Is HR a Good Admin / UM?

Status
Not open for further replies.
babydolla

babydolla

Gold Member
howdy friends, 🙋🏼‍♀️

it brings me no pleasure making this thread, but there are lots of talk amongst the grapevine that maybe @H.R. PufnStuf isn't doing a very good job being the local UM / General Chat admin...

so i was just generally wondering, casually speaking, what does the community think??? i won't add any input until perhaps later as the thread progresses, & as the thread progresses, & everyone casts their votes lets keep it civil;

that means...

no making admin complaints 🙎🏼‍♀️

no throwing shade 🙎🏼‍♀️

no w.e trolling is 🙎🏼‍♀️

no bashing each other 🙎🏼‍♀️

no witch hunting 🙎🏼‍♀️

the point of this thread is simply to give everyone a true opportunity to share their;
as to the quality of the job that our dear ol' friend @H.R. PufnStuf is doing, & perhaps it's time that his performance is reviewed by his peers...

shrug.gif


this is again, NOT a thread for you to make admin complaints 👇🏼

if you don't wish to provide any suggestions, comments, or feedback relevant & within' the confines of the guidelines laid out in this thread then there is also a poll that u can use to cast your vote & voice your feedback that way 🙂

edit/note: this thread is actively being recorded for quality assurance purposes👌🏼
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
purplerose said:
i think the majority of us can agree that you can still have high numbers and sh1tty staff.

we also can agree bots do not count.

again the total numbers arent the issue at hand. its the genuine user count you need to worry about.
Click to expand...

i will just add this,

there are 500+ users at max, at any given time, at least the times i am online...

the guest-registered-vip user ratio is absolutely horrendous...

i'll break it down;

1. 70% of the users are guests, & at least 40% of that are bots, another 15% of that are guests that either just lurk or spam cp links,
10% of those guests are regulars under guest accounts with the purpose of anonymously harassing other regulars, & the remaining 5% actively are chatting

2. 20% of the users are registered users, 10% of that spend their time entirely lurking never engaging in conversation, 5% of that are bots, & only 5% are actually actively chatting...

3. that remaining 10% are VIP users & moderators (+ HR) combined...

not to mention most of the registered users almost never purchase vip, & practically none of the guests ever bother to register & that's mainly bc the majority of them aren't even living beings lmao

so if we're going to be transparent, that registry means absolutely nothing & it might as well still be the mere 144 that HR says it was when @purplerose was an admin 💅🏼

i believe the chat population is purposely being inflated by design to appear more active & popular than it actually is 🤷🏼‍♀️

note: this thread is being recorded for quality assurance purposes
 
purplerose said:
i think the majority of us can agree that you can still have high numbers and sh1tty staff.

we also can agree bots do not count.

again the total numbers arent the issue at hand. its the genuine user count you need to worry about.
Click to expand...

are you sure you want to throw other staff into this bash thread? out of respect im going to suggest you keep fixing sights on me.

I have no problem listening to critiique on issues like that from experienced people. But again lets not pretend OP has that altruistic intent. Because much of these regurgitated threads focus on not banning user A that user B hates, not about fairness, or anything like that. You did however help in one post regarding other means we could do things and still be on the square with other factors.
babydolla said:
i will just add this,

there are 500+ users at max, at any given time, at least the times i am online...

the guest-registered-vip user ratio is absolutely horrendous...

i'll break it down;

1. 70% of the users are guests, & at least 40% of that are bots, another 15% of that are guests that either just lurk or spam cp links,
10% of those guests are regulars under guest accounts with the purpose of anonymously harassing other regulars, & the remaining 5% actively are chatting

2. 20% of the users are registered users, 10% of that spend their time entirely lurking never engaging in conversation, 5% of that are bots, & only 5% are actually actively chatting...

3. that remaining 10% are VIP users & moderators (+ HR) combined...

not to mention most of the registered users almost never purchase vip, & practically none of the guests ever bother to register & that's mainly bc the majority of them aren't even living beings lmao

so if we're going to be transparent, that registry means absolutely nothing & it might as well still be the mere 144 that HR says it was when @purplerose was an admin 💅🏼
Click to expand...

Does that mean your like list is phoney too? https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/screenshots-v3-taylors-version.949479/#post-1312842 no similar reduction for that I see you recently posted you were "a friend to all chat" based on that.

In fact you boast so here:https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/is-hr-a-good-admin-um.949476/#post-1312482 so which is it?
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
are you sure you want to throw other staff into this bash thread? out of respect im going to suggest you keep fixing sights on me.

I have no problem listening to critiique on issues like that from experienced people. But again lets not pretend OP has that altruistic intent. Because much of these regurgitated threads focus on not banning user A that user B hates, not about fairness, or anything like that. You did however help in one post regarding other means we could do things and still be on the square with other factors.


Does that mean your like list is phoney too? https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/screenshots-v3-taylors-version.949479/#post-1312842 no similar reduction for that I see.
Click to expand...

i literally can't control the means of who, or what likes my account;

i never said the chat is totally devoid of people, just that there is only 500+ ppl online at any given time that doesn't mean all those people are always the same people, but that doesn't make the numbers any less inflated...

i'm by no means accusing you of inflating the numbers, or lying about what they are; i personally suspect chatmaster plugs in artificial accounts to inflate the room numbers & not just in general chat (though those other rooms are irrelevant) 🤷🏼‍♀️

my percentages are just theory, but it's a fact that a large majority of those users aren't actual ppl, & a large portion of my likes are from my vast friends list which also includes many accounts with lifetime vip that for one reason or another don't come to chat anymore...

note: this thread is being recorded for quality assurance purposes
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
are you sure you want to throw other staff into this bash thread? out of respect im going to suggest you keep fixing sights on me.

I have no problem listening to critiique on issues like that from experienced people. But again lets not pretend OP has that altruistic intent. Because much of these regurgitated threads focus on not banning user A that user B hates, not about fairness, or anything like that. You did however help in one post regarding other means we could do things and still be on the square with other factors.


Does that mean your like list is phoney too? https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/screenshots-v3-taylors-version.949479/#post-1312842 no similar reduction for that I see you recently posted you were "a friend to all chat" based on that.

In fact you boast so here:https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/is-hr-a-good-admin-um.949476/#post-1312482 so which is it?
Click to expand...
your the one making assumptions.

(probably because your seeing red, because its not because my opinion has changed)

purplerose said:
its is my opinion that the reason the site is loosing users is because of staff.

because of the staffs temper tantrums and the staff's inability to be above personal attacks, and name calling users end up just leaving.
Click to expand...
quoted myself.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
you do realize, all forums staff can see that nothing is edited by anyone else right?
Click to expand...

to be fair,

it would said *edited by moderator* or something to that affect, if you or any other UM was editing someones posts, no?

IDK honestly how it works, but nothing of mine appears edited

...genuinely curious...
 
babydolla said:
to be fair,

it would said *edited by moderator* or something to that affect, if you or any other UM was editing someones posts, no?

IDK honestly how it works, but nothing of mine appears edited
Click to expand...
only after the minute mark. before then there is no edit notation. it would need to be opened to edit by a mod within a min to not get the edit message.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
you do realize, all forums staff can see that nothing is edited by anyone else right?
Click to expand...
that dude is medicated and delusional lol
purplerose said:
only after the minute mark. before then there is no edit notation. it would need to be opened to edit by a mod within a min to not get the edit message.
Click to expand...
See this knows all the tricks cuz she be doing that **** for a decade
 
Last edited by a moderator:
purplerose said:
you do realze that if you get in there within a minute of it being posted you can edit things without an edit notation.
Click to expand...
everytime I think something positive might come out of something as flawed as this thread, you retreat to these types of disingenious posts. Its dissapointing because it makes me think your not so altruistic either.

Because you do know full well staff actions are able to be seen which is what he said.

Ive nothing more to add/ goodnight Rose,
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
duly noted on your opinion- but In related thread, linked here- it was said I support pedophilia, and the like. Im challenging that specifcally- because I work hard towards the opposite daily more importantly, so does the room staff . And you know that, or you yourself would have taken a run on the issue long ago. And I challenge it because its false, and smears the site vicariously.

But If you think staff cant have backbones you are wrong.

The tantrum is being thrown by the OP who cannot endure a simple mirror.
Click to expand...

purplerose said:
id love to post about that issue , but it seems that issue has been prematurely CLOSED. if you want to have that discussion your free to open it up so i can post.

im currently posting in an thread about my opinions on if the gen admin/UM is doing an adequate job.
Click to expand...

H.R. PufnStuf said:
everytime I think something positive might come out of something as flawed as this thread, you retreat to these types of disingenious posts. Its dissapointing because it makes me think your not so altruistic either.

Because you do know full well staff actions are able to be seen which is what he said.

Ive nothing more to add/ goodnight Rose,
Click to expand...
ive quoted the proof i urge users to go back to the posts using the arrows in the quotes. there is no edit notation in your post. although i quoted your original post, and its clear theyve been added to.

just like you added the bolded part to this post and yet there is no edit mark. because you caught the system before it had time to reset/realize there was a change. you do this FREQUENTLY. and you do not add an edit tag yourself. this makes you disingenuous. an edit the edit history only appears every minute. *edit history is only a um feature*
 
purplerose said:
ive quoted the proof i urge users to go back to the posts using the arrows in the quotes. there is no edit notation in your post. although i quoted your original post, and its clear theyve been added to.

just like you added the bolded part to this post and yet there is no edit mark. because you caught the system before it had time to reset/realize there was a change. you do this FREQUENTLY. and you do not add an edit tag yourself. this makes you disingenuous. an edit the edit history only appears every minute. *edit history is only a um feature*
Click to expand...

Doubling down again? Rose your digging quite a hole, as you know full well, UM actions can be seen. Just like you know what he's doing, which again casts quite a shadow on the integrity of your posts too.

You added that bold. Which really, is saddening for such an iconic member of this site. Enjoy the last word I wont engage your sophistry any further.
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
Doubling down again? Rose your digging quite a hole, as you know full well, UM actions can be seen. Just like you know what he's doing, which again casts quite a shadow on the integrity of your posts too.

You added that bold. Which really, is saddening for such an iconic member of this site. Enjoy the last word I wont engage your sophistry any further.
Click to expand...

You already said you were done…

And your post proved one thing…

Vote Voting GIF by Creative Courage
 
H.R. PufnStuf said:
Doubling down again? Rose your digging quite a hole, as you know full well, UM actions can be seen. Just like you know what he's doing, which again casts quite a shadow on the integrity of your posts too.

You added that bold. Which really, is saddening for such an iconic member of this site. Enjoy the last word I wont engage your sophistry any further.
Click to expand...
i added the bold to the quote because when i read the post it wasnt there. you added it after the fact yet there is no edit notation on your post. when you decide to edit things physically put in the word EDIT especially when youve done it before a min has past since posting.

you are the one that dug deep 2 hours when you started in. the thread had various opinions until you wanted a way to derail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top