Vouching / Un-Vouching

[Wyked]

If people are allowed to vouch and make a user look trusted, why can we not "Un-vouch"

I'm sure people could make up their own minds as to whether they trust them or not? ^.^

Don't come up with "Well we have the official unsafe list"

'cos that's a load of bull :)

[Saosin]

causes too many arguements. you got the untrusted list, be happy.

[Wyked]

causes too many arguements. you got the untrusted list, be happy.


Surely vouching causes as many, if not more arguments?

[Wizzdom]

If we did allow this rule, alot of members would abuse it and therefore the person buying/selling would have no hope atall of selling/buying something.

Hope this helps.

[J4M3S]

because habbox is god n habbox says no!


Edited by Tweety (Forum Moderator): Please do not pointlessly post.

[Wyked]

If we did allow this rule, alot of members would abuse it and therefore the person buying/selling would have nop hope atall of selling/buying something.

Hope this helps.


No, if you have 2 totally trusted members vouching for them, and 3 idiots mouthing off, I think the majority of users would come to a pretty good conclusion?

Surely we should get rid of vouching as well? that causes far more arguments



because habbox is god n habbox says no!

I like the cut of your jib

[Wizzdom]

No, if you have 2 totally trusted members vouching for them, and 3 idiots mouthing off, I think the majority of users would come to a pretty good conclusion?

Surely we should get rid of vouching as well? that causes far mroe arguments




I like the cut of your jib

Even if this is true, there would be never ending arguements, therefore breaking rules. I think we should just stick with what he have. As you mentioned, there is always the untrusted list to back up players and help them.

[Saosin]

if you see someone going first for a scammer just simply PM them.

[Wyked]

Even if this is true, there would be never ending arguements, therefore breaking rules. I think we should just stick with what he have. As you mentioned, there is always the untrusted list to back up players and help them.


So we don't use one rule for fear of causing arguments

and keep another that clearly DOES cause arguments?

Where's the logic in that?




if you see someone going first for a scammer just simply PM them.

We'd have to patrol the forum all day for such to be effective.

[J4M3S]

i wud luv to just post in every single thread saying SCAMMERRR !!
cos we all know everyone on *Removed*


Edited by Tweety (Forum Moderator): Please do not accuse anyone of scamming or any other bad things.

[Wyked]

i wud luv to just post in every single thread saying SCAMMERRR !!
cos we all know everyone on


Semi-agreeing with you there :)

Have known previous habbox staff to scam

[Wizzdom]

if you see someone going first for a scammer just simply PM them.

I guess that works.


So we don't use one rule for fear of causing arguments

and keep another that clearly DOES cause arguments?

Where's the logic in that?

We'd have to patrol the forum all day for such to be effective.

The process we have at the moment works fine. If you do see arguements/rule breaking, just report it.


i wud luv to just post in every single thread saying SCAMMERRR !!
cos we all know everyone on

There is my point...

Plus, not everyone scams.

[Wyked]

What about fake vouching? :) How can that be reported?

[Wizzdom]

What about fake vouching? :) How can that be reported?

Unfortunately, you can't report this because technically you can't prove they are 'faking' it. You will just have to go with the majority and see what happens.

The advice i give to most, is either go second or only go first for someone you know who is definitely trusted.

[Wyked]

Unfortunately, you can't report this because technically you can't prove they are 'faking' it. You will just have to go with the majority and see what happens.

The advice i give to most, is either go second or only go first for someone you know who is definitely trusted.


Thus making it easier if you had someone who is "Definately trusted" un-vouching for someone?

[J4M3S]

*Removed*


Edited by Tweety (Forum Moderator): Please do not accuse someone or imply someone of scamming.

[Wyked]

I want to give you +rep but I assume you're trying for negative :rolleyes:

[Wizzdom]

Thus making it easier if you had someone who is "Definately trusted" un-vouching for someone?

Again, we can't rely on this. We have the untrusted list, if you believe someone is not trusted, PM a mod with evidence that they are not trusted and they shall be added. If you want to make that person aware of a scammer, point them in the direction of the untrusted list by PM.

[Wyked]

Again, we can't rely on this. We have the untrusted list, if you believe someone is not trusted, PM a mod with evidence that they are not trusted and they shall be added. If you want to make that person aware of a scammer, point them in the direction of the untrusted list by PM.

Am I allowed (for example) to post on a thread saying

"PM me for my opinion if person x is trusted or not?"

[Wizzdom]

Am I allowed (for example) to post on a thread saying

"PM me for my opinion if person x is trusted or not?"

Hmmm, i guess it would be ok, but i think that can cause arguements so i wouldn't recommend it. This may also be indirectly accusing that person of not being trusted.

I shall double check for you because if im honest, im not sure.

[JoeyK.]

i wud luv to just post in every single thread saying SCAMMERRR !!
cos we all know everyone on
Yes, it's apparent that even staff in the past have scammed. In truth, anyone can at any time, regardless of the past deals that they've done.

However, many members have such extensive lists of past trades and vouches that members normally feel secure trading them, as that risk is far lower if the person has, in the past, proven themselves to be trustworthy. I can think of only a few that really have that kind of a record on Habbox.

It's dangerous to make blanket statements like that however, as I'm sure not 'everyone' on Habbox scams. A fair few, maybe, but not all.

Anyway, our system now, in my eyes, works; no one forces you to trade with anyone, and it's clear that you do so at your own risk. By Runescape rules you shouldn't be doing it all, but if you choose to, I would suggest doing so with someone you really know and trust.

[Wyked]

Hmmm, i guess it would be ok, but i think that can cause arguements so i wouldn't recommend it. This may also be indirectly accusing that person of not being trusted.

I shall double check for you because if im honest, im not sure.


But I see no point in having the rule

the text that moderators leave

"do not accuse someone of scamming etc"

is basically leaving the un-vouch there? as it still poitns to the person calling the thread started a scammer

[Wizzdom]

But I see no point in having the rule

the text that moderators leave

"do not accuse someone of scamming etc"

is basically leaving the un-vouch there? as it still poitns to the person calling the thread started a scammer

Exactly what i thought when i first became a mod. But that user gets an infraction, which then hopefully they wouldn't do it again. If they do continue, another infraction is given. These infractions add up and then they would receive a ban.

[Wyked]

Exactly what i thought when i first became a mod. But that user gets an infraction, which then hopefully they wouldn't do it again. If they do continue, another infraction is given. These infractions add up and then they would receive a ban.


Which resorts to them making the comments on another account, the account getting banned, and then the cycle repeats, still with all the remarks of being called a scammer left there?

[Wizzdom]

Which resorts to them making the comments on another account, the account getting banned, and then the cycle repeats, still with all the remarks of being called a scammer left there?

This is their choice, however if we recognise this person constantly making new accounts then im sure the management would not tolerate this and the member may be permed by Ip.

[Wyked]

This is their choice, however if we recognise this person constantly making new accounts then im sure the management would not tolerate this and the member may be permed by Ip.


Many many many many people have been IP "banned" from this site, I used the term banned very loosely indeed, they're back within 5-10 minutes

Personally if what mod's changed it too was something more... vague, then i'd see a point in the rule, but at the moment, it just seems rather pointless?

Either the rule needs to go, or what is left when a moderator edits the post needs to be changed?

[Baller]

If you can't call someone a scammer..
you shouldn't be able to say someone's trusted.

end of :S

[Alkaz]

Surely is someone is selling something and no one replys with vouches then that could make them unsafe too?

[Typoh.]

i am with this idea tbh..

[Alkaz]

Im not sure on it atm

[Jambe]

Tbh you cant complain if your get ripped in the black market.

[Wyked]

If you can't call someone a scammer..
you shouldn't be able to say someone's trusted.

end of :S


+rep to you ... after I spread :(

[Xooley]

If we did allow this rule, alot of members would abuse it and therefore the person buying/selling would have no hope atall of selling/buying something.

Hope this helps.
Rlly i think if ur trusted somebody would go first yes it is always a risk but if somebody got scammed by that person i mean we should have the right to say that he scams to warn the buyer atleast.. some ppl do that by pm also so its kinda the same..
i think 1 shouldnt get a infraction for that.

or good idea is also get back the trusted list..

[Wizzdom]

Rlly i think if ur trusted somebody would go first yes it is always a risk but if somebody got scammed by that person i mean we should have the right to say that he scams to warn the buyer atleast.. some ppl do that by pm also so its kinda the same..
i think 1 shouldnt get a infraction for that.

or good idea is also get back the trusted list..

PM a Mod with the evidence, he/she will then be added to the untrusted list. You can then point out to that member selling/buying the untrusted list by PM.