naming scammers rule

[the wombats]

A11. Do not name anybody for hacking, scripting, trashing or any other bad things - Because we don't want innocent people being accused of illegal activities, we don't allow accusing others at all. This means it's also NOT allowed to accuse Habbo-X or Habbo Staff of abusing their powers or anything else. Also posting any images of people is NOT proof of them doing anything wrong as it could be an alteration. Even if you do have proof and know its 100% real, it is still not allowed to mention that the person has scammed/hacked etc as this starts arguments.


erm, i think you need to delete the unsafe traders list then? coz yr basically calling them ******* scammers. and in another post rizter (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=3754337#post3754337) says there's a list of known scammers, which is here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=374649). why are you breaking yr own rules? i think you rly need to rethink the rules over...... coz yr naming scammers in tht thread. :S

[Nixt]

erm, i think you need to delete the unsafe traders list then? coz yr basically calling them ******* scammers. and in another post rizter (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=3754337#post3754337) says there's a list of known scammers, which is here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=374649). why are you breaking yr own rules? i think you rly need to rethink the rules over...... coz yr naming scammers in tht thread. :S

Yeah if you're gonna have an untrusted list you're going to have to either get rid of that rule or edit it in some way...

[LOLROB]

yes that is true

[Nick-]

The rule is accurate as it is true that even if you do have 100% solid proof of a scammer you are not allowed to post it publically, you are to PM the evidence in private to Youheard or MBE who will review it, consult each other on the decision to add a user to the untrusted list and make a final decision.
'Known scammers' was the wrong terminology to use in Ritzer's situation, we are not naming scammers, we are showing you who has been proven to be unstrustworthy with previous trades so that you can pass your own private judgement on whether to trade that user. :)

[Nixt]

The rule is accurate as it is true that even if you do have 100% solid proof of a scammer you are not allowed to post it publically, you are to PM the evidence in private to Youheard or MBE who will review it, consult each other on the decision to add a user to the untrusted list and make a final decision.
'Known scammers' was the wrong terminology to use in Ritzer's situation, we are not naming scammers, we are showing you who has been proven to be unstrustworthy with previous trades so that you can pass your own private judgement on whether to trade that user. :)

But you get Infracted if you call a member untrusted? For implying that they scam - so why can you make a thread that says people are untrusted?

[the wombats]

The rule is accurate as it is true that even if you do have 100% solid proof of a scammer you are not allowed to post it publically, you are to PM the evidence in private to Youheard or MBE who will review it, consult each other on the decision to add a user to the untrusted list and make a final decision.
'Known scammers' was the wrong terminology to use in Ritzer's situation, we are not naming scammers, we are showing you who has been proven to be unstrustworthy with previous trades so that you can pass your own private judgement on whether to trade that user. :)

your still saying they scam by saying they're untrustworthy, and that thread totally breaks the rules. that thread can cause arguements just like making a thread saying "so and so scammed me, here's proof". don't you just love it when habbox **** rules up? also, in trade threads there's always posts like "trusted", "trustworthy" ect. i don't think they should be allowed either, coz it's usually people who've been asked to post it on msn or something.

[Nick-]

But you get Infracted if you call a member untrusted? For implying that they scam - so why can you make a thread that says people are untrusted?

Thats because you accuse them publicly and potentially from an unreliable source for all other users to see which is what that rule tries to prevent.
I assume that this list works in the same way as the Habbo unsafe traders list which started up back when we moderated the Trading section, in order for a user to be added 3 different users must provide solid evidence of 3 different trades in which the user is seen as untrustworthy. Therefore the sources involved become reliable (providing 100% solid proof) as well as numerous (from 3 different users and 3 different trades). Although I'm not familiar with exactly how this list works, you're probably best to ask Youheard or MBE about how it all works


your still saying they scam by saying they're untrustworthy, and that thread totally breaks the rules. that thread can cause arguements just like making a thread saying "so and so scammed me, here's proof". don't you just love it when habbox **** rules up? also, in trade threads there's always posts like "trusted", "trustworthy" ect. i don't think they should be allowed either, coz it's usually people who've been asked to post it on msn or something.

We arent stating anyone scams, we are providing an unbiased and supposedly official view on who is not trustworthy based on previous trades that have been reported to Youheard and MBE with solid proof, as explained above, the information sent to Youheard and MBE has to be definitive proof and has to have been repeated on 3 different trades to be added to the list hence the more sources report a bad trade, the more reliable those sources become.

[the wombats]

you might as well call it "the people who have scammed in the past list" coz that is what the list is. saying who's scammed people.

[Nick-]

you might as well call it "the people who have scammed in the past list" coz that is what the list is. saying who's scammed people.
Essentially, yes, that is what it is but it would be wrong to call it that as it is not our job to pass any judgement on what trades other users commit to, we can provide recommendations though based on previous experiences. ;)

[today]

Essentially, yes, that is what it is but it would be wrong to call it that as it is not our job to pass any judgement on what trades other users commit to, we can provide recommendations though based on previous experiences. ;)

Every user knows that list is "the scammers list" you might not say its called that but its known as that, and it always is. :rolleyes:

The rule should be edited really, either to something like "You may only cliam someone is a scammer if they are making a trade with another user in the TRADE forums only, anywhere else is not acceptable and thus calling the user(s) scammers. It is down to the trader which could trade the scammer to accept your post and not trade with the scammer or not. D onot hassle anyone which has been called a scammer by anyone."

[The Professor]

Thats because you accuse them publicly and potentially from an unreliable source for all other users to see which is what that rule tries to prevent.
I assume that this list works in the same way as the Habbo unsafe traders list which started up back when we moderated the Trading section, in order for a user to be added 3 different users must provide solid evidence of 3 different trades in which the user is seen as untrustworthy. Therefore the sources involved become reliable (providing 100% solid proof) as well as numerous (from 3 different users and 3 different trades). Although I'm not familiar with exactly how this list works, you're probably best to ask Youheard or MBE about how it all works.

If I am correct, evidence of only one trade where the person in question has scammed is enough to get that person on the list. Waiting for the person to do it 3 times is illogical imo, and I'm sure the smods who came up with the list are thinking the same thing.



The rule should be edited really, either to something like "You may only cliam someone is a scammer if they are making a trade with another user in the TRADE forums only, anywhere else is not acceptable and thus calling the user(s) scammers. It is down to the trader which could trade the scammer to accept your post and not trade with the scammer or not. D onot hassle anyone which has been called a scammer by anyone."


It shouldn't, because that is not the case. It is still illegal to publicly accuse anyone of scamming, but with solid evidence and the agreement of Youheard/MBE that person can be added to the unsafe list.

[the wombats]

Essentially, yes, that is what it is but it would be wrong to call it that as it is not our job to pass any judgement on what trades other users commit to, we can provide recommendations though based on previous experiences. ;)

there we go, you've just admitted it's a place to put peoples names down who scam or have scammed. :rolleyes:

[Nick-]

Every user knows that list is "the scammers list" you might not say its called that but its known as that, and it always is. :rolleyes:

The rule should be edited really, either to something like "You may only cliam someone is a scammer if they are making a trade with another user in the TRADE forums only, anywhere else is not acceptable and thus calling the user(s) scammers. It is down to the trader which could trade the scammer to accept your post and not trade with the scammer or not. D onot hassle anyone which has been called a scammer by anyone."
That doesnt stop innocent users being victimized by other vindictive users :S


If I am correct, evidence of only one trade where the person in question has scammed is enough to get that person on the list. Waiting for the person to do it 3 times is illogical imo, and I'm sure the smods who came up with the list are thinking the same thing.

It shouldn't, because that is not the case. It is still illegal to publicly accuse anyone of scamming, but with solid evidence and the agreement of Youheard/MBE that person can be added to the unsafe list.

Thats a question for Youheard/MBE as I don't control any part of that list and how it works. :)

And other users can call it what they want, we cant stop that, we just refer to it as a recommendation system or a 'proven to be untrusted list'

[today]

That doesnt stop innocent users being victimized by other vindictive users :S
I didnt say it would, its down to the user to research about the trade, check their posts, threads and see what other's think of them. :rolleyes:

As i said if "dave" created a thread in runescape trading forum wanting some money for "so many items" and that "Craig" wanted to do this trade though "Matt" posted and said "he's untrusted, i got scammed" though even though "Craig" say that post he could still accept or deny the deal, its really down to him.

Play.com / eBay.co.uk they both use "reputation" and "comments/feedback" why cant we? Oh wait, you damn fools of admins messed up Reputation so others can buy it, damn that idea went out the window, get me?

Fools.

[Nixt]

Thats because you accuse them publicly and potentially from an unreliable source for all other users to see which is what that rule tries to prevent.
I assume that this list works in the same way as the Habbo unsafe traders list which started up back when we moderated the Trading section

It was a safe traders list - we stuck to the rules; you're allowed to say people are safe.
What is basically being said is that this system has it's flaws, as did the safe traders list. But this thread does essentially contradict the no naming scammers rule, and you can find as many loopholes as you want it doesn't change that fact.

[Nick-]

I didnt say it would, its down to the user to research about the trade, check their posts, threads and see what other's think of them. :rolleyes:

As i said if "dave" created a thread in runescape trading forum wanting some money for "so many items" and that "Craig" wanted to do this trade though "Matt" posted and said "he's untrusted, i got scammed" though even though "Craig" say that post he could still accept or deny the deal, its really down to him.

Play.com / eBay.co.uk they both use "reputation" and "comments/feedback" why cant we? Oh wait, you damn fools of admins messed up Reputation so others can buy it, damn that idea went out the window, get me?

Fools.

First of all, being rude will get you no where with Habbox Staff :)

The reason the list was created was to provide a reliable recommendation system for other users to judge whether a trade would be hassle free.
The words of 1 user saying that another user has scammed is far less reliable than proof of 3 different trades from 3 different users all of which resulted in the user being scammed because there is no way of telling if the individual user who is accusing is being vindictive or not.


It was a safe traders list - we stuck to the rules; you're allowed to say people are safe.
What is basically being said is that this system has it's flaws, as did the safe traders list. But this thread does essentially contradict the no naming scammers rule, and you can find as many loopholes as you want it doesn't change that fact.

Fair point, I realize now that comparing the two lists was unjustified and invalid. :)

[today]

First of all, being rude will get you no where with Habbox Staff :)

The reason the list was created was to provide a reliable recommendation system for other users to judge whether a trade would be hassle free.
The words of 1 user saying that another user has scammed is far less reliable than proof of 3 different trades from 3 different users all of which resulted in the user being scammed because there is no way of telling if the individual user who is accusing is being vindictive or not.

But you cant deny Habbox Staff "****** up" the reputation system, when it could be so much better and solve this :$

Though you'll say "what about users who want to trade with no reputation" well its a risk to take, but its down to the trader.

You'll come up with some other reason and try to blab on as you do, but go ahead! :rolleyes:

[joshuar]

eBay use a public reputation system, besides the reputation system isn't purely for use in those forums, they could get 1000 good reps for all their posts and 1 bad rep which takes off 1 point for scamming, they are still looking good with 999 good rep.

That list is there to inform as Nick- said, however, that is set by Forum Management, and normal member show evidence. The rule should be updated to state how to put people on that list I think. However, it doesn't really bother me if people name scammers or not.

[today]

eBay use a public reputation system, besides the reputation system isn't purely for use in those forums, they could get 1000 good reps for all their posts and 1 bad rep which takes off 1 point for scamming, they are still looking good with 999 good rep.

That list is there to inform as Nick- said, however, that is set by Forum Management, and normal member show evidence. The rule should be updated to state how to put people on that list I think. However, it doesn't really bother me if people name scammers or not.

Then why cant Habbox, oh wait we dont use plugins of course :rolleyes:

You should have TWO lists, one which has trusted users and another "un trusted (aka scammers)" and anyone can post their review on any trader, then its down to the people who want to trade to RESEARCH about the trader, if not there fault, they ****** up not anyone else.

Pure lazyness in the end, so the two list's is good and before you say "they would get full people cant find names" use the search button ;)

[Nick-]

But you cant deny Habbox Staff "****** up" the reputation system, when it could be so much better and solve this :$

Though you'll say "what about users who want to trade with no reputation" well its a risk to take, but its down to the trader.

You'll come up with some other reason and try to blab on as you do, but go ahead! :rolleyes:
Actually I do agree that buying reputation should not be allowed as its essentially pointless reputation which is against Habbox Forum rules. ;)
I've never liked the fact that you can basically buy trust and credibility on the Forum without earning it. :(

Also, Mr.Sam showed us a great way of providing vouches similar to the reputation system but public, for all users to see, after a trade occurred the user would add feedback (similar to eBay) which could be shown in the Users profile. Unfortunately it was a plug-in and hence dismissed.

[joshuar]

Thing with a public reputation system is that it wouldn't be used for trading, we are not just a trading forum, whereas ebay is only used for buying and selling. We would need someone to moderate everything that goes through it. Plugins are still considered I would think, as ones like that are useful.

I think that the two lists would be a good idea, trusted list sounds a bit better than an untrusted list anyway.

[today]

Actually I do agree that buying reputation should not be allowed as its essentially pointless reputation which is against Habbox Forum rules. ;)
I've never liked the fact that you can basically buy trust and credibility on the Forum without earning it. :(

Also, Mr.Sam showed us a great way of providing vouches similar to the reputation system but public, for all users to see, after a trade occurred the user would add feedback (similar to eBay) which could be shown in the Users profile. Unfortunately it was a plug-in and hence dismissed.

Well i think this plugin should be rebrought up :).

We've got plugins and if it works similar to eBay then it will solve many problems and it would also hel pthe Webmarket forum along with when users want to "buy/sell/trade" layouts,codes,scripts ect. :)

[Ashhizzle]

Well i think this plugin should be rebrought up :).

We've got plugins and if it works similar to eBay then it will solve many problems and it would also hel pthe Webmarket forum along with when users want to "buy/sell/trade" layouts,codes,scripts ect. :)
Your always up for a constructive arguement I LOVE YOU XX

And i agree with u.

[today]

Your always up for a constructive arguement I LOVE YOU XX

And i agree with u.
lol ^^ woooo!

Hahah, thanks =]

[Elkaa]

Unless specifically needed, the Forum tends to stay away from plug-ins and I can't see this one likely to be installed, as it's not exactly "needed". The untrusted list acts as a warning. PM's can be sent to the Super Moderators who deal with that thread (YouHeard/MBE) to act as a warning - However I do think the "name and shame" rule does need to be amended, slightly.

[The Professor]

I think that the two lists would be a good idea, trusted list sounds a bit better than an untrusted list anyway.

Unfortunately with the trusted list, a culture of "guilty until proven innocent" was created with people not trusting people who weren't on the list, and occasionally wrongly trusting people who were. With the new list, the more widely accepted "innocent until proven guilty" system is in place which gives lesser known traders more oppurtunity and advises people who have not been trusted in the past, something which the old list didnt do. I think it is a step in the right direction.

[GommeInc]

erm, i think you need to delete the unsafe traders list then? coz yr basically calling them ******* scammers. and in another post rizter (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=3754337#post3754337) says there's a list of known scammers, which is here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=374649). why are you breaking yr own rules? i think you rly need to rethink the rules over...... coz yr naming scammers in tht thread. :S
I say this everytime. Habbox Forum has the biggest list of corrupt, contradictory rules than any other fansite/forum which they actually think are followable. Two rules which contradict are:

'Do not be racist' and the other is 'Don't type in a foreign language.' It is indirect racism to tell someone not to talk in their primary language and therefore telling them off and/or banning them. I could list more, but I won't. It is a good way to get out of trouble, telling the staff what rules they are breaking and what rules you have broken but at the same time haven't, that is, if they relate to each other.

[sierk1]

I say this everytime. Habbox Forum has the biggest list of corrupt, contradictory rules than any other fansite/forum which they actually think are followable. Two rules which contradict are:

'Do not be racist' and the other is 'Don't type in a foreign language.' It is indirect racism to tell someone not to talk in their primary language and therefore telling them off and/or banning them. I could list more, but I won't. It is a good way to get out of trouble, telling the staff what rules they are breaking and what rules you have broken but at the same time haven't, that is, if they relate to each other.

I don't think requesting everybody to write in a language that everybody (from the uk) understands is racist.

I think you can say that the list of unsafe traders thread is against forum rule A11, but the forum management doesn't always have to follow the rules. In some occasions forum management chooses not to follow the rules, and they are allowed to do so.

[le harry]

This is brought up in every thread, the whole buying reputation issue. We all know Habbox screwed it up by allowing people to buy it to get more money so shall we dismiss it. I'm pretty certain management isn't going to do anything about it either :).

I was also wondering.. what was going through your heads when you decided to allow users to buy rep. Did it ever occur to you that you were ruining the point of reputation :S

[Titch]

Maby the rule should be looked into and words changed slightly.

[sierk1]

I'm sure this has been explained before. We didn't plan to sell rep originally, but we gave some free rep as part of the VIP features. Then after a while we found that members were buying years of VIP for themselves, just because they wanted to get the free rep that comes with it.
By then we couldn't really turn this around anymore, and decided to sell the rep separately, so that members wouldn't need to buy many months of VIP, just because they wanted the rep.


This is brought up in every thread, the whole buying reputation issue. We all know Habbox screwed it up by allowing people to buy it to get more money so shall we dismiss it. I'm pretty certain management isn't going to do anything about it either :).

I was also wondering.. what was going through your heads when you decided to allow users to buy rep. Did it ever occur to you that you were ruining the point of reputation :S

[Rs Rob]

erm, i think you need to delete the unsafe traders list then? coz yr basically calling them ******* scammers. and in another post rizter (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=3754337#post3754337) says there's a list of known scammers, which is here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=374649). why are you breaking yr own rules? i think you rly need to rethink the rules over...... coz yr naming scammers in tht thread. :S

Well said :P

[today]

I'm sure this has been explained before. We didn't plan to sell rep originally, but we gave some free rep as part of the VIP features. Then after a while we found that members were buying years of VIP for themselves, just because they wanted to get the free rep that comes with it.
By then we couldn't really turn this around anymore, and decided to sell the rep separately, so that members wouldn't need to buy many months of VIP, just because they wanted the rep.

So your pretty much saying "ask and you'll get" :rolleyes: Were asking, why are we not getting.

[the wombats]

I don't think requesting everybody to write in a language that everybody (from the uk) understands is racist.

I think you can say that the list of unsafe traders thread is against forum rule A11, but the forum management doesn't always have to follow the rules. In some occasions forum management chooses not to follow the rules, and they are allowed to do so.

don't you think it's setting a bad example if management break the rules? i mean if management get away with it then the members will think they can. but then the members would get punished but not management.

[GommeInc]

Precisely what I was thinking, alcohol. What's the point having rules if people can break them? Haven't some members of the management been fired, infact, banned for going agaisnt rules which they are allowed to anyway?

It seems these rules contradict themselves further.

Also, it isn't exactly racist, but you are pretty much saying that a member cannot use their native language yet you try and make sure they're in a welcome, friendly environment. The two contradict.