View Full Version : A few things
buttons
31-08-2009, 01:50 PM
1) "Posting to cause an argument" rule. So so flawed. Anything can be seen to be posting to cause an argument, in spam quite a lot of things are yet only a few are actually edited. Example: I was infracted in a thread aimed at me and a few others, I was the one infracted for a post I made in there for "posting to cause arguments." The argument was already caused, my post wasn't rude/insulting at all and therefore shouldn't have been edited or punished at all. Think that was the one that was reversed but yeah this one realllllllllllllly needs sorted out.
2) Mods taking things personally. Example: One mod pming me to ask if I had a problem (PMING TO CAUSE ARGUMENTS - CLEARLY!), when I ask them to stop because I can't be done with it they carry on. They then act the victim, they gave me an infraction for saying "laughing at disabled people is disgusting" - apparently this looks like I'm calling another member, who was the one laughing at a disabled person in the first place, disabled. This mod then says they find it "suprising" I could say something like this (completely getting the wrong end of the stick). Why should mods be allowed to attack someone so personally, it's not their job to deal specifically with just one person and how they act, obviously they give out punishments but why should I be constantly pmed asking if I have a problem with the mods? Yes, I do with a few and that's up to me, I know others have had this too. I don't want Mods pming me calling me "suprising" and asking why I don't like you, then them acting like the victim.
Another example of mods taking things personally. I abused the reporting system to make a point - not exactly the best way - and was told if I didn't stop I'd be cautioned. I stopped. Sent back a pming saying they were pming me to cause arguments. I was cautioned for being "rude". The whole point was to show that rule (go bk 2 da first paragraphzZ) was flawed and I end up getting cautioned for something I wasn't meant to and just for being "rude" to one mod, clearly not fair.:rolleyes:
3) Accusing people of lying. Yeah, it's fine to be infracted for accusing someone of hacking (HEY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT TIES INTO POSTING TO CAUSE AN ARGUMENT :O:O:O:O:O:O) but LYING? lol i think not. some mods don't like to be proved wrong obviously.
seriously just sort out the rules, give the right punishment for the right rule broken, don't infract with causing arguments which were already caused, if it was rude it would be accepted as valid but don't make people out to be starting arguments when they haven't.
maybe this should be in complaints but what the hell. sorry, did i just post to cause arguments?? damn.
Thread Closed by MattGarner (Forum Manager)
Yeah same i was "posting to cause arguments" for avoiding an argument and posting a picture... got me a spam ban :S
Plank
31-08-2009, 02:07 PM
One thing I noticed yesterday is that a lot of threads were closed because of being about another member. I didn't even know that was in the rules, as I have never seen it happen before.
One thing I noticed yesterday is that a lot of threads were closed because of being about another member. I didn't even know that was in the rules, as I have never seen it happen before.
The thing is, that user did not have a problem and neither did servel other mods when they looked at them. But as soon as the mod who closed them came online.. they had a problem an closed them all...
abit stupid doing that if you ask me
iAdam
31-08-2009, 02:11 PM
Read the rules properly, not just the main title, and you will see it. Alot of rules tie into each other and the moderator has to decide which one it is more swayed to. In my opinion, the rule is fine, if someone posts someone in a way that will provoke them. Surely it's posting to cause arguments?
Read the rules properly, not just the main title, and you will see it. Alot of rules tie into each other and the moderator has to decide which one it is more swayed to. In my opinion, the rule is fine, if someone posts someone in a way that will provoke them. Surely it's posting to cause arguments?
We are not trying to provoke people but it gets seen as that, its not like we try to start arguments. The most stupidest things get edited because certain mods think its trying to cause arguments
And i have read the rules, it took me two reads to find the posting to cause arguments one because its stuck between being negative an something else.. most rules need to be clarified more
The rules are justified in my opinion. If you feel a mod is targetting you PM their manager with evidence and it will be sorted. If you get infacted or cautioned unfairly, again report it and it should be sorted.
The rules are justified in my opinion. If you feel a mod is targetting you PM their manager with evidence and it will be sorted. If you get infacted or cautioned unfairly, again report it and it should be sorted.
She could have done that if she wanted, but she wanted peoples opinions on it, she did not want someone telling her to PM a manager.
buttons
31-08-2009, 02:40 PM
The rules are justified in my opinion. If you feel a mod is targetting you PM their manager with evidence and it will be sorted. If you get infacted or cautioned unfairly, again report it and it should be sorted.
lol. that's not my point. all my unfair infractions have been reversed as did my caution. my point is giving them out in the first place. i don't think they're targetting me at all, just some like to be personal when dealing with some members. please don't try to patronize me. you'd make a great mod in that aspect.
Yoshimitsui
31-08-2009, 02:44 PM
I think the posting to cause arguments flaw comes down to the fact personal judgement is required of a moderator dealing with the incident, people think in different ways and can often lead to a situation being analysed differently. It's not like avoiding the filter as the blatant evidence is in front of you without question.
It has often happened that an infraction has been issued and is then said to be that of a joke between users. Or in other cases the situation is misunderstood and those caught up in it are penalised as well or instead of the offender. This brings in the part where someone above mentioned negativity or a direct cause to arguments.
It's a tricky one and varies from each situation but maybe something should be trialled so that the particular infraction cannot be issued without 2 or more moderators agreeing and having looked over the situation, in the mean time any existing problem would result in a thread lock. Or taking it to an extreme of only allowing super moderators to issue it.
This still would have it's flaws considering the more laborious tasks and also having the case where people have to agree and who agrees and what not. It's a slightly strange process or possibly rather pointless but i think the infraction is being used very regularly and having possibly the most reversals. Much like the pointless posting infraction was abolished due to unfairness and overuse, but that's just my personal opinion.
And in response to you mentioning being infracted for accusing someone of lying, that was abolished a fair bit ago so if that exists it shouldn't have been used.
Callum.
31-08-2009, 02:46 PM
well anything aimed at a specific mod, or to do with one or along those lines shouldn't be dealt with by that mod. they'd obviously see the worst side to it even if it wasn't meant to be seen that way.
Maybe just get rid of the rule and replace it with "Fueling arguments" then the posts that are clearly trying to continue an argument can be seen and can be dealt with. Because most of the stuff that gets edited for posting to cause arguments is a joke / not really trying to cause one.
iAdam
31-08-2009, 02:59 PM
Maybe just get rid of the rule and replace it with "Fueling arguments" then the posts that are clearly trying to continue an argument can be seen and can be dealt with. Because most of the stuff that gets edited for posting to cause arguments is a joke / not really trying to cause one.
That will always be said by the person who's been infracted, moderators arn't stupid 9 times out of 10, our judgement is good, and usually we can tell what's a joke and what's not. A major place where posting to cause arguments can be seen is the sports forum, one person insults anothers team, and it starts that way, I personally have always adopted that into other situations and looked whether the other person has reacted badly, thus finding out if the post caused an argument, then the post was there to cause an argument.
That will always be said by the person who's been infracted, moderators arn't stupid 9 times out of 10, our judgement is good, and usually we can tell what's a joke and what's not. A major place where posting to cause arguments can be seen is the sports forum, one person insults anothers team, and it starts that way, I personally have always adopted that into other situations and looked whether the other person has reacted badly, thus finding out if the post caused an argument, then the post was there to cause an argument.
If your Judgment is so good, why have about 6 infractions you gave me been reversed?
iAdam
31-08-2009, 03:45 PM
If your Judgment is so good, why have about 6 infractions you gave me been reversed?
Because you complained and insisted that they were in spite, which they were not.
Because you complained and insisted that they were in spite, which they were not.
*Removed*
And no, i reported them because they were stupid? who said they were in spite? i never said it...
And they where proven to be stupid because Jin, who is not even a mod removed them :)
Penis Pump
LOL i got one for that
Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please leave the moderating to to the moderators.
A13. Leave moderating to the moderators – If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with a brief description.
Immenseman
31-08-2009, 04:08 PM
1) "Posting to cause an argument" rule. So so flawed. Anything can be seen to be posting to cause an argument, in spam quite a lot of things are yet only a few are actually edited. Example: I was infracted in a thread aimed at me and a few others, I was the one infracted for a post I made in there for "posting to cause arguments." The argument was already caused, my post wasn't rude/insulting at all and therefore shouldn't have been edited or punished at all. Think that was the one that was reversed but yeah this one realllllllllllllly needs sorted out.
Agreed to an extent. Throughout the forum there are numerous posts where if mods knew the real reasoning to why they were posted, more infractions would be given. However, they don't. You can't blame them for that. It's unfortunate they have to use their own judgement because obviously it leaves more room for error, there is no other option though.
What do you suggest? There is no other alternative. They have to continue to use their judgement and if in your case they get it wrong there are procedures you can go down to get it removed which you know full well.
2) Mods taking things personally. Example: One mod pming me to ask if I had a problem (PMING TO CAUSE ARGUMENTS - CLEARLY!), when I ask them to stop because I can't be done with it they carry on. They then act the victim, they gave me an infraction for saying "laughing at disabled people is disgusting" - apparently this looks like I'm calling another member, who was the one laughing at a disabled person in the first place, disabled. This mod then says they find it "suprising" I could say something like this (completely getting the wrong end of the stick). Why should mods be allowed to attack someone so personally, it's not their job to deal specifically with just one person and how they act, obviously they give out punishments but why should I be constantly pmed asking if I have a problem with the mods? Yes, I do with a few and that's up to me, I know others have had this too. I don't want Mods pming me calling me "suprising" and asking why I don't like you, then them acting like the victim.
You can't just generalise and say "mods" from what I gather you're acting on one example, which is one moderator. So you say you think the moderator is doing things they shouldn't be. Once again, you know how to make complaints about moderators - this isn't really for feedback because it's not all moderators that are like this, maybe one or two.
You can't attack the whole department for the actions of a few moderators in the department. Well you can but it's hardly a valid argument. How many mods have PM'd you and told you your actions are surprising? The whole department?
Another example of mods taking things personally. I abused the reporting system to make a point - not exactly the best way - and was told if I didn't stop I'd be cautioned. I stopped. Sent back a pming saying they were pming me to cause arguments. I was cautioned for being "rude". The whole point was to show that rule (go bk 2 da first paragraphzZ) was flawed and I end up getting cautioned for something I wasn't meant to and just for being "rude" to one mod, clearly not fair.:rolleyes:
Well you worked that one out for yourself. If you think the system is flawed you create a thread like this or you PM the people who deal with it which in this case would be the Forum Manager. When you abuse the system what on Earth do you expect?
So once you got told you were abusing the system, which you have admitted and got a PM telling you so, you sent a reply telling the moderator they were trying to argue with you when they are merely doing their job. You genuinely can't see what you did wrong there...?
3) Accusing people of lying. Yeah, it's fine to be infracted for accusing someone of hacking (HEY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT TIES INTO POSTING TO CAUSE AN ARGUMENT :O:O:O:O:O:O) but LYING? lol i think not. some mods don't like to be proved wrong obviously.
Depends in what context. Again, it's unfortunate it has to come down to personal judgement but that's the only thing that can be done. I don't see anything wrong with calling someone a liar, sure it's not a compliment but it's hardly an insult.
Apparently that rule has been removed anyway. Although, depending on what you said you could probably still have a negative sanction added to your account.
seriously just sort out the rules, give the right punishment for the right rule broken, don't infract with causing arguments which were already caused, if it was rude it would be accepted as valid but don't make people out to be starting arguments when they haven't.
maybe this should be in complaints but what the hell. sorry, did i just post to cause arguments?? damn.
On this forum if you contribute to an argument you will be given the infraction posting to cause arguments regardless of whether the argument has already started. For example say person A and person B have been arguing. They make 3 posts each and each one is given a warning/infraction for posting to cause arguments.
Technically that is correct because if one of them stopped posting, there wouldn't be an argument. Each time of them post they are continuing the argument thus they are posting to cause arguments.
It's not like real life, where disagreements and arguments flow. Often people don't reply for 10 minutes or so and then reply again, re-starting the argument.
The infraction that got me a caution was supposedly posting to cause arguments. I looked at it yesterday, two weeks on and realise it was unjust and it got removed. If it had never been handed out in the first place I wouldn't have been cautioned. I'm not going to sit here and blame the whole moderation department for a mistake. I waited patiently and didn't kick up a fuss and got it removed when I came back on.
The only thing that I think does need changing is consistency, I might make a thread on it later. This rule is up for debate. It's left to personal judgement and some peoples judgements are a lot harsher than others. However, HxF has managed to counter this by ensuring that any bad infractions can be removed.
AgnesIO
31-08-2009, 04:44 PM
This is basically a thread complaining about being infracted, am I right?
This is basically a thread complaining about being infracted, am I right?
No if you read you would see its about a rule and mods taking things personally.
The infraction she got was remove.. you would have seen that also if you read
She could have done that if she wanted, but she wanted peoples opinions on it, she did not want someone telling her to PM a manager.
I wasn't telling her to not make the thread, thanks. I was giving my opinion which the feedback forum is for and I was also saying that if she has complaints in the future about a certain moderator the best thing to do would be to PM their manager...
lol. that's not my point. all my unfair infractions have been reversed as did my caution. my point is giving them out in the first place. i don't think they're targetting me at all, just some like to be personal when dealing with some members. please don't try to patronize me. you'd make a great mod in that aspect.
That's not patronizing, Jen. I was merely saying that if a mod is personal with you or doing something they shouldn't you should PM their manager so they're dealt with :$
FlyingJesus
31-08-2009, 05:21 PM
*Removed*
Edited by Catzsy [Forum Super Moderator]: Please do not make pointless/off-topic posts that contribute nothing positive to the thread. Thanks.
Mentor
31-08-2009, 06:39 PM
There was quite alot of agreement in a previous thread that the posting to cause augument rules would be reworded for clarety. As banning augument is banning dicussion. Changing the word to disallowing flameing would make much more sence :)
Equally, if a mod if acting unfairly and overstepping there mark, contact a super mod and forward or CC them the message. If theres no luck there just head up the chain till you find someone who can help :)
There is a staff member specifically tasked with dealing with complains against mod's although off my head i cannot remember who :)
colourpot
31-08-2009, 06:48 PM
if you have any forum issues, pm the forum manager, we cant do anything :S
Immenseman
31-08-2009, 06:49 PM
There was quite alot of agreement in a previous thread that the posting to cause augument rules would be reworded for clarety. As banning augument is banning dicussion. Changing the word to disallowing flameing would make much more sence :)
Equally, if a mod if acting unfairly and overstepping there mark, contact a super mod and forward or CC them the message. If theres no luck there just head up the chain till you find someone who can help :)
There is a staff member specifically tasked with dealing with complains against mod's although off my head i cannot remember who :)
Either the Forum Manager - MattGarner or the Staff Editor - Bomb-Head although I think there is going to be a new one soon.
nvrspk4
01-09-2009, 05:51 AM
1) "Posting to cause an argument" rule. So so flawed. Anything can be seen to be posting to cause an argument, in spam quite a lot of things are yet only a few are actually edited. Example: I was infracted in a thread aimed at me and a few others, I was the one infracted for a post I made in there for "posting to cause arguments." The argument was already caused, my post wasn't rude/insulting at all and therefore shouldn't have been edited or punished at all. Think that was the one that was reversed but yeah this one realllllllllllllly needs sorted out.
Perhaps the rule should be changed to "trolling". If someone causes an argument and you make a post that will continue an argument, that classifies as trolling or at the very least, feeding the trolls. We make an effort to stop arguments and part of that is not only punishing those who start the argument but those who continue it. If you don't rise to the bait it becomes a much less contentious issue because if the argument persists people start jumping in etc. etc.
2) Mods taking things personally. Example: One mod pming me to ask if I had a problem (PMING TO CAUSE ARGUMENTS - CLEARLY!), when I ask them to stop because I can't be done with it they carry on. They then act the victim, they gave me an infraction for saying "laughing at disabled people is disgusting" - apparently this looks like I'm calling another member, who was the one laughing at a disabled person in the first place, disabled. This mod then says they find it "suprising" I could say something like this (completely getting the wrong end of the stick). Why should mods be allowed to attack someone so personally, it's not their job to deal specifically with just one person and how they act, obviously they give out punishments but why should I be constantly pmed asking if I have a problem with the mods? Yes, I do with a few and that's up to me, I know others have had this too. I don't want Mods pming me calling me "suprising" and asking why I don't like you, then them acting like the victim.
To me this sounds like a very specific case and not a generalization so that would be best PMd to myself and MattGarner. Since this is not a general issue but instead a specific staff issue this shouldn't be discussed on the public forums, so lets leave this aside for now.
Another example of mods taking things personally. I abused the reporting system to make a point - not exactly the best way - and was told if I didn't stop I'd be cautioned. I stopped. Sent back a pming saying they were pming me to cause arguments. I was cautioned for being "rude". The whole point was to show that rule (go bk 2 da first paragraphzZ) was flawed and I end up getting cautioned for something I wasn't meant to and just for being "rude" to one mod, clearly not fair.:rolleyes:
I don't discuss bans on the forum BUT Jake summarized it perfectly so I don't have to.
Well you worked that one out for yourself. If you think the system is flawed you create a thread like this or you PM the people who deal with it which in this case would be the Forum Manager. When you abuse the system what on Earth do you expect?
So once you got told you were abusing the system, which you have admitted and got a PM telling you so, you sent a reply telling the moderator they were trying to argue with you when they are merely doing their job. You genuinely can't see what you did wrong there...?
3) Accusing people of lying. Yeah, it's fine to be infracted for accusing someone of hacking (HEY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT TIES INTO POSTING TO CAUSE AN ARGUMENT :O:O:O:O:O:O) but LYING? lol i think not. some mods don't like to be proved wrong obviously.
If I recall we specifically removed "Lying" from the scamming/hacking rule not too long ago. Unless it was judged as aiming to provoke arguments then it shouldn't be an issue.
If I recall we specifically removed "Lying" from the scamming/hacking rule not too long ago. Unless it was judged as aiming to provoke arguments then it shouldn't be an issue.
Then maybe the MOD should read over the rules because she keeps editing my posts for calling people liars
Catzsy
01-09-2009, 04:12 PM
Then maybe the MOD should read over the rules because she keeps editing my posts for calling people liars
Well the only female mods are cyndia, luccy and myself. I can't imagine they would as they usually moderate Habbo and Trading. I know I haven't edited any of your posts for calling people liars so can you post the links of these posts please, mwah? I can then refer them to Matt Garner or you can pm him yourself.
Also it is also possible to break other rules while doing this such as insulting others/inappropriate remarks/posting to cause arguments. The only thing that was changed was that it was removed from the accusing of scamming/hacking rule.
Mentor
01-09-2009, 07:10 PM
Perhaps the rule should be changed to "trolling". If someone causes an argument and you make a post that will continue an argument, that classifies as trolling or at the very least, feeding the trolls. We make an effort to stop arguments and part of that is not only punishing those who start the argument but those who continue it. If you don't rise to the bait it becomes a much less contentious issue because if the argument persists people start jumping in etc. etc.
Trolling would also be a good alternative to the wording, as the current wording implies all argument, even if its civil and constructive, is bad. Something i strongly disagree with :)
The Professor
01-09-2009, 08:30 PM
Trolling would also be a good alternative to the wording, as the current wording implies all argument, even if its civil and constructive, is bad. Something i strongly disagree with :)
Heh, it was originally called trolling but the wording was changed to "Posting to cause arguments" to avoid people saying "no thatz not trolling, this iz". Posting to cause arguments is more black and white than trolling which is a word that hasn't been in use all that long and doesn't have a clear definition. Ironic that it now seems like the best thing to do is change it back :P
Catzsy
01-09-2009, 08:49 PM
Heh, it was originally called trolling but the wording was changed to "Posting to cause arguments" to avoid people saying "no thatz not trolling, this iz". Posting to cause arguments is more black and white than trolling which is a word that hasn't been in use all that long and doesn't have a clear definition. Ironic that it now seems like the best thing to do is change it back :P
I personally don't mind the word trolling but don't like the expression ' Do not feed the trolls' because there is another definition of the word Troll which isn't very flattering (ugly little monsters) which could be interpreted to mods being rude to members.
I think the wording could be altered
My suggestion would be:
A10. Do not be a negative factor on the forum – This includes posting to cause or to fuel arguments, unnecessary attacks on forum staff or general bad manners and attitude towards other forum members. Moderators, as always, will have the final say on whether a member is constantly being negative on the forums.
Mentor
01-09-2009, 09:04 PM
Heh, it was originally called trolling but the wording was changed to "Posting to cause arguments" to avoid people saying "no thatz not trolling, this iz". Posting to cause arguments is more black and white than trolling which is a word that hasn't been in use all that long and doesn't have a clear definition. Ironic that it now seems like the best thing to do is change it back :P
I personally don't mind the word trolling but don't like the expression ' Do not feed the trolls' because there is another definition of the word Troll which isn't very flattering (ugly little monsters) which could be interpreted to mods being rude to members.
I think the wording could be altered
My suggestion would be:
A10. Do not be a negative factor on the forum – This includes posting to cause or to fuel arguments, unnecessary attacks on forum staff or general bad manners and attitude towards other forum members. Moderators, as always, will have the final say on whether a member is constantly being negative on the forums.
My problem with the above suggestions is it still focus's on the word argument which are not a negative thing. All threads in the debates sections are posts to cause arguments. As thats what an argument is, a debate or discussion. They are all one and the same. Assuming the arguments are kept civil i can see no problem with them.
This is the reason i see flaming as the key word to use as it is flaming (personal attacks on other members and meaningless disagreements (such as trolling a users threads)) that as i understand it the rule aims to prevent. Discussion / argument in terms of conflicting ideologies, ideas and thoughts on the other hand are the key to conversation, people like different films and tv programs, different films, have different political beliefs and so on and so forth. As long as these arguments do not descend in to flaming, what is the issue?
get rid of it and just use "dont be rude" or something
Catzsy
01-09-2009, 09:11 PM
My problem with the above suggestions is it still focus's on the word argument which are not a negative thing. All threads in the debates sections are posts to cause arguments. As thats what an argument is, a debate or discussion. They are all one and the same. Assuming the arguments are kept civil i can see no problem with them.
This is the reason i see flaming as the key word to use as it is flaming (personal attacks on other members and meaningless disagreements (such as trolling a users threads)) that as i understand it the rule aims to prevent. Discussion / argument in terms of conflicting ideologies, ideas and thoughts on the other hand are the key to conversation, people like different films and tv programs, different films, have different political beliefs and so on and so forth. As long as these arguments do not descend in to flaming, what is the issue?
Yes the word flaming is good. I think it is better than troll. The word to vex/be vexatious pretty much sums it up as well.
nvrspk4
01-09-2009, 10:43 PM
My problem with the above suggestions is it still focus's on the word argument which are not a negative thing. All threads in the debates sections are posts to cause arguments. As thats what an argument is, a debate or discussion. They are all one and the same. Assuming the arguments are kept civil i can see no problem with them.
This is the reason i see flaming as the key word to use as it is flaming (personal attacks on other members and meaningless disagreements (such as trolling a users threads)) that as i understand it the rule aims to prevent. Discussion / argument in terms of conflicting ideologies, ideas and thoughts on the other hand are the key to conversation, people like different films and tv programs, different films, have different political beliefs and so on and so forth. As long as these arguments do not descend in to flaming, what is the issue?
Flaming isn't the same as trolling. The two things, flaming and baiting, but baiting is more like trolling while flaming is more like simply insulting.
syko2006
01-09-2009, 10:52 PM
If your Judgment is so good, why have about 6 infractions you gave me been reversed?
Because you complained and insisted that they were in spite, which they were not.
So if a user gets an infraction, they can complain about it being in spite and get it reversed? Nice. :P
So if a user gets an infraction, they can complain about it being in spite and get it reversed? Nice. :P
No, if you read the next post you would see i said it was given for a stupid reason
i got one for saying a user had a small willie and for saying penis pump
syko2006
01-09-2009, 10:55 PM
Oh ok, my bad, I'll rephrase that.
So if a user gets an infraction, they can complain about it being stupid and get it reversed? Nice. :P
xxMATTGxx
01-09-2009, 10:58 PM
Oh ok, my bad, I'll rephrase that.
So if a user gets an infraction, they can complain about it being stupid and get it reversed? Nice. :P
If you have a problem with an infraction you were given by a member of the Moderation Department. Then yes, you can report it. You need to post in this thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=279102
syko2006
01-09-2009, 11:03 PM
If you have a problem with an infraction you were given by a member of the Moderation Department. Then yes, you can report it. You need to post in this thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=279102
Ok, sweet! Thanks MG. :D
Kardan
01-09-2009, 11:20 PM
I think the lying one needs sorting out most. If I joke about with Jen and she says something about me and I put:
DON'T LIE!!!! :@ :@
I'd be infracted for it which is silly. Not all moderators would know that me and Jen are even friends, and Jen would quite clearly know it's a joke because I don't usually type like that. I think most MODs would see 'Don't Lie' and go to infract without checking who it was aimed at and the context of the thread.
I think the lying one needs sorting out most. If I joke about with Jen and she says something about me and I put:
DON'T LIE!!!! :@ :@
I'd be infracted for it which is silly. Not all moderators would know that me and Jen are even friends, and Jen would quite clearly know it's a joke because I don't usually type like that. I think most MODs would see 'Don't Lie' and go to infract without checking who it was aimed at and the context of the thread.
I think nvr said its not even a rule any more yet some mods are still editing for it..
Immenseman
02-09-2009, 12:06 AM
He also added it depends on the context. If it's posting to cause argument then it will still be edited. Obviously, if you say "LIAR!!!!!!" then it's going to be ignored. However, if you use it to start an argument then you will still be edited but with the do not post to cause arguments or insulting infraction. Again, dependent on the individual situation. It really isn't rocket science to grasp.
Then why was mine edited when i said
"*user* you're a liar"
and
"lying is bad for you"
I was hardly trying to cause arguments there. i even had proof the user was lying and the second time it was a joke and the user knew it
Immenseman
02-09-2009, 12:14 AM
In that context an edit on the post is fine. I don't know who it was aimed at but if the mod saw it wasn't light hearted fun then they are going to edit. If you go a warning/infraction then it's a different story. Calling someone a liar isn't positive, not necessarily negative, depends on how it's used.
Black_Apalachi
02-09-2009, 03:02 AM
Couldn't almost anything negative comment cause an argument though? I mean if someone's being an idiot and posting loads of rubbish which is clearly false, and you come along and say "stop lying", chances are as they're already being immature and whatever they're going to retaliate and argue against your post which called them a liar. Thus your post has caused an argument and you could be infracted. Then when you say you weren't trying to cause an argument, if was to a person like that, I imagine a Mod would say it's highly obvious they were going to argue rather than backing down and staying quiet.
Sooooooo basically anyone could do this with any negative comment and turn it into an argument whereas aimed at a normal person, they probably wouldn't argue but rather discuss their point of view in a more civilised tone. In other words, it can be down to the other person whether your post becomes an argument causer or not.
The Professor
02-09-2009, 04:42 PM
Tbh I don't think the wording of these rules is the issue, but the enforcement of the rule. The spirit of the rules is clear to everyone, e.g. the phrase "don't post to cause arguments" comes under "don't be a negative factor on the forum" which implies the rule targets members who are posting to cause arguments which make the forum a negative place rather than those who post contradicting someone else and starting a civil debate/discussion.
Imo moderators just need to be told to stick to the spirit of the rules and use common sense when enforcing them and these problems will go away; if we keep digging into to specific wording and the terms used and stuff we're going to be here until Christmas and we're never going to find a perfect solution that covers all our bases without making the rules unnecessarily long and detailed, and when you do that people stop wanting to read them because they become like terms of service which no-one reads for that very reason.
This isn't a court of law and we don't need to make sure every eventuality is covered by the wording of the rules. The rules we have atm are mostly short and to the point and get the message accross and that works well as long as it's enforced properly.
buttons
02-09-2009, 05:51 PM
Yeah Robald, that was my point. Everything can be seen as posting to cause an argument, I got infracted for something that's been said on msn then brought onto the forum. yet I gave msn evidence of someone doing the same to me and nothing gets done :') It shouldn't be used so loosely because there are so many things that can be interpeted as causing arguments, if it's obvious that it's about someone else then FINE, infract it. When I give evidence that shows something has been said because it's AGAINST me I expect something done, I mean, when it comes to me saying something really little about one person it gets infracted/warned whatever else straight away.
For example, someone made a thread that was aimed at a mod but he didn't mention their name or nothing and it was closed, a staff member uses a ****** little insult at me over msn and clearly copies and pastes to their forum mates to brag about it and one of them makes a thread to have a little sly discussion over it! The punishment should be the same, closure of the thread especially after supplying evidence. It seems there are different set of rules for different members here and it's not very fair.
I couldnt even suggest to someone (AS A JOKE) to hack their staff because it's much funner than being "immature" (as they were called) without being infracted because then apparently it's *+*oBvIoUs*+* that I'm accusing someone of hacking. They don't even tell you in the pm who you've apparently said hacks? O.o
Also the "leave the moderating to the moderators" rule is **** aswell, it's a valid rule as it could cause arguments but gawwwwd you guys don't know how to use it?
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6029576&postcount=14 - Telling someone not to spam in a spam thread is not telling them off. 1) It isn't even a rule to post off topic in a spam thread so he's not acting like a mod at all... 2) He wasn't saying the member would get infracted for it or was breaking the rules anyway so I see no harm done.
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6029646&postcount=24 - Calling someone a RULEBREAKERRR is harmless fun, would you agree Jake? You said if it was harmless fun there should be no edit, this one is and it's just messing around. Of course not, it was edited..
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6029665&postcount=25 - So now, saying someone didn't break the rules is now apparently doing a moderators job?? I think not. It was edited anyway ^^ (to make it clear I was talking to the moderator that was in the quote there:P)
Yes, I should pm it to Nvr and complain and yes I already have, he's just too busy at the moment so I don't want any of that "omg we cnt do nefin so plz moan sumwher else thx" or "WELL YOU DESERVE THAT EDIT BECAUSE YOU'RE A TROUBLE MAKER" **** please. If the mods could explain why they found the need to edit any of them and give me a satisfactory answer that would be great thanksss!
There was another thread with stupid edits like that. Only myself, Graham and Adam's were edited of course ;) but yeah it's been moved, hopefully because they want to keep that stupid mistakes out of public eye, needs sorteeed :)
I agree Prof-Alex, I don't think it's the wording that's too wrong it's just which infraction reason is used and when :S like shown above ^_^
nice, just found a new example
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6031297&postcount=24 - Don't really see how that's trying to do a moderator's job at all. Again, he didn't say "you're going to get infracted it's not allowed" he didn't say anything about the rules, he pointed it out and that was all. I bet it was edited because it was Graham. I don't wanna play the victm but when it's only 3 of us getting these crap edits then I'm sure you could see why we think we're being treated unfairly :)
Immenseman
02-09-2009, 06:50 PM
Yeah Robald, that was my point. Everything can be seen as posting to cause an argument, I got infracted for something that's been said on msn then brought onto the forum. yet I gave msn evidence of someone doing the same to me and nothing gets done :') It shouldn't be used so loosely because there are so many things that can be interpeted as causing arguments, if it's obvious that it's about someone else then FINE, infract it. When I give evidence that shows something has been said because it's AGAINST me I expect something done, I mean, when it comes to me saying something really little about one person it gets infracted/warned whatever else straight away.
Regardless of your supposed "evidence" moderators can't act on it. You know perfectly well the don't accept chat logs as any sort of evidence. If they did I'm pretty sure half the forum would be banned, including staff. MSN is a place for people to mess and joke around. Without dropping names, management with red and green names insult people on MSN, it's not hurting them.
Evidently if you were infracted for something you said on MSN which got carried through onto the forum then you made it obvious that it was directed at a member and the other person whoever you may be talking about is either innocent and you're just worrying or alternatively they're better at covering it up. That's not meant in a patronising way, just the two things that I can think of.
The last line is just silly thinking that you're the only person who gets infracted. I know Kyle and Liam were/are cautioned and other members get punishment too - everyone has a level playing field and is treated with the same rules, regardess of depleted conspiracy theories.
For example, someone made a thread that was aimed at a mod but he didn't mention their name or nothing and it was closed, a staff member uses a ****** little insult at me over msn and clearly copies and pastes to their forum mates to brag about it and one of them makes a thread to have a little sly discussion over it! The punishment should be the same, closure of the thread especially after supplying evidence. It seems there are different set of rules for different members here and it's not very fair.
I could use the phrase "life isn't fair", but that's something my parents or a teacher would say and I'm neither of those. As I've said above, MSN chat logs which is what you're said was the evidence aren't ever conclusive. I know people on this forum who would go out of their way to re-create chat logs to get other people in trouble.
Sadly us members have let ourselves down here. If the moderators knew that a thread was aimed at another user they would penalise that user. However, they never know if a user has faked the chat logs. If all members were trust worthy, that wouldn't be an issue. However, they aren't, thus an issue arises. Unfortunate that we let ourselves down on that one.
I couldnt even suggest to someone (AS A JOKE) to hack their staff because it's much funner than being "immature" (as they were called) without being infracted because then apparently it's *+*oBvIoUs*+* that I'm accusing someone of hacking. They don't even tell you in the pm who you've apparently said hacks? O.o
Then the moderator will use common sense. See what other posts have been made. I don't know the exact post but say for example you quoted someone and then said it. It would be obvious who you were aiming it at. Regardless of it was a joke the user could still take offence.
I could say "Nvrspk4 is a hacker - jokes" and say there was past posts accusing him of hacking and he didn't like it he could report the post and say he didn't find it funny and the moderator would do their job and deal with the post and the user who posted it.
I have deleted the part of your post on the individual posts because I'm not a moderator so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on them as individual posts. Best bet is to PM the moderator(s) in question and get their response. I'm sure they'll take time out of their day to explain it to you and to resolve your issues.
Yes, I should pm it to Nvr and complain and yes I already have, he's just too busy at the moment so I don't want any of that "omg we cnt do nefin so plz moan sumwher else thx" or "WELL YOU DESERVE THAT EDIT BECAUSE YOU'RE A TROUBLE MAKER" **** please. If the mods could explain why they found the need to edit any of them and give me a satisfactory answer that would be great thanksss!
He has replied in this thread and numerous PMs from me over the last few days so I don't think he's very busy. If you've sent him a PM he may have just prioritised more important ones, he'll reply, he always does.
There was another thread with stupid edits like that. Only myself, Graham and Adam's were edited of course ;) but yeah it's been moved, hopefully because they want to keep that stupid mistakes out of public eye, needs sorteeed :)
I agree Prof-Alex, I don't think it's the wording that's too wrong it's just which infraction reason is used and when :S like shown above ^_^
Threads are moved when there is an excessive amount of rule breaking and they move it away to deal with it or because there are posts that can't be seen by the general forum. I'm sure once again if you sent a PM to a super moderator they would give you a valid reason as to why they moved the thread.
nice, just found a new example
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6031297&postcount=24 - Don't really see how that's trying to do a moderator's job at all. Again, he didn't say "you're going to get infracted it's not allowed" he didn't say anything about the rules, he pointed it out and that was all. I bet it was edited because it was Graham. I don't wanna play the victm but when it's only 3 of us getting these crap edits then I'm sure you could see why we think we're being treated unfairly :)
Lmao, that's ludicrous - thinking there is only three of you that get infractions :eusa_wall Like I said earlier in my post I know Kyle and Liam were cautioned this week, they might still be - not sure. I also know of more than three people who have had infractions/cautions/post edits throughout their rule breaking posts in spam over the last few days.
You say you don't want to play the victim but then you say there are only three if you getting silly edits in your own words then you must be the only three making silly posts.
Your best chance of getting a proper answer is to either PM the moderator(s) who gave these "silly" edits or go straight to the forum manager and demand an answer. I'm sure he'll tell you something that the majority of the forum could, the posts were a minor violation of the rules thus a post edit was used to remind you of your future conduct.
buttons
02-09-2009, 07:07 PM
Wasn't chatlogs, was a screenie of a convo. I didn't get the part where they admitted what the thread was about though as it was afterwards and I'm aware you can't really use it as evidence. Yep, it's a place for people to mess around and say stuff you can't on the forum, I wasn't infracted for it no, the other member made the thread at me and a mod said something like it to me earlier so it was closed, it wasn't obvious at all because it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular in the first place ;)
I don't think I'm the only one that is infracted, it's just the 3 of us that gets THAT one rule (please leave the moderating to the moderators) edited and whatever else. I haven't seen it used so much before nevermind in one bloody thread, what I'm trying to say is they can't actually use the right infraction reason properly. I don't think everyone is treated the same, when I was "friendly" with some ex-mods they would just tell me off and didn't actually do anything about it and I told them I didn't want that. After saying it so many times they finally got the hint but started infracting for the worst things. When I fell out with one mod they started infracting me very often afterwards, I'm not saying all mods have favourites but I've seen it personally. I think some of the mods see post reports (except mine!!) and think they HAVE to do something about it and don't actually use their own judgement.
They weren't really logs, just a direct screenie of the conversation as it was happening - which is why I couldn't get where they had admitted what it was about but "life is not fair" right? As for getting people into trouble, I don't really think you can talk about that but I better not say anything just incase I get infracted for accusing members of causing trouble. lol.
Yeah, I think I might pm them but it's not just for my benefit, it was for the others in question and just wanted to see what others thought about it, we're all allowed a say in what we think about the rules and I was wondering what on earth the mods were thinking when they edited that ones :)
He HAS replied and I know that, he pmed me and a lot of other people (2 lines lol) saying he was very busy and would look at all the pms by tomorow and this weekend. I'm fine with that. I'm not going to be impatient and cry, nothing will get done if no-one complains publically about the rules.
Silly posts? Who are you to judge that? I showed the links and don't think they're silly at all so no, I'm not the one that's at fault. Yes, they are "silly" edits, can't you see that for yourself? They weren't minor at all, they were perfectly harmless.
I asked for your opinion on one thing, not everything. I don't appreciate someone who is *just* a member like myself acting as though they're much more superior.
I'll ask for this to be closed and nvr to look at my posts instead. I'll pm the 2 mods in question aswell.
Catzsy
02-09-2009, 07:21 PM
[ Buttons]For example, someone made a thread that was aimed at a mod but he didn't mention their name or nothing and it was closed, a staff member uses a ****** little insult at me over msn and clearly copies and pastes to their forum mates to brag about it and one of them makes a thread to have a little sly discussion over it! The punishment should be the same, closure of the thread especially after supplying evidence. It seems there are different set of rules for different members here and it's not very fair.
Well it is probably a good idea to be a bit more specific as to what you are actually saying here and quote the thread. That's why I only have two members on my msn. It is all to easy for someone to try and get others into trouble and misinterpret what has actually been said. This is quite an accusation to make so if you are serious you should make a complaint.
[Buttons] I couldnt even suggest to someone (AS A JOKE) to hack their staff because it's much funner than being "immature" (as they were called) without being infracted because then apparently it's *+*oBvIoUs*+* that I'm accusing someone of hacking. They don't even tell you in the pm who you've apparently said hacks? O.o
No that's correct it breaks:
Rule A4. Do not accuse others of scamming or hacking - 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 Habbox or Habbo Staff of abusing their powers on the forum. 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, you should PM an administrator who may be able to do something.
The other member did not see it as a joke and also the pm quoted your post
so there was no need to state that again and it was not an infraction it was a warning which is much different.
Comment on my edit:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6031297&postcount=24
- I edit everybody that breaks Rule A13 which is quite specific.
A13. Leave moderating to the moderators – If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with a brief description. Also, you may not discuss bans on the forum. If you wish to dispute a ban use the Support System. Also, you should never ignore a moderators warning, change their warnings, or open a thread they have closed.
We are allowed to leave edits. It is up to the members to read the rules
although I have already pm'd the person concerned regarding this rule break
and quoted the rules so he should be aware of them. My view is that if you don't break the rules you will not get an edit or any other further action. If you feel this is unfair Habbox has a very good system to get it reviewed
by posting here:
http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1331 or pm'ing
Matt Garner or Nvrspk4.
My personal view is that you & mwah are treated no differently than anybody else. I don't know who the third person is but the same applies. if members didn't break the rules they wouldn't get the edits and they always have the option of reporting rule breaks via the report button where we also say what action is taken so they can be checked for any so called favourtism by any member of the Forum Management.
Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.