'retire' so to speak.

Of course it's so fluid that as you say, it's a case by case basis - and I think it works broadly well in that it doesn't 'cheapen' the award.

[Inseriousity.]

I did actually have the Habbox Merit badge when I resigned as competitions manager (just over 2 years) but lost it when I accepted AGM so I'd imagine I'd get it again when I resigned. I'll assume then that you were unaware I fit the criteria and would accept me and others like me under the 'subjective case by case' thing (thank you btw) so I'll expand on that. I believe any attempts to make it too subjective means it will just become not about your achievements but about being good friends with general management. I could lie and say that general management would be able to remain impartial but we're human. Keeping it largely about objective facts removes that and the limited leeway on subjective cases means that each case needs to stand on its merit and not who they're friends with.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I did actually have the Habbox Merit badge when I resigned as competitions manager (just over 2 years) but lost it when I accepted AGM so I'd imagine I'd get it again when I resigned. I'll assume then that you were unaware I fit the criteria and would accept me and others like me under the 'subjective case by case' thing (thank you btw) so I'll expand on that.

Oh I didn't know you'd already been awarded it, but I mean as in a case such as yours (assuming you hadn't had it before) i'd leave until you resigned as a sort of thank you gift if you get me - I think that should be one of the standards applied. But as you'd already resigned, been awarded and then rejoined staff I don't see why you couldn't keep as a staff member.

I believe any attempts to make it too subjective means it will just become not about your achievements but about being good friends with general management. I could lie and say that general management would be able to remain impartial but we're human. Keeping it largely about objective facts removes that and the limited leeway on subjective cases means that each case needs to stand on its merit and not who they're friends with.

Oh agreed completely, but I also think the rules shouldn't be too "you need X, Y and Z" as then it simply sets up a system where you'll end up with all loopholes and certain people being excluded when they perhaps shouldn't be (ie, FlyingJesus).

I mean in my case i'm hardly friends with General Management and haven't been the loudest cheerleader over the years for decisions taken at that level, so I certainly agree broad rules like we have now are required. Which in the end if you look at it, it works perfectly fine as it is now with a balance between the two.

[Lee]

@Jordan; has been a SMOD for over 1 year and refused managerial roles on countless occasions he's a good mod lets give him Merit.

[David]

@Jordan; has been a SMOD for over 1 year and refused managerial roles on countless occasions he's a good mod lets give him Merit.

not sure if trolling

[GoldenMerc]

@Jordan; has been a SMOD for over 1 year and refused managerial roles on countless occasions he's a good mod lets give him Merit.

This happens to loads of people personally I think @Mathew; should have been agm but he was refused

[xxMATTGxx]

This happens to loads of people personally I think @Mathew; should have been agm but he was refused

Lee was talking about Jordan not wanting to have a management role. That's different from being refused by General Management and giving it to someone else altogether.

[Inseriousity.]

Giving it based on 'what ifs' and 'what could've been' means we might as well just give it to every decent member of staff that passes us by.

[GoldenMerc]

Lee was talking about Jordan not wanting to have a management role. That's different from being refused by General Management and giving it to someone else altogether.

My mistake, I read it as you rejected him, no he rejected it