new ruless

[scottish]

A7. Do not post inappropriate content, links, or images – Images or links with inappropriate content or pictures,, gore, nudity, obscenity or annoyance such as never ending pop-ups are not allowed. (Including Signature images linked to the websites). The only exception to this is when posting an outside link such as a video or image where content is mildly sexual/offensive but suitable for 14 -16 years old. This is allowed but it must be a link or in a spoiler with a suitable warning in bold . IT MUST NOT BE POSTED DIRECTLY ONTO THE FORUM and must have a warning in bold above it e.g Warning - this link/spoiler contains content which may not be suitable for younger members.

Does this mean we're allowed to post porn? rofl :S

[AgnesIO]

Mild

However I would personally think mild is Page 3 (Not porn but kinda nudity).

Needs to be a bit clearer I think, but yeh 'Mild' imo is topless?

[Chippiewill]

Soo....


Warning ~ The following contains mildly sexual photography, young un's don't peek

http://www.campusbreak.com/media/Pictures/topless-swedish-girl.jpg

To be honest, it's probably allowed anyway. Considering the private areas are covered...

[AgnesIO]

Soo....


Warning ~ The following contains mildly sexual photography, young un's don't peek

http://www.campusbreak.com/media/Pictures/topless-swedish-girl.jpg

To be honest, it's probably allowed anyway. Considering the private areas are covered...

Fit :D

Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please do not spam the thread. Thanks.

[Catzsy]

My opinion is that porn would definitely not be allowed as it is strictly 18+ and the rules say mild content suitable for 14-16 years old.

As far as the 'topless' goes again, my personal opinion is, that it's not mild and it is specifically excluded in the rule.

A7. Do not post inappropriate content, links, or images – Images or links with inappropriate content or pictures,, gore, nudity, obscenity or annoyance such as never ending pop-ups are not allowed. (Including Signature images linked to the websites). The only exception to this is when posting an outside link such as a video or image where content is mildly sexual/offensive but suitable for 14 -16 years old. This is allowed but it must be a link or in a spoiler with a suitable warning in bold . IT MUST NOT BE POSTED DIRECTLY ONTO THE FORUM and must have a warning in bold above it e.g Warning - this link/spoiler contains content which may not be suitable for younger members.

As far as the picture in the spoiler from OOchips goes it is borderline as it doesn't actually show any body parts in full so I will leave somebody else to judge that.

[Niall!]

No nipples= safe

[dogboy123]

Where would you be posting porn anyway :S

[Niall!]

Where would you be posting porn anyway :S

If I was allowed? Everywhere.

[dogboy123]

LOOOOL, but where are you gonna post it, discuss anything ;LOOK AT THIS

[AgnesIO]

Haha Niall!

Catzy I was being honest, that girl he posted was fit :P

That wasn't spamming - next time I will post 'I like her body'? :P

[Niall!]

LOOOOL, but where are you gonna post it

I'd make a porn thread, obviously.

[dogboy123]

But why share it with hxf, not everyone likes it lol

[scottish]

then they wouldn't look at the porn thread surely?

[Catzsy]

Haha Niall!

Catzy I was being honest, that girl he posted was fit :P

That wasn't spamming - next time I will post 'I like her body'? :P

But that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, Dom - it is about the rules not girls bodies. :P

[dogboy123]

then they wouldn't look at the porn thread surely?

But everyone knows porn sites are there so whats the point posting pictures or naked women if you dont have to. It'll just cause an uproar cause half the forum will probably be split on the matter

[xxMATTGxx]

Porn is strictly forbidden on the forum. I'm sure most users would use their common sense before posting anyway.

[Chippiewill]

But that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, Dom - it is about the rules not girls bodies. :P
And you allowed my slightly off topic post because you're really secretly Bi?

Also I thought we could post mildly sexual things anyway

If you want to see mildly sexual then you go to a beach....

[AgnesIO]

But that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, Dom - it is about the rules not girls bodies. :P


I'll just go make a relevent thread then! :D (I am joking :P)

--

Matt what is 'Mild Sexual Content' though?

[Catzsy]

And you allowed my slightly off topic post because you're really Bi?
Also I thought we could post mildly sexual things anyway

If you want to see mildly sexual then you go to a beach....

Pardon? Could you explain that remark please. Your post was on-topic as you were asking whether the picture would be allowed. Yes I do think you could go to a beach and as Matt says it is pretty much common sense.

[Chippiewill]

Border line mild I will say:

Warning - this link/spoiler contains content which may not be suitable for younger members :(

http://www.synthtopia.com/images/topless-dj-niki-belucci.jpg

The odd thing is that the staff are forced to check for porn xD.

As long as all three parts are covered sufficiently then I think it is enough...

[scottish]

so what difference has the rule change done rli? :S

[xxMATTGxx]

If the person you are going to post is mostly covered up, then that is acceptable. Although there is line and the Moderators will see whether its acceptable or not.

[Catzsy]

so what difference has the rule change done rli? :S

It has basically re-clarified the position as it was but seemed to get 'lost' in the condensing of the rules i.e. you are allowed to show images with swearing and mild content provided it is a link/spoiler with a warning. It is now back in the rules.

[Chippiewill]

Can we extend it to fully topless? The only difference is that we are forced to put it in spoilers when it isn't even sexually offensive, much. And seriously, what percentage of the forum is not going to open the spoiler anyway?

[Catzsy]

Can we extend it to fully topless? The only difference is that we are forced to put it in spoilers when it isn't even sexually offensive, much. And seriously, what percentage of the forum is not going to open the spoiler anyway?

For what sensible reason? How would it postively contribute to the forum?

[scottish]

wasn't that already allowed as people used to have them in their sigs :S

[Catzsy]

wasn't that already allowed as people used to have them in their sigs :S

Did you read my post above?


It has basically re-clarified the position as it was but seemed to get 'lost' in the condensing of the rules i.e. you are allowed to show images with swearing and mild content provided it is a link/spoiler with a warning. It is now back in the rules.

[Chippiewill]

For what sensible reason? How would it postively contribute to the forum?

Confines men to a porno thread?

Edit: Just a thought, but...

Warning - this link/spoiler contains content which may not be suitable for younger members

[The Professor]

Can we extend it to fully topless? The only difference is that we are forced to put it in spoilers when it isn't even sexually offensive, much. And seriously, what percentage of the forum is not going to open the spoiler anyway?

Can of worms, slippery slope ^

Re Catzsy's edit, obviously I didn't see what he put before it was changed but do we have to put those exact words as the warning?

[myke]

this is just like a modfest in this thread.

most people can judge themselves whether things are mildly sexual or clean, i don't see why, when we aren't staff, that we should have to put

HI THIS TEXT IS RED AND BOLD AND THEREFORE THIS CONTAINS A RUDE PICTURE *+*=

i think

"I warn you, this picture could be mildly explicit ;)" would do.

The colour, font, format or whatever you want to call it really has no effect.

i kinda feel a bit insulted at how we're being told what's explicit and what isn't. we all have common sense, no matter how stupid some people are on this forum. i'm not disabled irl nor am I a "******" so I'd prefer to leave the judging of whether something is explicit or not to my own concious and common sense, however, if another person finds it explicit, or it is clearly explicit then sure, do something about it.

idk if that post made any sense at all but yh brb going to get a coffee

[Chippiewill]

can we have some not safe for young people tags, e.g.

<picture>

Typing out that message takes ages.... It also means that if posting of sexual images gets over the top then you can disable all of them with ease...

[The Professor]

this is just like a modfest in this thread.

most people can judge themselves whether things are mildly sexual or clean, i don't see why, when we aren't staff, that we should have to put

HI THIS TEXT IS RED AND BOLD AND THEREFORE THIS CONTAINS A RUDE PICTURE *+*=

i think

"I warn you, this picture could be mildly explicit ;)" would do.

The colour, font, format or whatever you want to call it really has no effect.

i kinda feel a bit insulted at how we're being told what's explicit and what isn't. we all have common sense, no matter how stupid some people are on this forum. i'm not disabled irl nor am I a "******" so I'd prefer to leave the judging of whether something is explicit or not to my own concious and common sense, however, if another person finds it explicit, or it is clearly explicit then sure, do something about it.

idk if that post made any sense at all but yh brb going to get a coffee

You were an smod, we know you have good judgement! There are lots of people on here who have proven that they don't though :P

[xxMATTGxx]

Can of worms, slippery slope ^

Re Catzsy's edit, obviously I didn't see what he put before it was changed but do we have to put those exact words as the warning?


can we have some not safe for young people tags, e.g.

<picture>

Typing out that message takes ages....


I will make this easy for everyone. The "Warning" you have to post is an example as it clearly says. You can put whatever words you like as long as you make it clear that the pictures or contain under the spoiler is whatever.

[myke]

You were an smod, we know you have good judgement! There are lots of people on here who have proven that they don't though :P

ikr :8

i like 00chips idea of the bb tag.

you could change the word "spoiler" to "Possible inappropriate content" but under a new tag.

edit @ matt garner

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6012177&postcount=20

Therefore making that post fine.

[xxMATTGxx]

ikr :8

i like 00chips idea of the bb tag.

you could change the word "spoiler" to "Possible inappropriate content" but under a new tag.

edit @ matt garner

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6012177&postcount=20

Therefore making that post fine.

Correct.

[Chippiewill]

I just made a useful ammendment which people who have already posted may not notice so I will repost it so you do...


It also means that if posting of sexual images gets over the top then you can disable all of them with ease...

Unless of course VBs BBcode system is rubbish

[myke]

I think perhaps, that if 00chips' picture was mildly inappropriate that you should see some avatars that people have, including staff and get them sorted too. ;)

[Chippiewill]

Good thing that the teddy bear in my signature has it's breasts covered :P

Ontopic:

I think brandon usually has some sort of sexually provocative thing in his signature/avatar....

[Catzsy]

Can of worms, slippery slope ^

Re Catzsy's edit, obviously I didn't see what he put before it was changed but do we have to put those exact words as the warning?

This is what he put before:
Warning ~ The following contains mildly sexual photography, young un's don't peek

So judge for yourself whether he was taking it seriously or not?
Also surely it is easier just to C&P from the rules? Anyway Matt has said it is fine provided it is a sensible warning.

[myke]

Catzy, it's a warning, whether he's being serious or not is another matter, he still warned.

Why should we go trapsing to the rules to get something which we can simply type. "Warning may be seen as inappropriate", I know you're trying to enforce rules or whatever but we're not vegetables and we have own our hands to type with and our own brains to thing about whats acceptable and what's not.

Just the way I see it anyway

[Jordy]

I think these additions to the rules are a complete mess and a joke to be fair. I don't think yourselves even understand them nevermind anyone else, this thread has made that clear to me. It's all down to opinion, it's not black and white like the rules always have been (and should be). A thirteen year-old could go in a news agents and buy a 'lads mag' such as Nuts or Zoo which features topless women, that isn't illegal so I'd say it is appropriate? Yet yourselves say that a topless woman isn't appropriate?

I'm not campaigning to see boobs all over the forum (I have no objections though :P) it's just these additions to the rules are a mess. Recently there's been lots of things in Feedback suggesting that the forum should be aimed at a older age group to move with the times (Sparked by Mentor's thread about sexual acts) and Nvrspk said something last week saying that it's going to be looking into or something. If the forum is going to allow swearing, nudity etc just do it full on or don't do it at all, I'm not fussed either way just don't do this half-hearted rubbish which is neither here nor there.

Topless pic btw
http://www.freewebs.com/cristiano-ronaldo-pictures/cristiano-ronaldo-photo.jpgSorry LOL

[Chippiewill]

This is what he put before:
Warning ~ The following contains mildly sexual photography, young un's don't peek

So judge for yourself whether he was taking it seriously or not?
Also surely it is easier just to C&P from the rules? Anyway Matt has said it is fine provided it is a sensible warning.

Nah, I had something funnier on that post, that's from the first post...

It was something like:


Warning ~ If for some reason you don't like topless women then don't peek

[xxMATTGxx]

Catzy, it's a warning, whether he's being serious or not is another matter, he still warned.

Why should we go trapsing to the rules to get something which we can simply type. "Warning may be seen as inappropriate", I know you're trying to enforce rules or whatever but we're not vegetables and we have own our hands to type with and our own brains to thing about whats acceptable and what's not.

Just the way I see it anyway

The "Warning" was an example and anyone can type the warning as long as it warns the users. Many images can be posted as long as most areas are covered and are not full on nudity/porn. You aren't going to get an infraction for it. If you forget the warning, the Moderator will add the warning/spoiler for you. This is just to clarify what is and what isn't acceptable. We aren't taking anything away from you, we are making it so the images you do post aren't full on nudity and also to make sure that the images are contained in spoilers with a simple warning. Which you can type for yourself.

Edit: The warning you type as to be sensible as well.

[The Professor]

Tbh, even typing MAJOR BOOBAGE ALERT is warning the users about the contents of the spoilers, which is the point of having a warning. You can't expect everyone to switch into formal mode when they post a questionable picture!

[xxMATTGxx]

Tbh, even typing MAJOR BOOBAGE ALERT is warning the users about the contents of the spoilers, which is the point of having a warning. You can't expect everyone to switch into formal mode when they post a questionable picture!

I said they can do their own warning babe. :P

[The Professor]

I said they can do their own warning babe. :P


This is what he put before:
Warning ~ The following contains mildly sexual photography, young un's don't peek

So judge for yourself whether he was taking it seriously or not?
Also surely it is easier just to C&P from the rules? Anyway Matt has said it is fine provided it is a sensible warning.

Sorry babe I was talking about that post ^ my bad xxx

[Yoshimitsui]

So considering you have to be 18 legally to access adult content it does not fit into the 14-16 age range and so it is obviously not allowed. You know full well you can't post it and so therefore this thread is rather pointless.

[Catzsy]

Catzy, it's a warning, whether he's being serious or not is another matter, he still warned.

Why should we go trapsing to the rules to get something which we can simply type. "Warning may be seen as inappropriate", I know you're trying to enforce rules or whatever but we're not vegetables and we have own our hands to type with and our own brains to thing about whats acceptable and what's not.

Just the way I see it anyway

No it was not a serious warning but what you have said is sensible and I don't understand the rant at the end. My name is Catzsy too. Thanks

[myke]

it's not a rant. it's the way i feel.

i don't understand your rant at the end about me missing a letter out of your name ;)

and atlast, someone sees sense in what i say :$

[Catzsy]

it's not a rant. it's the way i feel.

i don't understand your rant at the end about me missing a letter out of your name ;)

and atlast, someone sees sense in what i say :$

Well tbh I am quite sensitive about my name cos it never seems to be spelt right :P But yes you do make a lot of sense. :)

[Jordy]

Thank you for ignoring my post once again, however it doesn't come as a surprise.

Before the rule was updated I would of been allowed to post the picture below without a spoiler wouldn't I or would it of been inappropriate?

Warning and all that jazz.
http://www.campusbreak.com/media/Pictures/topless-swedish-girl.jpg

[Immenseman]

Again, another rule that is left to an individuals judgement. The rules need to be black and white about what is and isn't acceptable. Once upon a time the rules used to be common sense, I wouldn't say that any more.

What I mean is the term "mild" is the factor that changes the whole rule. Who determines what is and isn't mild? Personally, I'd say the images that have been posted like the one above with all the deemed inappropriate bits covered unacceptable and would expect the image to be removed off the forum.

[Mentor]

Thank you for ignoring my post once again, however it doesn't come as a surprise.

Before the rule was updated I would of been allowed to post the picture below without a spoiler wouldn't I or would it of been inappropriate?

Warning and all that jazz.
http://www.campusbreak.com/media/Pictures/topless-swedish-girl.jpg

Well if you check out the post your desktop threads, a good few of them contain images like that as the backgrounds without a spoiler. So my guess is really that it depends on the context and the nature of the images.

My personal opinion would be if you cant see anything you wouldn't see on the average swimming costume its probably fine to post most of the time, if the context of the image is sexual of suggestive at all though, a spoiler would probably be advised "/.

I'm no Mod though so this is really just my speculative take rather than anything that would necessarily be endorsed :p

[-WooTWooTWooT-]

This hasn't changed anything, you could still post pictures like that without spoilers.

[Catzsy]

This hasn't changed anything, you could still post pictures like that without spoilers.

Agreed in respect of the girly pictures posted. Its just formalisation of what has been happening actually in the rules now.

[iAdam]

Fact of the matter is that +18 material shouldne't be posted on a 13-18 forum. That's common sense.

And there was a thread in feedback about the rules being too strict a few weeks back, now you're saying they're too weak?

[Immenseman]

Adam, being a moderator you should know you can't really generalise with all the rules. When people say "rules are strict" they're often referring to one or two of the rules which are sanctioned in an unnecessarily harsh way, which is a fair comment in my opinion.

However, that's just one or two. I find some rules are very strict and some are probably too lenient. I don't think there is any need to post half naked women and I don't think it should be deemed appropriate. If management think it's appropriate then that's their call, doesn't mean me or any one else for that matter is going to agree with it.

I trust those people in charge of such situations to make the right and best decisions and if they've decided that posting things in spoilers with a suitable warning is beneficial in any way shape or form in beneficial to Habbox then that's their call.

[leah]

No nipples= safe
yeah, this seems about right. I hate it when people show off their nipples.

[Chippiewill]

Fact of the matter is that +18 material shouldne't be posted on a 13-18 forum. That's common sense.

And there was a thread in feedback about the rules being too strict a few weeks back, now you're saying they're too weak?

Under the current rules your avatar isn't allowed since it is outside a spoiler... Just sayin'

[Black_Apalachi]

Well if you check out the post your desktop threads, a good few of them contain images like that as the backgrounds without a spoiler. So my guess is really that it depends on the context and the nature of the images. [...]

I don't see how context has any relevance. The point is to prevent younger members seeing the types of images in question.

As many people have said, an ounce of common sense should provide the ability to make an accurate judgement on what to post and how to post it.

Although I don't really understand the point about how things, "contribute to Habbox". Half the content on the forum probably doesn't contribute to Habbox - either Habbox the website or Habbox the community. ...Or am I missing the point? :P


Good thing that the teddy bear in my signature has it's breasts covered :P

Ontopic:

I think brandon usually has some sort of sexually provocative thing in his signature/avatar....

Yeah who is that girl?? :8


[...] Topless pic btw
http://www.freewebs.com/cristiano-ronaldo-pictures/cristiano-ronaldo-photo.jpgSorry LOL

Ow my eyes :'(.


Well tbh I am quite sensitive about my name cos it never seems to be spelt right :P But yes you do make a lot of sense. :)

It's so unnatural though to write a Z and and S together and in that order! I always have to double-check if I'm writing it :P.

[Catzsy]

I don't see how context has any relevance. The point is to prevent younger members seeing the types of images in question.

As many people have said, an ounce of common sense should provide the ability to make an accurate judgement on what to post and how to post it.

Although I don't really understand the point about how things, "contribute to Habbox". Half the content on the forum probably doesn't contribute to Habbox - either Habbox the website or Habbox the community. ...Or am I missing the point? :P



Yeah who is that girl?? :8



Ow my eyes :'(.



It's so unnatural though to write a Z and and S together and in that order! I always have to double-check if I'm writing it :P.

Well you should have tried to remember Mentor's old name them and a bit C&P works wonders! :P :)

[Black_Apalachi]

Well you should have tried to remember Mentor's old name them and a bit C&P works wonders! :P :)

What? lol

[iAdam]

Under the current rules your avatar isn't allowed since it is outside a spoiler... Just sayin'

I don't see why not, it's a picture of jennifer aniston, no nudity, partial or full

[xxMATTGxx]

What? lol

It was a long username, that's what she is getting at.


I don't see why not, it's a picture of jennifer aniston, no nudity, partial or full

Your avatar is fine as she isn't showing off "anything" at all.

[Jordy]

The posture is quite suggestive though? :P

[nvrspk4]

No, porn is not allowed and I think its fairly obvious with a modicum of common sense :D

[Catzsy]

What? lol

What Matt said and Copy and Paste somebody's name - simple really. Agree
with nvr - it does come to down to common sense.

[Pixet]

So if someone photoshopped out the nipples it's safe? Magazines often do this for front page pictures.