Abuse of staff powers / Outright fail in communications and knowledge of rules.

[Mentor]

Recently i was contacted about an arbitrary and pointless rule being supposedly broken - despite the fact this is actually one of the fictious rules some mods seem to like trying to enforce.

The rule was that of avatar size, having been a member on this forum a very long time, i have archived the platinum rank (twice in total) before the post requirements for it were moved. My avatar was uploaded back when that limit was 5000 posts.

The avatar stayed on my account for more than a year while my post count was under the boundary needed without comment - This is fair in my opinion as taking away a privilege someone has already earned seems a little harsh.

Suddenly a certain super mod decided this should no longer be the case and asked me to alter the size of it. Rather than kick up a fuss i decided to comply and conferring with a manager agreed to apply for the 3 months free VIP gained from being here 5 years. I was advised to contact Jin whom i am yet to get hold of.

Now this certain mod has decided that there was a magic time limit of 24 hours (which had never before this been mentioned) Since i have not yet managed to contact jin. They took matters in to there own hands and removed my avatar and gave me a warning.

... So guess what, i'm going to kickup a fuss. I name no names, but will provide them to appropriate staff if required and i'm happy for those involve to come forward and try and explain themselves.

I'd rather do this in a public forum as it seems certain staff still seem to be in the habbit of making rules up whenever they think there in the safty of Private Messaging which cant be posted on the forum without breaking an actual rule, thus can be hidden...

So what will i dispute?

The 24 hour time limit
Take a look though the rules... i dont see this one there?

Communication
This issue was passed up to a higher member of staff at my request. I discussed the issue with this staff member and came to an agreement.
The mod decided obviously there was no point checking with the guy he passed the issue on to - that would make no sense?

Avatar size limit itself
This rule does not and has NEVER existed. It is totally made up.
Gaining a user-rank allows you to set an avatar to a larger size. Having achieved this i did set my avatar to this size.
There is NO rule that says i should ever have to resize it if the rankings are changed to the point i no long have this rank.
There is NO rule that says i cannot have an avatar as large as i had it - regardless of rank of vip status


And what's my big gripe?
My avatar was removed from failing to comply with a non-existent rule within a non-existent time frame.

Whats more i even agreed, just to be nice, to follow this fictional rule. I agreed to apply for the VIP status i have earned from my time here. I had agreed this with the super mod's superior.

I request the warning remove, my avatar put back (as i am no longer able to do this myself due to the size constraints added when setting it)

I also would like to request mods and super mods especially be forced to actually read the rules once in a while. Equally to take in to account that when you pass an issue on to someone, chances are, they may actually do somthing about it themselves.

Bit of a rant, but the story can be confirmed easily enough by admins, and the rules are easily found within the FAQ if anyone what's to check the validity of my claims. I see this a massive abuse of powers by said member (seeing as there power was used to enforce a rule they made up) and a failing in the moderation proccess that needs to be looked in to.

Thankyou,
Mentor

[Callum.]

just find it ashame that you've been here 5 and a half years and can't keep the avatar you've had so long. pretty stupid.

[Hecktix]

If this was not against the rules, then there would not be an infraction entitled "Profile Violation".

Following your Private Message yesterday, politely asking you to remove your avatar as it was over the size limit for your member group (limits which have been around for quite a long time) you raised concerns which were forwarded to management.

The result given to you was that your avatar was over the limit for your usergroup and the only way to ensure it wasn't was to buy VIP.

In terms of "24 hours" there is no fixed rule, infact the moderator guide states that "if the user has not removed their avatar some time after your request for removal (and they have been online since that PM) then a warning should be issued and the avatar should be removed." I personally work to a time constraint of 24 hours, other mods do too however some could quite easily issue a warning earlier.

I've seen the PMs from management (the ones saying I was right and that your avatar was oversized) and both Forum Managers were aware that this warning would be coming your way should you not remove the avatar.

This rule is the same for every other member and has been enforced for as long as I've been a moderator. Like I said, if it wasn't a rule there wouldn't be an infraction for it, and it certainly wouldn't be part of the Super Moderator guide.

[hah]

i agree with the avatar rule, every other fansite got rid of it and allow 150x150 regardless; of your usergroup

also if your a new user and you select one of the Habbox avatars that are 150x150 its lets you :P

edit; i tough this would be some good power abuse :( like oli banning loads

[Hecktix]

Oh and I'm pretty sure your avatar hasn't been an issue before because as far as I can remember you've always had donator/VIP where the limit is 150x150.

[Seatherny]

I will use a perfect example:

Laws in real life change all time time e.g. smoking ban in public areas. You have to keep up-to-date with the rules and follow them.
If you didn't temporarily remove it after the Super Moderator's warning, its your fault.

I believe it is you who should read the rules from time to time.

[Chippiewill]

Oh and I'm pretty sure your avatar hasn't been an issue before because as far as I can remember you've always had donator/VIP where the limit is 150x150.

Erm... -cough-


Avatar size limit itself
This rule does not and has NEVER existed. It is totally made up.
Gaining a user-rank allows you to set an avatar to a larger size. Having achieved this i did set my avatar to this size.
There is NO rule that says i should ever have to resize it if the rankings are changed to the point i no long have this rank.
There is NO rule that says i cannot have an avatar as large as i had it - regardless of rank of vip status

[Mentor]

If this was not against the rules, then there would not be an infraction entitled "Profile Violation".

Following your Private Message yesterday, politely asking you to remove your avatar as it was over the size limit for your member group (limits which have been around for quite a long time) you raised concerns which were forwarded to management.

The result given to you was that your avatar was over the limit for your usergroup and the only way to ensure it wasn't was to buy VIP.

In terms of "24 hours" there is no fixed rule, infact the moderator guide states that "if the user has not removed their avatar some time after your request for removal (and they have been online since that PM) then a warning should be issued and the avatar should be removed." I personally work to a time constraint of 24 hours, other mods do too however some could quite easily issue a warning earlier.

I've seen the PMs from management (the ones saying I was right and that your avatar was oversized) and both Forum Managers were aware that this warning would be coming your way should you not remove the avatar.

This rule is the same for every other member and has been enforced for as long as I've been a moderator. Like I said, if it wasn't a rule there wouldn't be an infraction for it, and it certainly wouldn't be part of the Super Moderator guide.

Habbox's rules: http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=rules_main#faq_rules_forum

Can you point it out for me, as a dropdown option in the mod panel doesnt really cut it in my mind - especially when thats for inappropriate avatars /sigs containing nudity/violence etc.

24 hour time limit is fair enough if you tell the person this. If you keep this time a secret then pounce, while the user is still actively attempting to resolve the issue. Then no, this is not fair by any standard.

My avatar was over the limit for my user group - BUT this is NOT against the rules.

If you have enforced this "rule" on other users, then they should also be removed. There is NO rule. If habbox choose's to add a rule on this fine. But at current, there is none. And applying a new rule back to events before its existence is inappropriate.

Equally, if the super mod's guide includes rules not in the public rules (see real rules) Then obviously who ever maintains this guide needs to get on and update it.

A super moderator really should know the forums actual rules though, not just what some guide tells them. If the normal members are expected to, then you should doubly so.

Also i have never been a donator - nore VIP before that. I have had VIP via MoTM, but my avatar pre-date's that's existence by a time measured in years (i think around 3)

[xxMATTGxx]

Recently i was contacted about an arbitrary and pointless rule being supposedly broken - despite the fact this is actually one of the fictious rules some mods seem to like trying to enforce.

The rule was that of avatar size, having been a member on this forum a very long time, i have archived the platinum rank (twice in total) before the post requirements for it were moved. My avatar was uploaded back when that limit was 5000 posts.

The avatar stayed on my account for more than a year while my post count was under the boundary needed without comment - This is fair in my opinion as taking away a privilege someone has already earned seems a little harsh.

Suddenly a certain super mod decided this should no longer be the case and asked me to alter the size of it. Rather than kick up a fuss i decided to comply and conferring with a manager agreed to apply for the 3 months free VIP gained from being here 5 years. I was advised to contact Jin whom i am yet to get hold of.

Now this certain mod has decided that there was a magic time limit of 24 hours (which had never before this been mentioned) Since i have not yet managed to contact jin. They took matters in to there own hands and removed my avatar and gave me a warning.

... So guess what, i'm going to kickup a fuss. I name no names, but will provide them to appropriate staff if required and i'm happy for those involve to come forward and try and explain themselves.

I'd rather do this in a public forum as it seems certain staff still seem to be in the habbit of making rules up whenever they think there in the safty of Private Messaging which cant be posted on the forum without breaking an actual rule, thus can be hidden...

So what will i dispute?

The 24 hour time limit
Take a look though the rules... i dont see this one there?

Communication
This issue was passed up to a higher member of staff at my request. I discussed the issue with this staff member and came to an agreement.
The mod decided obviously there was no point checking with the guy he passed the issue on to - that would make no sense?

Avatar size limit itself
This rule does not and has NEVER existed. It is totally made up.
Gaining a user-rank allows you to set an avatar to a larger size. Having achieved this i did set my avatar to this size.
There is NO rule that says i should ever have to resize it if the rankings are changed to the point i no long have this rank.
There is NO rule that says i cannot have an avatar as large as i had it - regardless of rank of vip status


And what's my big gripe?
My avatar was removed from failing to comply with a non-existent rule within a non-existent time frame.

Whats more i even agreed, just to be nice, to follow this fictional rule. I agreed to apply for the VIP status i have earned from my time here. I had agreed this with the super mod's superior.

I request the warning remove, my avatar put back (as i am no longer able to do this myself due to the size constraints added when setting it)

I also would like to request mods and super mods especially be forced to actually read the rules once in a while. Equally to take in to account that when you pass an issue on to someone, chances are, they may actually do somthing about it themselves.

Bit of a rant, but the story can be confirmed easily enough by admins, and the rules are easily found within the FAQ if anyone what's to check the validity of my claims. I see this a massive abuse of powers by said member (seeing as there power was used to enforce a rule they made up) and a failing in the moderation proccess that needs to be looked in to.

Thankyou,
Mentor


The 24 hour time limit
Take a look though the rules... i dont see this one there?

I will give it to you that it does not say anywhere to the public that you have 24 hours to remove it. I think this is a thing we may have to include to stop any confusion. Although the rule states for the Super Moderators that the user has up to 24 hours to remove any oversized avatar and signature. (That's if they have been online)


Communication
This issue was passed up to a higher member of staff at my request. I discussed the issue with this staff member and came to an agreement.
The mod decided obviously there was no point checking with the guy he passed the issue on to - that would make no sense?

It did indeed get passed on, I said that the Super Moderator summed it up and that your avatar was still over the current limits. Once you replied back, I mentioned that your usergroup got changed from Platinum > Emerald because it didn't match up. (Which I did say if it was a mistake, let me know and I will see what I could do). I did indeed tell you to contact Jin regarding the Gold VIP for 3 months for users being on forum for over 5 years due to Nvrspk4 not really being around, who first started it. Although, I never did say it was an alternative and that your avatar should stay.


Avatar size limit itself
This rule does not and has NEVER existed. It is totally made up.
Gaining a user-rank allows you to set an avatar to a larger size. Having achieved this i did set my avatar to this size.
There is NO rule that says i should ever have to resize it if the rankings are changed to the point i no long have this rank.
There is NO rule that says i cannot have an avatar as large as i had it - regardless of rank of vip status

There are rules regarding Avatar and Signatures in the FAQ. This can be found at two places:

1. http://habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item1#faq_new_faq_item_userpos tranks

2. http://habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item3#faq_new_faq_item_avatar

Regarding your user-rank, I explained above which is most likely causing the avatar issue.

"What is the set avatar size for a Habbox member?" I would of thought that meant that there is a set size for different ranks. Then it also mentions VIP sizes.


My avatar was removed from failing to comply with a non-existent rule within a non-existent time frame.

It's not a non-existent rule, I would say it might be a rule that isn't full on clear to some members but from what I remember, it's been like this for a while. Just the ranking system has been changed over the years but hasn't changed since.

[Hecktix]

Erm... -cough-

For over a year now the userranks have been set at what there are.
The reason this has not been an issue is because Mentor has had VIP for the majority of this time.

[Yoshimitsui]

The way i always followed was that if that member had come online to the forum and logged in after the PM to remove had been sent then they got a warning and so on. Never 24 hours as people come and go as they wish.

[Seatherny]

I think it should be changed to 48 hours as its possible a user could have come online for minutes to check a thread and didnt check their PM.

Also it would be a good idea to clearly state the time limit on the PM.

[Hecktix]

The way i always followed was that if that member had come online to the forum and logged in after the PM to remove had been sent then they got a warning and so on. Never 24 hours as people come and go as they wish.

We still follow that principle, however usually they would be online before 24 hours after the PM, but we believe it's only fair that we give a user time to get round to doing it, therefore if they have been online within 24 hours of the PM this is what you could call a fair time.

Obviously if it's 24 hours after the PM and they haven't been online, no warning would be issued until they have come online (only if then they had still failed to remove the avatar).

[The Professor]

Sounds like a communication fail, calling it power abuse is a bit mad.

[Mentor]

I will use a perfect example:

Laws in real life change all time time e.g. smoking ban in public areas. You have to keep up-to-date with the rules and follow them.
If you didn't temporarily remove it after the Super Moderator's warning, its your fault.

I believe it is you who should read the rules from time to time.

Here are the rules: http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?f...aq_rules_forum
Feel free to read them :)

Its like if a police office comes up to you and says its illegal not to give him a £5. Then arrests him when you dont and point out there is no such law.

If they did that people wouldnt be "oh noes, you should read the lawz moar. The police officer was obviously right"

I am the one who has read the rules and has actually looked at what they say, not invincible. I read them through a few times in fact while creating my original post. Feel free to confirm that :)


I will give it to you that it does not say anywhere to the public that you have 24 hours to remove it. I think this is a thing we may have to include to stop any confusion. Although the rule states for the Super Moderators that the user has up to 24 hours to remove any oversized avatar and signature. (That's if they have been online)



It did indeed get passed on, I said that the Super Moderator summed it up and that your avatar was still over the current limits. Once you replied back, I mentioned that your usergroup got changed from Platinum > Emerald because it didn't match up. (Which I did say if it was a mistake, let me know and I will see what I could do). I did indeed tell you to contact Jin regarding the Gold VIP for 3 months for users being on forum for over 5 years due to Nvrspk4 not really being around, who first started it. Although, I never did say it was an alternative and that your avatar should stay.
If i had that VIP my avatar would be allowed to stay though. Thus i consider my attempt to obtain it as part of fixing the issue.

even if i had brought vip then and there chances are my avatar would still have been removed before it came though. Inadequate time was provided in order to do this.

Equally, when it comes down to it as far as the rules go. I'm allowed the avatar anyway


There is rules regarding Avatar and Signatures in the FAQ. Which can be found at two places:

1. http://habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item1#faq_new_faq_item_userpos tranks

2. http://habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item3#faq_new_faq_item_avatar

Link one contains information on what avatar sizes you can set while in a group. This is a limit imposed by the forum software.
It does not mention that if you are no longer in this group, your avatar should be removed, nore that it is against the rules to retain the avatar.
Equally it at no point mentions a rule reguarding avatar size at all, it only tells you the sizes you can set while in groups.

The second link contains the same information and has the same limits.

Neather state;
Any rule regarding size of avatar
Any rule requiring avatars be resized when group changes


Regarding your user-rank, I explained above which is most likely causing the avatar issue.

"What is the set avatar size for a Habbox member?" I would of thought that meant that there is a set size for different ranks. Then it also mentions VIP sizes.
They are the sizes you can set when in a particular rank. I do not see how this implys even loosely it should then require changing when you change usergroup.


It's not a non-existent rule, I would say it might be a rule that isn't full on clear to some members but from what I remember, it's been like this for a while. Just the ranking system has been changed over the years but hasn't changed since.
Its a rule that is not listed in the rules?
Its a rule thats never referred to as a rule?
Its a rule that has never been stated?
I've been on the forum a very long time, i'ts changed a good few times that i am aware of. I fail to see the significance of how long ago these changes happened, when my avatar still pre-dates them?

Sounds like a communication fail, calling it power abuse is a bit mad.
The rule does not exist. Hence the enforcing of it can be interpreted as nothing else?

[FlyingJesus]

Avatar size limit itself
This rule does not and has NEVER existed. It is totally made up.

http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item3#faq_new_faq_item_avatar


Gaining a user-rank allows you to set an avatar to a larger size. Having achieved this i did set my avatar to this size.
There is NO rule that says i should ever have to resize it if the rankings are changed to the point i no long have this rank.
There is NO rule that says i cannot have an avatar as large as i had it - regardless of rank of vip status

A change of rules does actually mean that you have to comply with the new ones, regardless of what was the case before.

I'd really like to agree with you but you don't actually have a winning point here. The 24 hour thing is a kinda minor issue considering you didn't have to be given any time at all - I've had avatars removed and only been PMd afterwards in the past, and my late great usertitle of "I hate fat people" which was on for a few weeks was randomly taken out without so much as a note as to it being done, but it's quite easy to move on from such things.


They are the sizes you can set when in a particular rank. I do not see how this implys even loosely it should then require changing when you change usergroup.

Because you're not in the same usergroup any more, clearly

[Mentor]

http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item3#faq_new_faq_item_avatar

Again, this is not listed in the forum rules.
All this states if what sizes can be set from specific user groups
No mention is made to what should happen if you move to a differnt user group than the one you were originally in.
It does not say nore imply you cannot keep an avatar you add when in one of these groups



A change of rules does actually mean that you have to comply with the new ones, regardless of what was the case before.
Yet the rule is not listed as a rule? even now?


I'd really like to agree with you but you don't actually have a winning point here. The 24 hour thing is a kinda minor issue considering you didn't have to be given any time at all - I've had avatars removed and only been PMd afterwards in the past, and my late great usertitle of "I hate fat people" which was on for a few weeks was randomly taken out without so much as a note as to it being done, but it's quite easy to move on from such things.
This is an avatar i've had here a very long time, and i was removed for a reason that has no basis in the rules.
The change to vip solution was only offered as i didnt really want to bother having to point this out. But since it was ignored, here i am pointing out. the rules do not include any rule mention avatar sizes.

In addition to the fact the avatar rules make no mention nore impliction of being rules. The fact they do not exist in rules page - nore are linked, but instead as FAQ style answers as would be expected in an faq, leads me to believe these probably are just FAQ's not rules at all. They are only being brough up as it is clear this rule, does not, nore has ever - existed.

[Hecktix]

Forum Rules and Terms and Conditions - Last Updated 14th November 2009 (http://habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)


Suggests to me that anything past that link are Rules or terms & conditions....

[FlyingJesus]

Like I said, it's implied by the fact that you aren't in that usergroup any more. I'm not a manager any more so I don't get to make community decisions and have certain perms, even though I used to. I used to get trains cheap for being young but that's not the case now either so I have to adapt.

[xxMATTGxx]

Here are the rules: http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?f...aq_rules_forum
Feel free to read them :)

Its like if a police office comes up to you and says its illegal not to give him a £5. Then arrests him when you dont and point out there is no such law.

If they did that people wouldnt be "oh noes, you should read the lawz moar. The police officer was obviously right"

I am the one who has read the rules and has actually looked at what they say, not invincible. I read them through a few times in fact while creating my original post. Feel free to confirm that :)




If i had that VIP my avatar would be allowed to stay though. Thus i consider my attempt to obtain it as part of fixing the issue.

even if i had brought vip then and there chances are my avatar would still have been removed before it came though. Inadequate time was provided in order to do this.

Equally, when it comes down to it as far as the rules go. I'm allowed the avatar anyway


Link one contains information on what avatar sizes you can set while in a group. This is a limit imposed by the forum software.
It does not mention that if you are no longer in this group, your avatar should be removed, nore that it is against the rules to retain the avatar.
Equally it at no point mentions a rule reguarding avatar size at all, it only tells you the sizes you can set while in groups.

The second link contains the same information and has the same limits.

Neather state;
Any rule regarding size of avatar
Any rule requiring avatars be resized when group changes


They are the sizes you can set when in a particular rank. I do not see how this implys even loosely it should then require changing when you change usergroup.


Its a rule that is not listed in the rules?
Its a rule thats never referred to as a rule?
Its a rule that has never been stated?
I've been on the forum a very long time, i'ts changed a good few times that i am aware of. I fail to see the significance of how long ago these changes happened, when my avatar still pre-dates them?

The rule does not exist. Hence the enforcing of it can be interpreted as nothing else?



The first link I posted contains all the information you would want to know about each rank on the forum. Once you move one to another, you can have bigger avatars and so on. The rank you are currently in is a maximum of 140x140. Your avatar was 150x150. Which you have been told about. This is hardly power abusing at all which you are relating to the SMod's work.

You may have a point that it is not under: (which will be changed)



B2. Signatures/Avatars


Member signature images may not exceed 700 pixels (width) x 150 pixels (height) in size
Donator signature images may not exceed 700 pixels x 300 pixels in total size
Signature font size may not be bigger than 4



But your avatar was still oversized.

[Mentor]

Suggests to me that anything past that link are Rules or terms & conditions....

100% agree.

But if you actually take a look, you'll notice only two mentions of avatars within it.

One says:

You are, however, allowed to post pictures of yourself, although they are NOT allowed in your avatar or signature.

the second:

B2. Signatures/Avatars
Member signature images may not exceed 700 pixels (width) x 150 pixels (height) in size
Donator signature images may not exceed 700 pixels x 300 pixels in total size
Signature font size may not be bigger than 4


So where exactly on this page does it say i cant have a 150*150 avatar? i must have missed it.

[Seatherny]

Its like if a police office comes up to you and says its illegal not to give him a £5. Then arrests him when you dont and point out there is no such law.

If they did that people wouldnt be "oh noes, you should read the lawz moar. The police officer was obviously right"

In all honesty, that example is nothing like the scenario here.

The rules state the avatar size you can have if you are in a certain group. It means if you move up or down to that group, you must only have the maximum size avatar which is listed for that group.
It is your job to update your avatar size when your user group changes.

In all honesty, its basic common sense.

[Mentor]

The first link I posted contains all the information you would want to know about each rank on the forum. Once you move one to another, you can have bigger avatars and so on. The rank you are currently in is a maximum of 140x140. Your avatar was 150x150. Which you have been told about. This is hardly power abusing at all which you are relating to the SMod's work.

You may have a point that it is not under: (which will be changed)



But your avatar was still oversized.
I never claimed my avatars size was not over the limit the forum software allows my user group to set.

My point is, that there is no rule against this.

Thus removing my avatar plus warning more for this is an abuse of power. I cannot be punished for breaking a rule that does not exist.
FAQ's on the subject of what is available for user groups to set does not constitute a rule. They have no bearing anyway and if they did, i've already pointed out the lack of anything saying that my avatar image cannot be set in one group then continued when i move in to another.


In all honesty, that example is nothing like the scenario here.

The rules state the avatar size you can have if you are in a certain group. It means if you move up or down to that group, you must only have the maximum size avatar which is listed for that group.
It is your job to update your avatar size when your user group changes.

In all honesty, its basic common sense.
The rules do not state this. If definition of a rule in this case, is something in the rules telling me i cannot do something.
No rule exists in the rule to that effect.

Thus i am being punished for breaking an non-rule. Which i believe is an abuse of power. I think other staff involved probably realise this, but now its been brought up do not want to admit it.

[FlyingJesus]

- We can (WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE) edit, close/lock, move, duplicated or publish any of your posted content because as soon as it is posted, you are the author of the content, but it becomes property of Habbox UK Forum.

and

- You give us the right (WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE) to edit, caution, temporarily ban or permanently ban, as well as your IP, or take any other measurements that we feel necessary.


If you refuse to accept that a clear cut guideline in the FAQ can count as rules, just take the above with a glass of water twice a day before meals and the big red mood should fade.

[Hecktix]

They have no bearing anyway and if they did, i've already pointed out the lack of anything saying that my avatar image cannot be set in one group then continued when i move in to another.

Using that principle, if I buy VIP, which allows me an avatar of 150x150 and then after 1 month this VIP runs out and I get a PM saying my avatar is too big, I would be able to say "I had the ability to set my avatar as that before, so it should be allowed now i've moved into the normal users usergroup".

And that wouldn't be good at all.

[Smits]

I can see where mentor is coming from, and see why he;d be annoyed. But if the avatar should be removed it should be removed.

What concerns me is this;

- Why has it taken so long for his avatar to be noticed? Is it because he had VIP, because i really don't know. If he did fair enough.

- Is nobody else able to give him his well earned VIP other than jin?

[Mentor]

- We can (WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE) edit, close/lock, move, duplicated or publish any of your posted content because as soon as it is posted, you are the author of the content, but it becomes property of Habbox UK Forum.

Yep


You give us the right (WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE) to edit, caution, temporarily ban or permanently ban, as well as your IP, or take any other measurements that we feel necessary.
Yep

The forums a dictatorship, i get that. I'm not disputing it. What i am disputing is that i broke any existing rule. Inforceing a rule that does not exist, is to me, an abuse of power.

If those in charge want to warn me / remove my avatar for fun. yep they are allowed by the terms.

The fact, no rule was broke remains though


If you refuse to accept that a clear cut guideline in the FAQ can count as rules, just take the above with a glass of water twice a day before meals and the big red mood should fade.
FAQ article !== rules
Nore were they clear cut. I have read them a good 30 times, they still sound to be simple information telling you what sizes you can physically set while in a group

No mention is ever made to the effect that because I move from one group to another that my avatar now becomes against the rules.

Using that principle, if I buy VIP, which allows me an avatar of 150x150 and then after 1 month this VIP runs out and I get a PM saying my avatar is too big, I would be able to say "I had the ability to set my avatar as that before, so it should be allowed now i've moved into the normal users usergroup".

And that wouldn't be good at all.
Probably not. But that doesn't actually cause that rule to exist. At current people are fully within the scope of the rules to say just that. If this is wrong, then the rules need updating. Not the people who under the current rules, have not broke any one of them.
The rule being enforced does not exist at this point in time. If this is a rule that habbox wish's to enforce, then it should be added to the rule. Punishing me for a rule though, just because in the future it may exist, still seems a little messed up.

The fact of the matter is no rule states i cannot have the avatar i had.

I'm pretty sure most of you actually acknowledge this and are just active defensivly now.

[xxMATTGxx]

I can see where mentor is coming from, and see why he;d be annoyed. But if the avatar should be removed it should be removed.

What concerns me is this;

- Why has it taken so long for his avatar to be noticed? Is it because he had VIP, because i really don't know. If he did fair enough.

- Is nobody else able to give him his well earned VIP other than jin?


Mentor not that long ago was in the "Platinum" group. Which lets users have 150x150 avatar. Although his posts and so on never matched up so he got put down a level to "Emerald". If I remember correctly.

[Seatherny]

The rules do not state this. If definition of a rule in this case, is something in the rules telling me i cannot do something.
No rule exists in the rule to that effect.

Thus i am being punished for breaking an non-rule. Which i believe is an abuse of power. I think other staff involved probably realise this, but now its been brought up do not want to admit it.

The rules state that you can only have such and such avatar size in such a user group. It is your job to make sure you follow the rules and update your avatar size accordingly.
I can see where you are coming from saying you earned it before, but in this case you are wrong, not the Forum staff. The rules and settings have changed and so you need to follow them.


Nore were they clear cut. I have read them a good 30 times, they still sound to be simple information telling you what sizes you can physically set while in a group

Again, its very basic common sense, if the rules change, you need to follow them and update your settings accordingly. Otherwise there would be 600 lines for each rule if they were to use your way of thinking :rolleyes:

[Mentor]

The rules state that you can only have such and such avatar size in such a user group. It is your job to make sure you follow the rules and update your avatar size accordingly.
I can see where you are coming from saying you earned it before, but in this case you are wrong, not the Forum staff. The rules and settings have changed and so you need to follow them.



Again, its very basic common sense, if the rules change, you need to follow them and update your settings accordingly.
Please show me this rule. Because i've looked and so far your the only person here who has found it.

At best others have found faq articles which do not say anything to the effect of me not being able to retain my avatar anyway.

if you found a rule. please post it, then i will admit i'm wrong an apologise.

[Chippiewill]

In all honesty, that example is nothing like the scenario here.

The rules state the avatar size you can have if you are in a certain group. It means if you move up or down to that group, you must only have the maximum size avatar which is listed for that group.
It is your job to update your avatar size when your user group changes.

No, it says that you can change your Avatar to that size when you're in that user group, it says nothing about removing it when it's larger than you can make it any more.

[Smits]

I have read them a good 30 times, they still sound to be simple information telling you what sizes you can physically set while in a group

No mention is ever made to the effect that because I move from one group to another that my avatar now becomes against the rules


That's fair enough but surely if you were allowed to have any sized avatar, in any user group, then you would be able to create the maximum in any user group, rather than specific sizes for specific groups.

Don't get me wrong i can see where your ocming from, it doesn't state that you're not allowed to have a certain sized avatar, but i think most people make the assumption from those guidelines.

I don't really see why this is such a big deal, i really wanna see this avatar now, must be a corker.

[Hecktix]

I can see where mentor is coming from, and see why he;d be annoyed. But if the avatar should be removed it should be removed.

What concerns me is this;

- Why has it taken so long for his avatar to be noticed? Is it because he had VIP, because i really don't know. If he did fair enough.

- Is nobody else able to give him his well earned VIP other than jin?

For the majority of the part here, it is because mentor has been Black VIP for the majority of this year, which meant his avatar was above board :)


Mentor not that long ago was in the "Platinum" group. Which lets users have 150x150 avatar. Although his posts and so on never matched up so he got put down a level to "Emerald". If I remember correctly.

This has been the case over the past few weeks, a moderator reported the avatar and the fact his usertitle read "Platinum member" although the user did not appear to meet the requirements for this usergroup therefore after a thorough investigation he was put down to the group he should be in, several days later he was contacted in reference to the avatar.

I personally believe Mentor has had VIP since before the usergroup limits changed, and this is why when his VIP ran out his usergroup was "Platinum Member", however as Saurav and FlyingJesus have said, rules change overtime and we have to comply to the latest regulations :)

[hah]

i think it was just some cartoon

[Chippiewill]

I don't really see why this is such a big deal, i really wanna see this avatar now, must be a corker.

It's one fine avatar, I'll tell you that.


we have to comply to the latest regulations
Which mean he has to have his avatar removed because?

[Seatherny]

Please show me this rule. Because i've looked and so far your the only person here who has found it.

At best others have found faq articles which do not say anything to the effect of me not being able to retain my avatar anyway.

if you found a rule. please post it, then i will admit i'm wrong an apologise.

Rules, FAQ, whats the difference, seriously :S You are simply nitpicking.


What is the set avatar size for a Habbox member?
The set avatar size for a habbox member is 90 (Width) x 100 (Height) The new ranking system consists of a new avatar and signature system too. Here are the avatar sizes for the following ranks:
Bronze rank - 90 x 100
Silver rank - 105 x 105
Gold rank - 110 x 110
Ruby rank - 120 x 120
Sapphire rank - 130x130
Emerald rank - 140x140
Platinum rank - 150 x 150

I think that's clear enough. As a Emerald, you cant have a avatar size higher than 140x140, simple as.

[Hecktix]

No, it says that you can change your Avatar to that size when you're in that user group, it says nothing about removing it when it's larger than you can make it any more.

If one usergroup has a maximum limit of 150x150 and then another usergroup has a maximum limit of 140x140 I think that's pretty self evident if you move usergroups you must comply to these limits?

[Chippiewill]

If one usergroup has a maximum limit of 150x150 and then another usergroup has a maximum limit of 140x140 I think that's pretty self evident if you move usergroups you must comply to these limits?


It's not a maximum limit, it's a maximum which you can set to.

[Smits]

For the majority of the part here, it is because mentor has been Black VIP for the majority of this year, which meant his avatar was above board

Ahh right, then there was no issue before with the avatar.

It's clear that Mentor is basing his case on the fact that the only written rule regarding avatar size is
Note: The maximum size of your custom image is 150 by 150 pixels or 58.6 KB (whichever is smaller).

I think a basic solution would be to add the note about user groups affecting avatar sizes under this, and therefore there is no more issue.

I know Mentor also suggested that if the rules are updated then they should not be enforced retrospectively, but with something like this i think they should. Afterall, having one or two people who are not affected by the rule, could easily cause confusion for newer members.


It's not a maximum limit, it's a maximum which you can set to.

True, but why would it be a maximum at which you can set to, if it didn't really apply anyway, because you can technically have a 150 x 150 sized avatar anyway. I think it's obvious that when those guidelines were written, they were meant to act as a rule, and not just imformation.

[Mentor]

That's fair enough but surely if you were allowed to have any sized avatar, in any user group, then you would be able to create the maximum in any user group, rather than specific sizes for specific groups.
I'm not sure i follow. if a group has a max of 130, then the forum will resize any avatar uploaded which is bigger, till it fits.
My avatar was set when i was in a higher usergroup (which i qualified for under the requirements of it when i fist archived it) I then set that as my avatar and it was not resized.

I then did not update it when my usergroup was adjusted.
Since no rule states i should, i saw no reason to.


Don't get me wrong i can see where your ocming from, it doesn't state that you're not allowed to have a certain sized avatar, but i think most people make the assumption from those guidelines.

I don't really see why this is such a big deal, i really wanna see this avatar now, must be a corker.
I've had it forever, and its not so much about my avatar as it is the fact that a rule has been inforced which does not exists - and i disagree completely that a max avatar size settable in a given group classifies as something i should have assumed meant i cannot have an avatar over that size and that this is a rule.

I've had multiple issues before where rules that do not exist have been applied to me. If i let it go, they'll just keep doing it to other people. So i'm chooseing to make the point.

If they wish they can update the rules, but at current the rule simply does not exist.

[GommeInc]

Urgh, this whole "let's warn the buggar and not communicate further with him" is one of the reasons this forum "sucks". The lack of communication with super mods/management and the members is amazing in a negative way, and this is the result of what happens when communication malfunctions.

And this whole "Super Moderator Handbook" business is a load of bottox, if the rules members have to follow aren't public then this handbook is a deemed failure. The handbook should have information ready available for members, just re-worded and tweaked so that super moderators can do their business accurately and with guidance. It's pretty poor that a warning was issued, even though the discussion was still going. Wait until Jin at least gets involved before chucking the red tape around like New Years Eve confetti, seeing as removing the avatar seems to of been an immature move when it could of stayed until Jin implemented the 5 year membership VIP, or gave his verdict.


- We can (WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE) edit, close/lock, move, duplicated or publish any of your posted content because as soon as it is posted, you are the author of the content, but it becomes property of Habbox UK Forum.

and

- You give us the right (WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE) to edit, caution, temporarily ban or permanently ban, as well as your IP, or take any other measurements that we feel necessary.
Yes, they can do that, but it makes them look ignorant, irrational and abusive ;) And it further backs-up that communication and valued membership are not wanted here. SO saying that is a bit irrelevant really :/

[Dinosaurawrr]

ok i havent read whole post so sorry if its been said before.
im guessing its oli? from his reply on first page

in all fairness to him.. its been like this for along time as far as im aware
i had a oversized thing and i got asked to remove it by nvr :P
and if i didnt id get a warning within 24 hours.
its not you
its not abuse of powers
its not failure of communication
its the rules and everyone has to go by the rules
i think its fair :)
so yeah ;[ sorry

[FlyingJesus]

FAQ article !== rules

When the FAQ encompasses rules I'd have thought it would be pretty obvious that you're supposed to comply with any restrictions set out there too. Why would they write something in the FAQ and not expect it to be followed? Furthermore...


Nore were they clear cut. I have read them a good 30 times, they still sound to be simple information telling you what sizes you can physically set while in a group

Seeing as how it's entirely obvious (from the fact that you had 150*150 as an emerald member) that the sizes are not physical restrictions that are impossible to overcome, it follows logically that you're meant to take note yourself.


No mention is ever made to the effect that because I move from one group to another that my avatar now becomes against the rules.

Again, logic. You are clearly being pedantic here - I'm sure if 11 year olds who sign up for the first time can get it right then it shouldn't be a challenge for one of the more intelligent members of the board.

[Hecktix]

It's not a maximum limit, it's a maximum which you can set to.

Suggesting it's a limit...

You need to read between the lines, it's common sense

Bronze rank - 90 x 100

Means

Members of the bronze rank are permitted to have an avatar of 90x100.

Put it this way, I've pm'd hundreds of members using the same system used to PM Mentor, 90% of them comply and remove/reduce the avatar. Few don't and recieve a warning (like Mentor did). Many say "stupid rule", but none complain like this. I don't believe this is an issue at all.

[Chippiewill]

Suggesting it's a limit...

You need to read between the lines, it's common sense

Bronze rank - 90 x 100

Means

Members of the bronze rank are permitted to have an avatar of 90x100.

No, it means that members of the 'Bronze rank' can set their avatar up to 90x100, but when they are moved down to 'Copper rank' they don't have to change their avatar to 8x8 because they have already earned the right of 'Bronze rank'.



Put it this way, I've pm'd hundreds of members using the same system used to PM Mentor, 90% of them comply and remove/reduce the avatar. Few don't and recieve a warning (like Mentor). Many say "stupid rule", but none complain like this. I don't believe this is an issue at all.
Mentor has one of the world's most epic Avatars, surely it should be allowed for it's epicness?

[Seatherny]

If they didnt enforce the rules on Mentor, I can see a different member complaining that Mentor is getting away with it.

Everyone has to follow the same rules and use some common sense.

[Mentor]

Rules, FAQ, whats the difference, seriously :S You are simply nitpicking.



I think that's clear enough. As a Emerald, you cant have a avatar size higher than 140x140, simple as.

Frequently asked questions and rules are pretty different... o.0 Law vs yahoo answers kinda different.


If one usergroup has a maximum limit of 150x150 and then another usergroup has a maximum limit of 140x140 I think that's pretty self evident if you move usergroups you must comply to these limits?
They are the limitations imposed by the forums avatar setting mechanism no? Since this is an FAQ it makes a lot more sense to assume that is what your being told.
Even so, there is no rule against being over the maxium avatar size limit within the rules page? Your again quoteing an faq. Please point me to the actual rule.


It's not a maximum limit, it's a maximum which you can set to.

I read it exactly the same way. I find it hard to belive others read it any difference, my guess is people just getting defensive and its the only thing they have to use against me "/


Ahh right, then there was no issue before with the avatar.
I don't know where this idea of me being vip all the time comes from, i haven't been vip since my account was merged, and even then it was only the once because i won MoTM?



It's clear that Mentor is basing his case on the fact that the only written rule regarding avatar size is

I think a basic solution would be to add the note about user groups affecting avatar sizes under this, and therefore there is no more issue.
Indeed, if the rules stated, avatars my be no larger than the limit specified for each user group. Then i would have no argument as it would then be a rule. As it stands now though, its just now "/


I know Mentor also suggested that if the rules are updated then they should not be enforced retrospectively, but with something like this i think they should. Afterall, having one or two people who are not affected by the rule, could easily cause confusion for newer members.
I dont see any issue with giving benifits to those of us who have been around for ages. Ether way, i qualify for free VIP under nvr's scheme? I have requested it but been unable to get it. If it was provided to me as it should have been then there never would have been an issue to start with "/



True, but why would it be a maximum at which you can set to, if it didn't really apply anyway, because you can technically have a 150 x 150 sized avatar anyway. I think it's obvious that when those guidelines were written, they were meant to act as a rule, and not just imformation.
if your non-vip and set your avatar to 150*150, it'll get resized to the max for your group anyway?

[Seatherny]

Frequently asked questions and rules are pretty different... o.0 Law vs yahoo answers kinda different.


Again, your examples are extremely poor. Your example is nothing like hxf's FAQ and Rules.

They were both written by HabboxForum. Yahoo Answers and the Law are totally different.

Seriously, stop nitpicking and just admit you are wrong.

[Smits]

I dont see any issue with giving benifits to those of us who have been around for ages. Ether way, i qualify for free VIP under nvr's scheme? I have requested it but been unable to get it. If it was provided to me as it should have been then there never would have been an issue to start with "/

Why hasn't it being activated? Is Jin the only one who can activate VIP?


I don't believe this is an issue at all.

^^ This.

[Seatherny]

Why hasn't it being activated? Is Jin the only one who can activate VIP?



^^ This.

Jin must be the only one who can issue it if it wasn't referred to Features Manager. Probably a certain thread they have to update with the names of the users who have already claimed it.

[Robbie]

Why hasn't it being activated? Is Jin the only one who can activate VIP?



^^ This.

The special gold VIP needs to be activated manually by an admin

[Chippiewill]

They were both written by HabboxForum. Yahoo Answers and the Law are totally different.

Just like Policeman Plod arresting you for smoking and HabboxForum being different?

[Mentor]

Ok, so many posts comeing in now. And so far i've responded to all without anyone really takeing myside.

The only reason no ones winning is becuse you all can see i'm right. The rules do not state an avatar being over the size of a groups limit as being against the rules. and No, this is NOT implied. Even if it is, rules should be clear, not require you to read 3 faq articles and infer the conclusion.

FAQ - this provides answers to commonly asked questions, such as what is the max size i can set my avatar to while in this group
This is information. not rules. They are different
The faq articles also do not say it is against the rules to have an avatar bigger than the size you can set while in a group.

As no rule exists in rules. Logically i can conclude there is no rule. Simple enough?
if something is written in an faq and not stated to be a rule, i assume it is an faq article not a rule -

That seems pretty logical to me? Your logic on the other hand doesnt appear to mesh with the common usage of that word.

TruthfulLove: that would be true - IF the rule existed. The sig rule exits, the avatar one does not. Also i was not notified of the 24 hour time limit.

Saurav: there is nothing to get away with, i broke no rule. if a rule is added, then it can be inforced. Since it has not been, then it should not.

[Hecktix]

I've just done a search in the infractions forum for Profile Rule Violation infractions and there are nearing 7 pages.

All those infractions/warnings issued for the same thing you talk about here yet no other complaints?

[Seatherny]

The only reason no ones winning is becuse you all can see i'm right.

Or maybe the majority of the forum disagrees with you is because we can all see you are wrong and just arguing over silly things which are considered plain common sense. Like I said, if we followed your logic, each rule would be about 600 lines with all the if's :rolleyes:

[Chippiewill]

All those infractions/warnings issued for the same thing you talk about here yet no other complaints?

They were bullied into acceptance. Also why should a rule not be changed because Mentor is the first? Should a bad rule not be removed unless everyone who has had that rule imposed on them complains?


Or maybe the majority of the forum disagrees with you is because we can all see you are wrong and just arguing over silly things which are considered plain common sense. Like I said, if we followed your logic, each rule would be about 600 lines with all the if's

The forum rules should be written in PHP, that way we can tell if they work or not.

[Smits]

Ok, so many posts comeing in now. And so far i've responded to all without anyone really takeing myside.

The only reason no ones winning is becuse you all can see i'm right. The rules do not state an avatar being over the size of a groups limit as being against the rules. and No, this is NOT implied. Even if it is, rules should be clear, not require you to read 3 faq articles and infer the conclusion.

FAQ - this provides answers to commonly asked questions, such as what is the max size i can set my avatar to while in this group
This is information. not rules. They are different
The faq articles also do not say it is against the rules to have an avatar bigger than the size you can set while in a group.

As no rule exists in rules. Logically i can conclude there is no rule. Simple enough?
if something is written in an faq and not stated to be a rule, i assume it is an faq article not a rule -

That seems pretty logical to me? Your logic on the other hand doesnt appear to mesh with the common usage of that word.

TruthfulLove: that would be true - IF the rule existed. The sig rule exits, the avatar one does not. Also i was not notified of the 24 hour time limit.

Saurav: there is nothing to get away with, i broke no rule. if a rule is added, then it can be inforced. Since it has not been, then it should not.


Some people would be forgiven for thinking you're defending a court case.

This is only a forum, i really don't think every rule has to be written is such detail. Everyone else seemed to get the idea that there is in fact a size limit for user groups, even if it doesn't literally say that there is.

[kk.]

This is all a bit petty. I havnt read all of this but some of it I have. What's the reason you can't just have a smaller avatar image anyway? It hardly contributes a lot to your posts, since it's in your sig anyway..

And surely what you're saying is, since I bought VIP, and when it runs out, I've earnt the rank VIP and so therefore should be able to keep an avatar of 150x150..

[Mentor]

I've just done a search in the infractions forum for Profile Rule Violation infractions and there are nearing 7 pages.

All those infractions/warnings issued for the same thing you talk about here yet no other complaints?
A lot of members are to scared to complain about these things. I'm not. its in fact why i make an effort to do so. Plenty of people have tryed enforcing non- rules in the past - i dont think it should be allowed. Check back in this forum you may get a good few pages of threads i've created challenging them as well :)

The complain is valid. You know this. You can tell there is no rule in the rules. Even the faq articles which are not rules have no wording that suggests it is.

Because everyone else is doing it, is a poor justification.

The rule does not exist, plain and simple. Maybe it should, but in that case it should be added, not just enforced anyway.

[Robbie]

I do see where mentor is coming from in a way. He's saying the rules page does not show the limits for each usergroup, which is true. However, I'd think most people would read the FAQ aswell where it is more clearly outlined.

There is an infraction named profile violation, and you were given time to remove the oversized avatar before recieving this infraction, so you can't really say you were told prior. However I do understand that you were waiting for your VIP, however it's like carrying a gun and being stopped and about to have it siezed but you say 'i'm getting my gun lisense tomorrow' - you would get the gun back but only once your licence had been produced. You would also get a caution for carrying a firearm, think of this as the warning you got.

[Chippiewill]

This is all a bit petty. I havnt read all of this but some of it I have. What's the reason you can't just have a smaller avatar image anyway? It hardly contributes a lot to your posts, since it's in your sig anyway..

Yes, but he shouldn't have to.



And surely what you're saying is, since I bought VIP, and when it runs out, I've earnt the rank VIP and so therefore should be able to keep an avatar of 150x150..
Exactly

[FlyingJesus]

Ok, so many posts comeing in now. And so far i've responded to all without anyone really takeing myside.

The only reason no ones winning is becuse you all can see i'm right. The rules do not state an avatar being over the size of a groups limit as being against the rules. and No, this is NOT implied. Even if it is, rules should be clear, not require you to read 3 faq articles and infer the conclusion.

FAQ - this provides answers to commonly asked questions, such as what is the max size i can set my avatar to while in this group
This is information. not rules. They are different
The faq articles also do not say it is against the rules to have an avatar bigger than the size you can set while in a group.

As no rule exists in rules. Logically i can conclude there is no rule. Simple enough?
if something is written in an faq and not stated to be a rule, i assume it is an faq article not a rule -

That seems pretty logical to me? Your logic on the other hand doesnt appear to mesh with the common usage of that word.

TruthfulLove: that would be true - IF the rule existed. The sig rule exits, the avatar one does not. Also i was not notified of the 24 hour time limit.

Saurav: there is nothing to get away with, i broke no rule. if a rule is added, then it can be inforced. Since it has not been, then it should not.

Then if all else fails you still disobeyed a direct request from a smod, believing yourself above the situation instead of doing as you were told until you got an answer from Jin. There's nothing wrong with you getting hold of him but if you aren't going to comply with requests which (whether you believe it to be a rule or not) are obviously quite tame and would have caused you perhaps a minute to find a new avatar or edit your old one until you were put back in a usergroup in which moderation was happy with it. It's really not that difficult to not make a fuss of it especially when it's down to your own lack of compliance.

[Seatherny]

You are, however, allowed to post pictures of yourself, although they are NOT allowed in your avatar or signature.

Now I can see people putting a picture of themselves as their profile picture and arguing that its not in the forum rules when its common sense.

[kk.]

Yes, but he shouldn't have to.


Exactly

He should have to, it's just general knowledge that you'd have to.

And that exactly is exactly right.. You had the priveleges, but now you don't, so you change it

[Mentor]

Or maybe the majority of the forum disagrees with you is because we can all see you are wrong and just arguing over silly things which are considered plain common sense. Like I said, if we followed your logic, each rule would be about 600 lines with all the if's :rolleyes:

Funny how you keep telling me of this common sence and rules, yet when i asked you to go find the rule, you never replied?

+ your repeting yourself already


Some people would be forgiven for thinking you're defending a court case.

This is only a forum, i really don't think every rule has to be written is such detail. Everyone else seemed to get the idea that there is in fact a size limit for user groups, even if it doesn't literally say that there is.
If it doesnt litrally have a rule, i don't think it should literally be applied. Much like in a court case, i have evidence that proves i'm right. People saying i'm wrong seem to have had to resort to telling me i'm wrong in different ways, implying i dont understand logic and saying everyone else was happing being told off?

None of these really help make their case. I show the rules contain no such rule. I show the faq which are no rules contain no such rule, nore implication of one.

What is being offered as evidence from people saying i'm wrong about this rules non-existence?


Now I can see people putting a picture of themselves as their profile picture and arguing that its not in the forum rules when its common sense.
...
You see how the bit you quoted saying posting pictures of yourself as avatars is against the rules, says just that.

Now go find the bit that says the same about avatar sizes in the rules. If you cant, would you mind stopping with the irrlevnt quotes and implying i'm stupid?

[Chippiewill]

Now I can see people putting a picture of themselves as their profile picture and arguing that its not in the forum rules when its common sense.

Actually, yes you can put a picture of yourself as your profile picture.

[kk.]

I have an idea.. Reverse the warning (which isn't a big deal anyway..), update the rules to whatever reds be, and just resize the avatar to fit your usergroup. Wait until you get VIP and then upload again..

You were given 24 hours to save your avatar onto a computer if you hadn't already..

[Seatherny]

Funny how you keep telling me of this common sence and rules, yet when i asked you to go find the rule, you never replied?

http://habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6197678&postcount=36

I did reply, stop making stuff up to make yourself look better.


Actually, yes you can put a picture of yourself as your profile picture.

Last time I read a announcement relating to pictures, it said it is against the rules to actually upload the pictures onto the forum, and I am pretty sure you have to upload them when using a profile picture.
If the rules for it has changed then its my fault for not reading the new rules relating to it.

[GommeInc]

Now I can see people putting a picture of themselves as their profile picture and arguing that its not in the forum rules when its common sense.
How is that common sense? Common sense is posting your avatar without the fear of being bum raped somewhere, as there is no rational reason for having a "rule" for this in the first place :P And FAQs by definition are not rules, they're questions that are frequently asked :P Perhaps the rules need beefing up in one of the updates, and the FAQ fixed? :P

[Seatherny]

Should just add a sentence to the Rules: All the content of the FAQ should be considered as rules.
Otherwise people will continue to argue over small things when there are better things to sort out at the moment.

[Chippiewill]

http://habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6197678&postcount=36

I did reply, stop making stuff up to make yourself look better.

That's FAQ, not the rules.



Last time I read a announcement relating to pictures, it said it is against the rules to actually upload the pictures onto the forum, and I am pretty sure you have to upload them when using a profile picture.
If the rules for it has changed then its my fault for not reading the new rules relating to it.
Yes, well, there's no rule against direct uploading to the forum :)


Should just add a sentence to the Rules: All the content of the FAQ should be considered as rules.
Otherwise people will continue to argue over small things when there are better things to sort out at the moment.
Edit: Wait, wrong way round. The FAQ is badly written anyway

[GommeInc]

Should just add a sentence to the Rules: All the content of the FAQ should be considered as rules.
Otherwise people will continue to argue over small things when there are better things to sort out at the moment.
Definitely not a good suggestion, the rules just need to source from the FAQ, not the FAQ being taken as a new way of posting rules. That's like calling full fat butter "margerine" because you're too lazy to remove the fat. The rules just need to say:

"Avatars must comply with the usergroup your account is in. See FAQ for account permissions (or what not)".

[Mentor]

I have an idea.. Reverse the warning (which isn't a big deal anyway..), update the rules to whatever reds be, and just resize the avatar to fit your usergroup. Wait until you get VIP and then upload again..

You were given 24 hours to save your avatar onto a computer if you hadn't already..

I'd be happy with that. Its the fact i was punished for breaking a rule which does not exist i am annoyed at.


Then if all else fails you still disobeyed a direct request from a smod, believing yourself above the situation instead of doing as you were told until you got an answer from Jin. There's nothing wrong with you getting hold of him but if you aren't going to comply with requests which (whether you believe it to be a rule or not) are obviously quite tame and would have caused you perhaps a minute to find a new avatar or edit your old one until you were put back in a usergroup in which moderation was happy with it. It's really not that difficult to not make a fuss of it especially when it's down to your own lack of compliance.
1) the rule does not exist - if a police officer comes up to me and tells me the law says i have to give in a £10 i aint going to. If i'm arrested i get the feeling the fact a person in a position of authority is making up a rule (abuse of power) then taking action against an individual who broke no law, is a more servear matter than someone not obeying a fictional law.

I tryed to comply, but since i was given no time limit, had no idea i had run out of time.

http://habboxforum.com/showpost.php?p=6197678&postcount=36

I did reply, stop making stuff up to make yourself look better.


"Here are the avatar sizes for the following ranks:"

yep that sounds like a rule. Definalty not an answer to a question

Now outside the faq, in the rules. Go find the rule :)

[kk.]

You do realise that when you click the forum rules, it basically takes you to the FAQ. And why aren't people replying to my posts. ;l


Oh, you have now :P

[Hecktix]

I have an idea.. Reverse the warning (which isn't a big deal anyway..), update the rules to whatever reds be, and just resize the avatar to fit your usergroup. Wait until you get VIP and then upload again..

You were given 24 hours to save your avatar onto a computer if you hadn't already..

Agree with this, minus the warning reversal. If we reversed Mentor's warning on this principle we'd have to reverse the other several hundred profile violation warnings and infractions.


Actually, yes you can put a picture of yourself as your profile picture.

No, you cannot. Although profile picture rules are very unclear as profile pictures are a relatively new thing, this is something I am currently working on clarifying and have been for some time.



Last time I read a announcement relating to pictures, it said it is against the rules to actually upload the pictures onto the forum, and I am pretty sure you have to upload them when using a profile picture.
If the rules for it has changed then its my fault for not reading the new rules relating to it.

That is what the announcement said, yes :)


How is that common sense? Common sense is posting your avatar without the fear of being bum raped somewhere, as there is no rational reason for having a "rule" for this in the first place :P And FAQs by definition are not rules, they're questions that are frequently asked :P Perhaps the rules need beefing up in one of the updates, and the FAQ fixed? :P

Bold part would be a good solution to resolve this argument, however as I've said before no others have complained about this, but to make things a lot easier I believe you are right and the rules should be edited slightly and I've been talking to MattGarner about this.


Should just add a sentence to the Rules: All the content of the FAQ should be considered as rules.
Otherwise people will continue to argue over small things when there are better things to sort out at the moment.

This is also a possibility :)

[Seatherny]

"Here are the avatar sizes for the following ranks:"

yep that sounds like a rule. Definalty not an answer to a question

Now outside the faq, in the rules. Go find the rule :)

I clearly explained why I said what I did in my post, so once again, yes I did reply to your post. You are just being very silly now.

Your example of Yahoo Answers vs Law is just :S
It is nothing in comparison to HabboxForum FAQ vs HabboxForum Rules.

[hah]

o m g it's only an avatar

[xxMATTGxx]

Agree with this, minus the warning reversal. If we reversed Mentor's warning on this principle we'd have to reverse the other several hundred profile violation warnings and infractions.



No, you cannot. Although profile picture rules are very unclear as profile pictures are a relatively new thing, this is something I am currently working on clarifying and have been for some time.



That is what the announcement said, yes :)



Bold part would be a good solution to resolve this argument, however as I've said before no others have complained about this, but to make things a lot easier I believe you are right and the rules should be edited slightly and I've been talking to MattGarner about this.



This is also a possibility :)

Agreed with Oli regarding the warning and also the changes that other users have already mentioned.

----------------------------------

I think this has go on long enough for this small issue. To stop any more problems and confusion regarding the avatar limits and so on, there will be an update letting members know about the limits.


No, because then VIPs don't have an signature image limit (Not that they technically do at the moment).

"Donator signature images may not exceed 700 pixels x 300 pixels in total size"

Donator/VIP, very similar thing. Under B2. :)

Thanks to anyone whos put good suggestions.

Thread Closed.