Why does habbox have rules o.0

[Mentor]

Im just wondering, seeing as they dont appear to have any bareing on whats enforced on habbox, My main example being the


Although the image does not directly state anything that may be taboo, the image does suggest an adult subject and is therefore inappropriate for under 14s and hence inappropriate for Habbox Forum. Infraction fair - Nick-

I got in response to a infraction gained for breaking a rule, that does not exist. The infraction was upheld again for this same fictional rule. No rule on habbox was broken by my post, ive read through the rules. If habbox want to change a rule there free to, they havent done so. SO i dont understand how i can have an infraction for a rule that doesnt exist.

If the mods enforce there own set of rules anyway? whats the point in haveing a master set at all, since how is anyone supposed to know whats allowed and what isnt if the rules dont mention the topic and the mods instead only punish those whom make the mistake of breaking a rule, they never previously knew existed, nore is listed within the rules they were under the impression the forum was governed by?

Secondly if a rules enforced shouldn't there be somewhat less bias in there enforcement? how is an vage implication less appropriate for a 14 year old than a giant penis made of snow? or one of the many of far more explicit images posted? for an implication, knowledge of the subject is already required, when theres a giant wang posted, the subject matter is pretty obvious?

I have plenty of infractions for the thread, and fairly so, many of the images i posted were against the rules in that they complained swearing, at first i didnt think to check them? this one though, remains to have broken no rule, yet has been enforced, the backed up again by a secondary staff member?

Do the rules posted on the rules page actual list all the rules? if not, maybe someone should post the actual rules to avoid people breaking the seeming fictional ones being enforced around the forum.

</rantishness>

[TheLastShadow]

you know...you would make a good lawyer.

[Tiuhdur]

you know...you would make a good lawyer.


he really would wouldnt he !

anyway... good point

[HairyFish]

mentor i agree, most of my accounts have been banned because ive "broken" rules that dont exist.. it's so stupid

[nvrspk4]

Hiya!


A27. It is not allowed to talk about adult subjects like making love / sleeping with somebody or sexual details in anyway - Because this forum is meant for people of all ages, and teenagers in particular, it is NOT allowed to talk about subjects that could be not suitable for younger members.


C5. Don't post any (links to) obscene or offending alterations - This includes gory alterations or pictures containing a lot of blood, and also holds for avatars and signatures, the main reason for this is due to the varied age range of Habbox members.

I'd like to bring your attention to those two threads. Basically, that post is a innuendo and is therefore innapropriate. Also, on a technicality, the boy's bottom flap is also undone :P However you see the half naked man so it is implied and the child is saying something of an innapropriate nature. However, its borderline in terms of infraction/warning, the mod could go either way and apparently they chose infraction.

Sorry, but it is rather justified :(

[HairyFish]

Hiya!





I'd like to bring your attention to those two threads. Basically, that post is a innuendo and is therefore innapropriate. Also, on a technicality, the boy's bottom flap is also undone :P However you see the half naked man so it is implied and the child is saying something of an innapropriate nature. However, its borderline in terms of infraction/warning, the mod could go either way and apparently they chose infraction.

Sorry, but it is rather justified :(

are u allowed to post that kinda stuff in health tips and advice cos there always seems to be something of a sexual nature lol

also nvrspk4 can you show me the rule where it says you cant make 6 alterations and post them in the alteration forum over the course of 3 days? cos i cant find that rule anywhere :s:s:s:s

[sierk1]

If you think any rules are missing that should be added, or any rules that don't really exist are used by moderators, you can pm me about it.

Is this thread about a rule against inappropriate images? Isn't this covered by rule A33?

A33. Do not link to obscene websites, images or videos. - Posting videos, images or sites that contain anything obscene is not allowed. If you are linking to a website with swearing, you must say so in your post/thread.

[today]

the rule "A27. It is not allowed to talk about adult subjects like making love / sleeping with somebody or sexual details in anyway - Because this forum is meant for people of all ages, and teenagers in particular, it is NOT allowed to talk about subjects that could be not suitable for younger members."

Can be abit stupid, if you have an age limit on the forum from aged 13+ then teenagers are already learnt about this information and such anyway so how is "talking about love" going to be bad? Ect.

[Moozo]

You learn it at schook anyway...

[Lµke]

You learn it at schook anyway...

You may learn about the reproductive cycle yes, but i don't think they teach you to go around sharing your personal sex experiences with other people, present or past.

[Tristan]

the rule "A27. It is not allowed to talk about adult subjects like making love / sleeping with somebody or sexual details in anyway - Because this forum is meant for people of all ages, and teenagers in particular, it is NOT allowed to talk about subjects that could be not suitable for younger members."

Can be abit stupid, if you have an age limit on the forum from aged 13+ then teenagers are already learnt about this information and such anyway so how is "talking about love" going to be bad? Ect.

Talking about love isn't bad. Talking about making love, is. :rolleyes:

[Mentor]

Hiya!
I'd like to bring your attention to those two threads. Basically, that post is a innuendo and is therefore innapropriate. Also, on a technicality, the boy's bottom flap is also undone :P However you see the half naked man so it is implied and the child is saying something of an innapropriate nature. However, its borderline in terms of infraction/warning, the mod could go either way and apparently they chose infraction.

Sorry, but it is rather justified :(

Rule A27 - no talking was involved it was an image. The image made no direct mention of any sexual content, you only inferred this because of a perverted bias (as do most people) any innocent of these facts, say the people its inappropriate for, wouldn't get it.

Rule C5 - Again there is no "obscene" imagery at all. only the implication, which cannot be covered by the rule.

A33. - Nothing "obscene" was linked to. Only a vaige implication

Theres a great deal of images there directly depicting genitals, i would have though you would class that as more "obscene" than a viagly implication made by a drawn character o.0

[nvrspk4]

Rule A27 - no talking was involved it was an image. The image made no direct mention of any sexual content, you only inferred this because of a perverted bias (as do most people) any innocent of these facts, say the people its inappropriate for, wouldn't get it.

Rule C5 - Again there is no "obscene" imagery at all. only the implication, which cannot be covered by the rule.

A33. - Nothing "obscene" was linked to. Only a vaige implication

Theres a great deal of images there directly depicting genitals, i would have though you would class that as more "obscene" than a viagly implication made by a drawn character o.0

The implication was there, and it was the reason for the image. The posture of the man makes it quite obvious. If you point me to the innapropriate posts with bad imagery (through PM preferrably) I would gladly warn the members. :)

[Mentor]

The implication was there, and it was the reason for the image. The posture of the man makes it quite obvious. If you point me to the innapropriate posts with genitals (through PM preferrably) I would gladly deal with them :)

So everyone thats ever sat like that, be it just relaxing in park, must have been getting head at the same time? o.0 Im guessing your the type who scores highly on blogthings pervertion tests o.0

And that aside, that doesnt change the fact, the rule still doesnt exist. There is "NO RULE AGAINST IMPLICATIONS"

[OMGitsaROSS]

You may learn about the reproductive cycle yes, but i don't think they teach you to go around sharing your personal sex experiences with other people, present or past.
Yea but we all do ;)

[ReviewDude]

So everyone thats ever sat like that, be it just relaxing in park, must have been getting head at the same time? o.0 Im guessing your the type who scores highly on blogthings pervertion tests o.0

And that aside, that doesnt change the fact, the rule still doesnt exist. There is "NO RULE AGAINST IMPLICATIONS"

No matter how hard you try to catch the Mods out on technicalities, it goes down to their judgement - which, I think you'll find, is why they have the job - and if they say it's inappropriate, it usually is :D

[Mentor]

No matter how hard you try to catch the Mods out on technicalities, it goes down to their judgement - which, I think you'll find, is why they have the job - and if they say it's inappropriate, it usually is :D
if a mod is of a strong faith and deems the use of "oh my god" as inappropriate, it would still not be right for them to inforce it, since it goes beyond the scope of any rules placed down. You cannot expect members to abide by a rule that does not exist. Hence you should not enforce a rule beyond its applicable scope. Wheather someone thinks something is inappropriate or not has no bearing on wheather or not it breaks a rule on this forum or not, as that is completely deepened on what rules are listed.
At present there are no rules deeming implications of any nature inappropriate, hence inforceing such a rule in itself is inappropriate.

Take real life example, the law clearly states what is allowed and what isnt. Just becuse a member of the police force sees something as objectionable, if it does not break any law, it would be an abuse of there powers to arrest an individual for it. In the same way just becuse a mod disagrees with somthing doesnt given them the right to place an infraction on someone, unless it is actualy breaking one of the rules set down?

If these rules that are set down, are not what the rules are based on? what the hell is the point in haveing them at all?

[sierk1]

Maybe we should add the word "inappropriate" to rule A33, so that inappropriate images are also not allowed. That should also cover images that imply unacceptable things.

[Fonejacker]

Maybe we should add the word "inappropriate" to rule A33, so that inappropriate images are also not allowed. That should also cover images that imply unacceptable things.
But if u add the rule u will have to take away the infraction... As he wouldn't of posted the pictureif he had known

[GommeInc]

Habbox seem to think posting about the obvious is against the rules. Most my infractions go on about being rude about a member calling them socially ******ed and they clearly are. The member in question wasn't even offended :s Habbox Moderators/staff seem to think a post is directed at them, or a message is directed to them, not a member.

[F32]

So everyone thats ever sat like that, be it just relaxing in park, must have been getting head at the same time? o.0 Im guessing your the type who scores highly on blogthings pervertion tests o.0

And that aside, that doesnt change the fact, the rule still doesnt exist. There is "NO RULE AGAINST IMPLICATIONS"

A27. It is not allowed to talk about adult subjects like making love
</sarcasm>

[Mentor]

</sarcasm>
o.0 i dont follow, but ok?


Maybe we should add the word "inappropriate" to rule A33, so that inappropriate images are also not allowed. That should also cover images that imply unacceptable things.
Although the image still doesn't really even class as inappropriate, you cant enforce that part of the rule, unless you do in fact add it?
And on top of that, how can i be held responsible, for breaking a rule you haven't made yet? are members supposed to be able to phyicaly predict what rules may be introduced in the future o.0

Plus this rule hasnt been inforced before seeing as:
That picture has actually been posted on habbox before in the thread, No action was taken.
Far more explicit images exist in the thread. No action has been taken. Unless you class a 10 foot snow penis as being perfectly "appropriate" as you put it o.0
Many implicit threads/images have been allowed with no action before?

[sierk1]

If you got an infraction for posting an inappropriate image while this was not covered by the rules you can pm me to get it reversed.