Unnecessary Spoilers!

[Plank]

Sorry to bring this up again, but it's becoming rather annoying now. Ever since this rule has been introduced, I've seen many people unhappy about the rule.

One thread in particular: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=498966

I think that if the title of a thread clearly says SPOILERS or mentions that there will be spoilers inside, perhaps with a prefix or something, or brackets (Spoilers), then spoilers should not be used inside the thread as well, because it is simply not needed and is unnecessary. Members will not enter this thread if they see the word spoiler in the title if they do not want it to be spoilt for them. If they do, unlucky for them they should be more careful.

If people give spoilers in their posts in a thread which doesn't have "Spoiler" in the title, then spoilers should be used as members won't be expecting them.

This is happening a lot in the BB forum. If someone posts a thread about who is up for nomination before it has been announced, they put "Spoilers" in the title. It is annoying opening all the spoilers in the thread when anyone that enters it clearly knows that the thread will be completely revolved around spoilers.

For example: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=4954083#post4954083

I just think the rule needs adapting because a lot of people aren't happy with it. The above would be a lot more sensible and it would save moderators putting tons of spoilers everywhere, when it isn't needed.

[Plank]

Someone else just made a thread on the same thing. :O.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=505749

[risque]

Exactly my point.

[MissAlice]

I agree with what has been said above, surely if the title is clear and indicates SPOILER without giving anything away, I really don't see the purpose of using spoilers for every single post within the thread. If it says SPOILER and you don't want to know, then why view it?, the warning is there for everyone to know it could spoil their entertainment, so it's at their own risk if they view it.

Perhaps Management can review the ruling on this?

[Plank]

Thank you MissAlice for your reply.

from risque's thread


Using the method you suggested, anyone who wants to discuss a subject without knowing the contents of certain episodes is effectively eliminated from the entertainment forums. As it stands, people are perfectly able to talk about a TV programme, film, or in this case big brother, without knowing the contents of the episode. Unfortunately, whether you find it annoying or not is out of the question. The set of guidelines was drawn up with input from members, moderators and myself and is unlikely to be changed in the forseeable.

The threads in the Big Brother forum aren't about certain episodes like you would get for other TV shows, they usually revolve around one specific subject/event, such as who is up for nomination or the days task. The entire thread will be about what the subject is in the first post; if someone posts something different then they will be posting off topic. Therefore, if the word Spoiler is in the title (if the thread contains spoilers which haven't been aired), there is no need for spoiler tags in every post because the whole thread will be about the topic in the title.

If all Big Brother topics were discussed in one single thread, I would understand. However, different events are put in different threads because there is a WHOLE forum for the one show, unlike the Television or Film forum etc.

http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1167

If you look at the threads in the Big Brother forum, hopefully you will see what I'm trying to say, as I haven't seen you post in there.

In one thread, which says "spoiler - another kiss", people who don't want to know about another kiss will not go inside that thread.

[Mrs.McCall]

Ooh, didn't see this here, just posted as well.

I can understand if say I made a thread about how excited I was about Sex and The City as I hadn't seen it and then someone posts info that could ruin the plotline but if I made a thread saying:
"Sex and the city - SPOILERS" it's like... clearly there are going to be spoilers.

I just don't want to have to click the bloomin spoilers tag everytime to read a thread i.e. in Big Brother. Most people actually WANT to know who is up for eviction.

It just seems a bit redundant in that situation.

[e5]

Sorry to bring this up again, but it's becoming rather annoying now. Ever since this rule has been introduced, I've seen many people unhappy about the rule.

One thread in particular: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=498966

I think that if the title of a thread clearly says SPOILERS or mentions that there will be spoilers inside, perhaps with a prefix or something, or brackets (Spoilers), then spoilers should not be used inside the thread as well, because it is simply not needed and is unnecessary. Members will not enter this thread if they see the word spoiler in the title if they do not want it to be spoilt for them. If they do, unlucky for them they should be more careful.

If people give spoilers in their posts in a thread which doesn't have "Spoiler" in the title, then spoilers should be used as members won't be expecting them.

This is happening a lot in the BB forum. If someone posts a thread about who is up for nomination before it has been announced, they put "Spoilers" in the title. It is annoying opening all the spoilers in the thread when anyone that enters it clearly knows that the thread will be completely revolved around spoilers.

For example: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=4954083#post4954083

I just think the rule needs adapting because a lot of people aren't happy with it. The above would be a lot more sensible and it would save moderators putting tons of spoilers everywhere, when it isn't needed.
Thats the thread I was just in. It clearly says SPOILER in the title, so I don't know why posts, well into the thread should require spoilers. If they don't want to see the information, they shouldn't go into a thread labelled "SPOILER". The first post can be spoilered (thread starter's posted) but the rest should stay un-spoilered tbh.

[Callum.]

Coldplay does love his mod logs!

[Plank]

Coldplay does love his mod logs!
He does it because the rules state he has to. Someone higher up needs to change the rules for the Big Brother forum.

Something definitely needs to be done in my opinion.

See these threads on the same subject also:

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=505749

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=505763


Two words: "Contains Spoilers" in the title saves 100 odd spoilers in the actual thread when they are not needed.

[Slowpoke]

Coldplay does love his mod logs!

No, as a moderator it's his job to enforce the rules and the spoiler rule is being broken excessively.

[risque]

Maybe because the rule is so pointless and irrelevant?

[Slowpoke]

Maybe because the rule is so pointless and irrelevant?

My point is, he didn't make the rules to it's unfair to give him the third degree.

[Plank]

Who would make the decision to improve/update the rule changed?

[Mrs.McCall]

Professor-Alex and Elkaa and the General Management.

I think the rule should be updated where if the thread poster explicitly mentions that the thread includes spoilers, spoiler tags are not needed.

[today]

I hate the force spoiler, i mean c'mon just add it to the title, infact use a bloody prefix you love them so much lately.

Bold it, make it red, make it stand out then its PEOPLES fault if they moan, you warned them. So what.

[Plank]

I hate the force spoiler, i mean c'mon just add it to the title, infact use a bloody prefix you love them so much lately.

Bold it, make it red, make it stand out then its PEOPLES fault if they moan, you warned them. So what.
I think prefixes would be a good idea.

[BlueTango]

God, it's not the end of the world.... It doesn't really effect the running or useage of the forum.

[GommeInc]

Spoilers technically are pointless... If you don't want to know what's happening in a film, show or book, then don't read the threads... Duh...

[Coldplay]

The rule has been updated, and is quite clear, I'm just doing my job, so I'd appreciate you not flaming me for it?

[e5]

Spoilers technically are pointless... If you don't want to know what's happening in a film, show or book, then don't read the threads... Duh...
Spoiler's aren't pointless themselves because they can come in very handy, but in threads that say SPOILER in the title, and then they are being forced to use - they are then pointless :P

[GommeInc]

Spoiler's aren't pointless themselves because they can come in very handy, but in threads that say SPOILER in the title, and then they are being forced to use - they are then pointless :P
Even without spoiler in the title, it's obvious e.g. Narnia will contain special information about the film. You can't tell people to spoiler stuff or to post reviews, that's too controlling and ruins the whole forum. If they want reviews, they go to the cinema website or rottentomatoes.com. Same applies to TV shows e.g. Doctor Who...

[Coldplay]

You dont have to use spoiler in the title. You just have to use it in the posts, there is a thread about it in each forum, with the rules being specific.

I understand that you may think it's stupid. But like I say, I didn't make the rules, I just have to enforce them.

(And did you know, if you edit a post with a spoiler tag in it, you see all the information in the spoiler tag? Stupid that is.)

[Plank]

You dont have to use spoiler in the title. You just have to use it in the posts, there is a thread about it in each forum, with the rules being specific.

This is the rule that needs to be changed, especially in the Big Brother forum. I don't see why you have to put spoilers in every post when it's so much easier to use it in the title, or as a prefix. I said something about it in post #5 as well.

(by the way, this isn't targetted at coldplay, I quoted him for the rule)

[risque]

You dont have to use spoiler in the title. You just have to use it in the posts, there is a thread about it in each forum, with the rules being specific.


LOL, that's the pointless rule right there or the rule with absolutely no logic behind it.

[today]

Just get a prefix in the forums with "SPOILER:" bold it, make it red. Then get rid of that ******* rule please.

[Plank]

Current:


In this forum, due to people not wanting to have the programme spoiled before they have seen it, there are a couple of guidelines that you should apply to your posts and/or threads:

If the information has been aired on the 10PM Channel 4 programme, it doesn't need to be inside spoiler tags. Otherwise - it does. These are implemented by using the http://www.habboxforum.com/images/spoiler.gif button. Simply highlight the the text and click the button. For example:

Click to show spoiler
Tonight on Big Brother, Big Brother enters the house and shaves all the housemates' nostrils. I saw it on the live show on E4!




Anyone found to have posted spoiler text outside of spoiler tags will be susceptable to the "Ignoring a moderator's warning" infraction.

Alex

I think adding something like this would be good:

In the Big Brother Forum, if the word "Spoiler" is clearly in the title, or the Spoiler prefix is used, you do not need to use spoilers in your posts within that thread as people reading it will have already been warned it contains spoilers.

However, when posting in threads that do not contain a spoiler warning in the title, or posting something that isn't related to the spoiler the thread was initially about, spoiler tags must be used.

[Mr.Sam]

if a thread title syas "NOMINATIONS - SPOILERS" why does every post need to be edited? if the person reads the thread after the warning in the title it's their fault.

if information is aired on a tv program like BBLB why does that person need an infraction? the information has been aired already.

add 'spoiler' to the title and don't bother to edit every post your annoying members and giving yourself more work than is needed.

[,Jess,]

if a thread title syas "NOMINATIONS - SPOILERS" why does every post need to be edited? if the person reads the thread after the warning in the title it's their fault.



I agree with that. if it says there are spoilers in the thread title then it shouldn't really matter about using them in the thread as people already know.

[JackBuddy]

It's such a pain opening every bit of text as a spoiler on 3 pages.

[Elkaa]

How about a prefix, which is optional?

[spoiler], or an option to have it without. That way, it's guarentee that people are aware.

What do you think?

[Plank]

Thanks for replying Elkaaa :)

I think prefixes would be a good idea. If a thread has a spoiler prefix in the title then it will save putting spoiler tags in every post.

[Elkaa]

I'll wait for some more feedback before changing anything.

[Plank]

I can't add a poll any more.

Post opinions on prefixes pls :(:(:(:(

[today]

I would prefer a prefix then spoilers in every post.

[MissAlice]

Thanks for replying Elkaaa :)

I think prefixes would be a good idea. If a thread has a spoiler prefix in the title then it will save putting spoiler tags in every post.

Totally agree, there really is no need to put spoiler tags in every post :)

[Favourtism]

I havent read the thread but rather than making a new one, ill reply here.

Take the BB Forum as an example. Make a spoiler sub section where it can have stuff not yet announced. if someone doesnt want it t be spoiled then just dont go in there?

OR

Having SPOILER in the title or as a prefix is enough as people know not to read it due to spoilers but having mods edit every single post within that thread and put the text in spoilers is too far and is obviously just too get mod logs.

[JackBuddy]

This is what to me, makes spoilers pointless.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/6844/spoileril8.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/6844/spoileril8.2ba0aa9e94.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=362&i=spoileril8.png)


Your mouse only needs hovering over the thread for a very short amount of time till you see what is within a spoiler.

[Plank]

I noticed that the other day^

Any news yet? :afro:

[Favourtism]

I know lol

The thing is, that thread wasn't really a spoiler anyway as it was announced live on channel 4 seconds before that thread was made
This is what to me, makes spoilers pointless.

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/6844/spoileril8.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/6844/spoileril8.2ba0aa9e94.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=362&i=spoileril8.png)


Your mouse only needs hovering over the thread for a very short amount of time till you see what is within a spoiler.

[JackBuddy]

I know lol

The thing is, that thread wasn't really a spoiler anyway as it was announced live on channel 4 seconds before that thread was made
Apparently they had to put it in a spoiler though, because of people who plan to watch it on C4+1 :rolleyes:

[Favourtism]

Apparently they had to put it in a spoiler though, because of people who plan to watch it on C4+1 :rolleyes:
I reccomend we contact the BB Website and TheSun and tell them to turn there website off for an hour because people might want to watch it on C4+1

If news comes through and its posted no once cares about someone watching news on repeat?

[Plank]

For the BB forum it's no longer in the rules that you have to use spoilers after it has been aired on the C4 show.

[Coldplay]

Apparently they had to put it in a spoiler though, because of people who plan to watch it on C4+1 :rolleyes:


I reccomend we contact the BB Website and TheSun and tell them to turn there website off for an hour because people might want to watch it on C4+1

If news comes through and its posted no once cares about someone watching news on repeat?

Actually, once it's been on C4 you don't have to spoiler it :)



For the BB forum it's no longer in the rules that you have to use spoilers after it has been aired on the C4 show.

It's always been that way :)

[Plank]

I've noticed the use of spoiler tags has calmed down a lot which is good :D

Any information on the prefix Elkaa?

[---MAD---]

I think it's far too harsh to be infracted for not using a spoiler tag. When I implemented the spoiler tags months ago, I put them there for optional use.

[Slowpoke]

I think it's far too harsh to be infracted for not using a spoiler tag. When I implemented the spoiler tags months ago, I put them there for optional use.

Well that's what the rules state at the moment. You get a warning via PM then the second, third, fourth etc time you do it you are infracted under 'Ignoring a moderators warning'.

[Coldplay]

Yus, I've just been doing what I'm told =]

[iJoe]

Dont want to spoil my post do i?

Isn't is annoying having to click these in most posts in one thread because some people havent seen it :/

With the big brother ones, it makes it stupid, as when the topic has been aired, people are having to..(continued in next spoiler)

sift through spoilers to see what others think about it all....

Used spoilers to try and proove a point.

[nvrspk4]

I'll try and get this sorted as MAD has asked me to take over for Alex as his return date isn't definite yet :)

[Plank]

Thanks for looking into it :) :8