WHY WAS MY THREAD DELETED.

[GordonBanks]

wasn't even moved anywhere.

*Removed*

Why was it deleted? I'm sick of moderators taking action against my posts/threads just because it is me who posts then. Ah, didn't see I had a pm.

It's only graphic if you imagine that in your head, the fact is the guy couldn't get his cockerel into his wife's box.

[Catzsy]

I removed it from the forum and told you why and please do not post this again or further action will have to be taken. You can pm Matt Garner for a review of the action I took. Thanks.

[lick]

one of mine was moved as well even tho 2 mods and a forum admin posted in it :S

thats why this forum is going to **** you cant even do forum games in spam that every other habbo forum allows

[kizza149]

maybe it was agian the rules.


i also agree, to many rules, i try and post somethink, next min

` your post has been moved`
` your post has broken our rules`
W.e
idc

i will just use a different forum if needed.

NO WORDER EVERYONE LEAVES!

[GordonBanks]

I removed it from the forum and told you why and please do not post this again or further action will have to be taken. You can pm Matt Garner for a review of the action I took. Thanks.
no i cba with that, im sick of being treated like a ******* child

if you want to see what was deleted click:

*Removed*

Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please do not post content that is inappropriate for this forum. Thanks.

[Inspiration]

I thought that thread was light humour and don't understand why it was deleted :S

[GordonBanks]

I thought that thread was light humour and don't understand why it was deleted :S
not allowed find things funny on the forum or they get delete.d

[buttons]

Doesn't matter who posted it, it would still be removed. Doesn't matter if it doesn't offend anyone, it still avoids the filter and images that do so aren't allowed to be posted directly on the forum. I'm sure a link to it with a warning would have been okay though .. ?

[GordonBanks]

it doesn't avoid the filter? when **** refers to cockerel?
no i cba tell people to click a link just to view a couple of funny pictures. and correct, no-one in their right mind would have found it offensive or disturbing.

[Geraint]

Should have just been moved to spam really.

[GordonBanks]

You're not even allowed to post a link to it with a warning :rolleyes:
******* joke

[Catzsy]

Doesn't matter who posted it, it would still be removed. Doesn't matter if it doesn't offend anyone, it still avoids the filter and images that do so aren't allowed to be posted directly on the forum. I'm sure a link to it with a warning would have been okay though .. ?

I do not think this would have been suitable with a warning.


it doesn't avoid the filter? when **** refers to cockerel?
no i cba tell people to click a link just to view a couple of funny pictures. and correct, no-one in their right mind would have found it offensive or disturbing.

It is too sexually graphic by insinuation in content for this forum - that is my opinion. Nobody replying to that advertisment thought it was about a cockeral. Please request a review from Matt Garner or pm nvrspk4 or Jin. I cannot be fairer than that. Thanks.


Should have just been moved to spam really.
Not suitable for spam section either in my opinion.

[xxMATTGxx]

I don't actually mind complaints regarding what Moderators do etc. What really bugs is me is the rudeness what comes with it, there is no need to be rude about it.

[GordonBanks]

It is too sexually graphic by insinuation in content for this forum - that is my opinion. Nobody replying to that advertisment thought it was about a cockeral.
Yes they did, they thought it was some guy, who wanted to put his cockerel into his wife's box. but it would not fit. You're thinking into things too much all the people who replied owned their own cockerels. prove me wrong.

[Catzsy]

Yes they did, they thought it was some guy, who wanted to put his cockerel into his wife's box. but it would not fit. You're thinking into things too much all the people who replied owned their own cockerels. prove me wrong.

I dont have to or need to spend my time arguing with you. As I said your next step is to get a review. You may be agreed with. who knows :S This is my opinion only. Thanks.

[GordonBanks]

no, you're just being stubborn. i dont give a toss about a review. You know I'm right but ye do one.

Edited by MattGarner (Forum Manager): Please do not be rude towards a forum member.

[xxMATTGxx]

no, you're just being stubborn. i dont give a toss about a review. You know I'm right but ye do one.

Edited by MattGarner (Forum Manager): Please do not be rude towards a forum member.

Look, will you stop being rude towards members. The content you posted and some of the comments left on that ebay item was sexually graphic. Some of it is not accepted to be posted on the forum. It's quite obvious by the comments made on that it wasn't for the real "animal". :rolleyes:

[GordonBanks]

which i did in this thread, it got removed :S
no it was not a real animal in the first picture, it was a toy cockerel. What else was it for? How is people selling a cardboard box that people want to put their cockerels in to keep safe dirty or sexually graphic?

[xxMATTGxx]

which i did in this thread, it got removed :S
no it was not a real animal in the first picture, it was a toy cockerel. What else was it for? How is people selling a cardboard box that people want to put their cockerels in to keep safe dirty or sexually graphic?

If you look at the questions other ebayers asked the seller, then you will know why.

[GordonBanks]

They are all suitable questions to ask, such as would their cockerel fit in?

[Catzsy]

They are all suitable questions to ask, such as would their cockerel fit in?

In the interests of fairness nvr has also been asked to review this as well so you should receive an answer as soon as he has time to deal with it. Thanks.

[Mentor]

With a link and warning i dont really think it was anything that shouldnt be posted. True it was basically one large inuendo, but i've seen worse the hoobs, rainbow, teletubbys and animanicac's all of which are aimed at an audience younger than the forums "/
Inuendo is only graphic to those who's minds are dirty enough to read between the lines, its only there if your looking for it. If someone didnt understand the comcepts and would be scared, offended or worried by it, in all likely hood they would not have noticed the jokes at all "/

I'm not really sure on what guidelines are used by the mod's these days, but in some areas such as this i do think there should be some revisions. It would be interested to see the guidelines publicly published to so the community can provide some feedback

- posted in wrong thread first time around-

[GordonBanks]

i want all of the rules reviewing not just my infraction :rolleys:

[Catzsy]

With a link and warning i dont really think it was anything that shouldnt be posted. True it was basically one large inuendo, but i've seen worse the hoobs, rainbow, teletubbys and animanicac's all of which are aimed at an audience younger than the forums "/
Inuendo is only graphic to those who's minds are dirty enough to read between the lines, its only there if your looking for it. If someone didnt understand the comcepts and would be scared, offended or worried by it, in all likely hood they would not have noticed the jokes at all "/

I'm not really sure on what guidelines are used by the mod's these days, but in some areas such as this i do think there should be some revisions. It would be interested to see the guidelines publicly published to so the community can provide some feedback

- posted in wrong thread first time around-

Same reply as above - this has been referred to nvr too see if it is acceptable or not then we will have a benchmark of some sort.
It will be known in history as 'The Cockerel Case' :P

[nvrspk4]

Two things:

1) Posting the link after you have been explicitly told not to post it on the forum is simply asking for trouble, its hard for me to understand your point about being targeted or treated like a child. Even a child knows that when they're told not to do something once, not to do it again or else they will be punished.

2) Making the argument that "what's wrong with posting about a rooster and a box :eusa_ange" is simple mockery. You argue for common sense in moderation and I believe in using common sense over strict interpretation, but use common sense here. Your argument is not that it was really clean, obviously it is a little dirty. The argument you should be making is that innuendo such as this should be allowed, not that it was ok because it was simply referring to a rooster and a box.

I'm talking to forum management about the issue and we'll let you know when we figure out what we want to do about this going forward.

[Mentor]

Reading the reply i would like to backup my claims on kids programs including worse innuendo's. I'm gonna do so in spoiler just to be on the safe side, despite em being on a number of kids tv programs - the innuendo is pretty obvious in all.
Playing with each others twangers - rainbow, playing with lala(i think's) hole - teletubbies and "fingering Prince" from animanics :P
So i'm pro allowing light inundo on the main forum, and with a link warning, the more obvious/dirty stuff :p
Although teletubbys i think may have outdone the rooster in a box one anyway :p

[Lost]

You're a cautioned member so I wouldn't be surprised if it was removed because you were acting like a ***, or arguments were involved.

[The Professor]

Reading the reply i would like to backup my claims on kids programs including worse innuendo's. I'm gonna do so in spoiler just to be on the safe side, despite em being on a number of kids tv programs - the innuendo is pretty obvious in all.
Playing with each others twangers - rainbow, playing with lala(i think's) hole - teletubbies and "fingering Prince" from animanics :P
So i'm pro allowing light inundo on the main forum, and with a link warning, the more obvious/dirty stuff :p
Although teletubbys i think may have outdone the rooster in a box one anyway :p

Imo you missed the most glaring one: Tinky Winky :P

I think this thread has been given far too much time. Hx should implement a "do not take the piss" rule.

[GommeInc]

It's not the joke ebay one is it? Where a man is selling a cockerel in a box? That shouldn't of been removed, simply because it broke no forum rules.

[le harry]

EVERYONE REVOLT HABBOXFORUM IS CORRUPT SACK NVRSPK AND FAT GO TO OPINIONSFTW THEY WONT DELETE UR THREADS

[nvrspk4]

With a link and warning i dont really think it was anything that shouldnt be posted. True it was basically one large inuendo, but i've seen worse the hoobs, rainbow, teletubbys and animanicac's all of which are aimed at an audience younger than the forums "/
Inuendo is only graphic to those who's minds are dirty enough to read between the lines, its only there if your looking for it. If someone didnt understand the comcepts and would be scared, offended or worried by it, in all likely hood they would not have noticed the jokes at all "/

I'm not really sure on what guidelines are used by the mod's these days, but in some areas such as this i do think there should be some revisions. It would be interested to see the guidelines publicly published to so the community can provide some feedback

- posted in wrong thread first time around-

I think that this went beyond innuendo, especially because of the direct use of the word cockerel, it went beyond innuendo into glaring sexual comments.

The actual ad itself wasn't bad, I think the comments went beyond the line that is acceptable (if you read them I think you'll see what I mean.)

I think that establishing a set of guidelines to judge all innuendo would be counterproductive, because in an effort to use common sense and rationale a set of guidelines strictly directing moderators would have a negative effect where their judgement would be phased out in favor of the (impossible to construct) guidelines that were brought about.


Reading the reply i would like to backup my claims on kids programs including worse innuendo's. I'm gonna do so in spoiler just to be on the safe side, despite em being on a number of kids tv programs - the innuendo is pretty obvious in all.
Playing with each others twangers - rainbow, playing with lala(i think's) hole - teletubbies and "fingering Prince" from animanics :P
So i'm pro allowing light inundo on the main forum, and with a link warning, the more obvious/dirty stuff :p
Although teletubbys i think may have outdone the rooster in a box one anyway :p

Not that it takes away that much but I know exactly what you're talking about with the "playing with our twangers thing" - that was never directly aired.

I think that those innuendos were much less direct and also they were geared to an audience SO young, that it didn't matter if they did.


It's not the joke ebay one is it? Where a man is selling a cockerel in a box? That shouldn't of been removed, simply because it broke no forum rules.

The actual listing, no. The Q+A verged on the edge of the adult listing rule. I can see the argument either way, however I think that there is no fault to the moderators' action. This is something borderline that in the end came down.

There were two images posted, I think the first was ok (borderline but much further from the line.)


EVERYONE REVOLT HABBOXFORUM IS CORRUPT SACK NVRSPK AND FAT GO TO OPINIONSFTW THEY WONT DELETE UR THREADS

I'M WITH YA!

[GommeInc]

I think that this went beyond innuendo, especially because of the direct use of the word cockerel, it went beyond innuendo into glaring sexual comments.
When was using the direct use of cockerel against the rules? :S The word cockerel is acceptable, and the whole argument boils down to innuendos, which are not against any sort of rule that exists, or ever existed, on this forum?


The actual ad itself wasn't bad, I think the comments went beyond the line that is acceptable (if you read them I think you'll see what I mean.)
Hardly, they were playing the innuendo game :/ Boxes have flaps!!


The actual listing, no. The Q+A verged on the edge of the adult listing rule. I can see the argument either way, however I think that there is no fault to the moderators' action. This is something borderline that in the end came down.

There were two images posted, I think the first was ok (borderline but much further from the line.)

Whatever happened to hiding images in a spoiler, or just as a link, to hide over-exaggerated use of innuendo? :'(

And the line was never crossed? You kinda said that yourself... The first image was "further away" from the line, which suggests the other one was close to the line, but never crossed it (and didn't, common sense that it was innuendo and not gross-use of language kinda suggests that :P)


I'M WITH YA!
British Jobs for British People :D

[Catzsy]

When was using the direct use of cockerel against the rules? :S The word cockerel is acceptable, and the whole argument boils down to innuendos, which are not against any sort of rule that exists, or ever existed, on this forum?


Hardly, they were playing the innuendo game :/ Boxes have flaps!!


Whatever happened to hiding images in a spoiler, or just as a link, to hide over-exaggerated use of innuendo? :'(

And the line was never crossed? You kinda said that yourself... The first image was "further away" from the line, which suggests the other one was close to the line, but never crossed it (and didn't, common sense that it was innuendo and not gross-use of language kinda suggests that :P)


British Jobs for British People :D


All I have to say to this because it seems to be dragging on and on is that the word used was not cockeral and some of the comments posted if posted individually on the forum would be removed straight away.
I used my judgment on this which could have been upheld or not. On this occasion it was. If it happened again I would do the same thing with this particular matter because of the graphic comments in the Q&A which didn't use the word 'Cockerel'.

[Pyroka]

Wow amazed I missed this. It just sounds like someone was trying to be funny and it backfired and now they're whinging about how it wasn't rude when it blates was meant to be rude... Why else post it otherwise?

Common sense prevails, even though it'll soon be called "TOO TOUGH MODERATION FIRE ALL MODZ </333" :rolleyes:

[Mentor]

I can see why it would not be wanted directly on the forum, but with appropite warning and a link offsite, i really don't think it's doing any harm. Anyone who see's it knows exactly what there looking at and from a purely common sence view it was pretty tame as inuendo's go.

Currenlty the whole offsite linking concept is based on hearsay as far as i'm aware, with no specific rules governing it. So clairification of exactly what sort of content is to be allowed in an offsite link my be somthing to think about. Currenlty i think the restrictions of linked content with a warning are probably more than they really need to be. The warning's there, its down to the user whether or not they want to listen to it or not "/

[GommeInc]

Wow amazed I missed this. It just sounds like someone was trying to be funny and it backfired and now they're whinging about how it wasn't rude when it blates was meant to be rude... Why else post it otherwise?

Common sense prevails, even though it'll soon be called "TOO TOUGH MODERATION FIRE ALL MODZ </333" :rolleyes:
Someone didn't see the thread or the article ;) It was sexual innuendo on the word cockerel and it's short-hand version. It's kinda common sense, perhaps common sense's half-brother "obvious sense". The comments were tongue in cheek, but broke no rules other than for a word which is filtered (****?) which suggests a link in the thread, rather than a full removal. But as Mentor says, a link rather than an image isn't actually in the rules, even though it acts as an unwritten rule based on what some older, experienced members do to avoid tricky situations :P

[nvrspk4]

When was using the direct use of cockerel against the rules? :S The word cockerel is acceptable, and the whole argument boils down to innuendos, which are not against any sort of rule that exists, or ever existed, on this forum?

It was the shorthand form which was beyond the line of an innuendo and went too far into the lovely land of "discussing adult subjects" (I can't remember the exact name, two late nights and its late now, forgive me). At the end of the day its a borderline issue which ought not to have been posted, or at least checked, especially given the situation of the user.



Hardly, they were playing the innuendo game :/ Boxes have flaps!!

At some points yes, at other points no.



Whatever happened to hiding images in a spoiler, or just as a link, to hide over-exaggerated use of innuendo? :'(

Still alive and well, I just think this one went way too far :P


And the line was never crossed? You kinda said that yourself... The first image was "further away" from the line, which suggests the other one was close to the line, but never crossed it (and didn't, common sense that it was innuendo and not gross-use of language kinda suggests that :P)

Sorry perhaps I didn't convery my meaning, the first was further from the line, and the second was just over the line / on the line / we can argue this for 100 days and honestly never come out 100% with a winner. My point is that the moderator was not incorrect to take the specified actions and given the forum member's situation a little more caution would have been appropriate. Had it been a normal member with a good record making an innocent mistake it probably would have been a PM warning.

That said I'm not sure exactly what the action taken in the Wootzeh situation was but its not discussable anyway because of privacy and all that (though I'm pretty sure he posted it anyway so meh.)


British Jobs for British People :D

-Shrug- Can't beat slave labor.


I can see why it would not be wanted directly on the forum, but with appropite warning and a link offsite, i really don't think it's doing any harm. Anyone who see's it knows exactly what there looking at and from a purely common sence view it was pretty tame as inuendo's go.

For the record, the image was posted directly on the forum with no warning but I guess as we're arguing that it shouldn't be on the forums at all, its not relevant to the overall discussion of the rule however it does validate the actions in this specific case.


Currenlty the whole offsite linking concept is based on hearsay as far as i'm aware, with no specific rules governing it. So clairification of exactly what sort of content is to be allowed in an offsite link my be somthing to think about. Currenlty i think the restrictions of linked content with a warning are probably more than they really need to be. The warning's there, its down to the user whether or not they want to listen to it or not "/

Yes it is, we're working to change that from hearsay to actual writing.




EDIT: Upon further reflection, having been involved in moderation since the beginning of time, I realize that there never WAS a rule that you could link to swearing content etc. with a warning. Someone made that up and its become accepted. But looks like we're making it a rule wot!

[Catzsy]

It was the shorthand form which was beyond the line of an innuendo and went too far into the lovely land of "discussing adult subjects" (I can't remember the exact name, two late nights and its late now, forgive me). At the end of the day its a borderline issue which ought not to have been posted, or at least checked, especially given the situation of the user.




At some points yes, at other points no.




Still alive and well, I just think this one went way too far :P



Sorry perhaps I didn't convery my meaning, the first was further from the line, and the second was just over the line / on the line / we can argue this for 100 days and honestly never come out 100% with a winner. My point is that the moderator was not incorrect to take the specified actions and given the forum member's situation a little more caution would have been appropriate. Had it been a normal member with a good record making an innocent mistake it probably would have been a PM warning.

That said I'm not sure exactly what the action taken in the Wootzeh situation was but its not discussable anyway because of privacy and all that (though I'm pretty sure he posted it anyway so meh.)



-Shrug- Can't beat slave labor.



For the record, the image was posted directly on the forum with no warning but I guess as we're arguing that it shouldn't be on the forums at all, its not relevant to the overall discussion of the rule however it does validate the actions in this specific case.



Yes it is, we're working to change that from hearsay to actual writing.




EDIT: Upon further reflection, having been involved in moderation since the beginning of time, I realize that there never WAS a rule that you could link to swearing content etc. with a warning. Someone made that up and its become accepted. But looks like we're making it a rule wot!

There actually was but it doesn't appear to have been included when the rules were condensed last time.

This is the link:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=2757097&highlight=swearing+in+link#post2757097

[Lost]

Lol. GordonBanks it seems every thread you make an argument starts up, why don't you just take the message? This thread alone tells you why it was removed, it's full of arguments and no doubt the thread you're talking about was also full of arguments. The funny thing is since you're complaining about arguments being against the rules no one has actually closed this thread yet...

[lick]

Lol. GordonBanks it seems every thread you make an argument starts up, why don't you just take the message? This thread alone tells you why it was removed, it's full of arguments and no doubt the thread you're talking about was also full of arguments. The funny thing is since you're complaining about arguments being against the rules no one has actually closed this thread yet...

Maybe if you read the thread or saw it you could comment about it. There was only his post in it and it was a link to ebay and a picture

[Catzsy]

Maybe if you read the thread or saw it you could comment about it. There was only his post in it and it was a link to ebay and a picture

Gordon Banks has posted 10 times in the thread, mwah and it was an advertisment that Ebay removed as inappropriate and a lot more than a picture mwah. Thanks:)

[Lost]

Gordon Banks has posted 10 times in the thread, mwah and it was an advertisment that Ebay removed as inappropriate and a lot more than a picture mwah. Thanks:)

I rest my case.

[lick]

Gordon Banks has posted 10 times in the thread, mwah and it was an advertisment that Ebay removed as inappropriate and a lot more than a picture mwah. Thanks:)

there was a picture :S i saw it......it was talking about sex tho


I rest my case.

about what :S Catzsy did not say he was arguing in it like you did...

[Clowgon]

Lol. GordonBanks it seems every thread you make an argument starts up, why don't you just take the message? This thread alone tells you why it was removed, it's full of arguments and no doubt the thread you're talking about was also full of arguments. The funny thing is since you're complaining about arguments being against the rules no one has actually closed this thread yet...

I agree. Wootzeh just stop with the hissy fit, stop with the attention seeking threads and just get over it.

A decision has been made to remove your thread, let it be. You have to remember that there's a few ppl on here who are a bit young so you have watch what you say and post.

I think this thread should be closed.

[Lost]

about what :S Catzsy did not say he was arguing in it like you did...

You said he was doing something completely harmless (posting a picture on this thread). It got removed and this lead to aggressive and argumentitive behaviour from GordonBanks:


I'm sick of moderators taking action against my posts/threads just because it is me who posts then


Originally Posted by Catzsy
I removed it from the forum and told you why and please do not post this again or further action will have to be taken. You can pm Matt Garner for a review of the action I took. Thanks.

no i cba with that, im sick of being treated like a ******* child

I mean fair enough it's not exactly an argument but this is my point, nearly every thread Gordon Banks has leads to something like this, not just doing something harmless and posting an Ebay link with a picture on it, or else it wouldn't of gotten removed.

[GordonBanks]

Lol. GordonBanks it seems every thread you make an argument starts up, why don't you just take the message? This thread alone tells you why it was removed, it's full of arguments and no doubt the thread you're talking about was also full of arguments. The funny thing is since you're complaining about arguments being against the rules no one has actually closed this thread yet...
Wrong, you can't comment on something you didn't see can you? People thought the thread was funny. *Removed*
Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please do not do not be rude to others. Thanks.

[Lost]

Well since it was REMOVED i can only make the ******* assumption that something was wrong with it. I mean some MODS take it too far but I mean they're not THAT bad.

And me shut up? says the cautioned member. Maybe you should take the hint and *Removed* thanks.

Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please do not make inappropriate and rude remarks to other members. Thanks.

[GordonBanks]

there was a picture :S i saw it......it was talking about sex tho



about what :S Catzsy did not say he was arguing in it like you did...
It wasn't talking about sex, it was about putting a cockerel into a cardboard box.


I agree. Wootzeh just stop with the hissy fit, stop with the attention seeking threads and just get over it.

A decision has been made to remove your thread, let it be. You have to remember that there's a few ppl on here who are a bit young so you have watch what you say and post.

I think this thread should be closed.
No-one asked for your opinion.


You said he was doing something completely harmless (posting a picture on this thread). It got removed and this lead to aggressive and argumentitive behaviour from GordonBanks:






I mean fair enough it's not exactly an argument but this is my point, nearly every thread Gordon Banks has leads to something like this, not just doing something harmless and posting an Ebay link with a picture on it, or else it wouldn't of gotten removed.
If you'd been given as many warnings/infractions as me unfairly then you'd be annoyed at the moderation of this forum. Once again, the thread didn't get removed because of 'arguing'. So stop posting now.

[GordonBanks]

Well since it was REMOVED i can only make the ******* assumption that something was wrong with it. I mean some MODS take it too far but I mean they're not THAT bad.

And me shut up? says the cautioned member. Maybe you should take the hint and *Removed*
thanks.
DONT MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THEN. WHEN YOU DONT KNOW THE FACTS.

Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please do not make double posts within the 15 minute editing time. Thanks.

[Mentor]

For the record, the image was posted directly on the forum with no warning but I guess as we're arguing that it shouldn't be on the forums at all, its not relevant to the overall discussion of the rule however it does validate the actions in this specific case.
Indeed, i dont question that, my thought is though, that with a link it should be valid. As within the thread people have said it would not be.
I'm aware the circumstances that results in this thread are different from those i'm auguring should be allowed.


Yes it is, we're working to change that from hearsay to actual writing.

EDIT: Upon further reflection, having been involved in moderation since the beginning of time, I realize that there never WAS a rule that you could link to swearing content etc. with a warning. Someone made that up and its become accepted. But looks like we're making it a rule wot!

Not quite, the rules original form was as a clause to the offsite linking rules. At one point linking to another webpage was near impossible as the rules meant if the other site on it contained a link to a site containing a link to inappropite content, it would not be allowed.
Since the content of other sites is not under the control of habbox and users know they are following links at there own risk as per the tos agreed to on sign up - it made sense to allow linking to content that would not be allowed on the normal forums. Afterall it is not habbox's job to moderate the entire Internet.

There was a pinned thread detailing the rule attached to the web forums at one point, but this is 3/4 years back easy. The rule seems to have continued to be used though despite no longer having a written form.

The rule though, does make sense, so putting it in to writeing now would be a good move imo :)