New Forum Rules ~ Feedback!

[Nixt]

After much debate and discussion we have introduced a new set of rules. For more information, click here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=633444&p=6358001#post6358001). Please let me know what you think of the new rules using this thread :).

[Seatherny]

Looks much better, and its set out quite nicely too!

Maybe add the following to A4.: Do not pretend to be someone you aren't. e.g. pretending to be Habbo Staff.

[hah]

yeah first time ive read rules tbh

u should sort of faq tbh cause they all look cramped together

[Nixt]

Looks much better, and its set out quite nicely too!

Maybe add the following to A4.: Do not pretend to be someone you aren't. e.g. pretending to be Habbo Staff.

What does that have to do with personal information? :P Besides, that rule is covered by B3.

@ Graham, what do you mean?

[Catzsy]

The format looks absolutely fine and I feel the new rules are far more easy to understand whilst covering the main points.

[Gibs960]

I think they're easier to read, not loads of description, but enough to explain fully. I have an idea, why don't you send the rules round to all the members in a PM :)

[hah]

looks like a wall of text init... should be better laid out and maybe a nice picture or two of sammeth/jin/seirk w/e lol

http://i42.tinypic.com/2nq32w.png

[Nixt]

I've made it look a little better, but I'll get some alterations in there at some point too.

[Alkaz]

TC Looks a bit better - I like the rule changes, good plan :D.

[Catzsy]

looks like a wall of text init... should be better laid out and maybe a nice picture or two of sammeth/jin/seirk w/e lol

http://i42.tinypic.com/2nq32w.png

Thats the T&Cs though not the rules. The T&Cs have been like that since the year dot. You do have a point with them. :D

[The Professor]

They seem concise enough but with conciseness there comes a ream of loopholes, enjoy :P

That sentence seems terrible gramatically but I can't work out why :(

[Nixt]

They seem concise enough but with conciseness there comes a ream of loopholes, enjoy :P

That sentence seems terrible gramatically but I can't work out why :(

I've aimed to essentially minimise loopholes. What loopholes can you find? Additionally, the rules are designed in a way to retain the structure of the original rules but in addition to that give our moderators more discretion on top of that, so loopholes are essentially irrelevant.

[Richie]

pretty str8 forward, i still only read the red text tho the effort. btw is it just me that wenever sum1 posts a large image it breaks the forum? is it gonna be sorted so like it will shrink down and u can double click it to zoom in like with vb 3?

[Yoshimitsui]

A4. Do not post private details or information ~We do not allow you to post private information about yourself due to security concerns. Disclosing any information about another forum user without their consent is also not allowed. This includes:

•Private messages
•Reputation comments
•Private conversations (MSN, Habbo, etc.)
•Images / videos of the user or social networking profiles (Bebo, Facebook, etc.)
•Trying to organize real life meet-ups
•It is also not allowed to give out the personal details (specific address, phone number etc) of anyone, forum user or otherwise.


The 'we' and '~' need a space to match the rest :P. Sorry, OCD i know.

[Nixt]

Sorted :).

[Blinger1]

so what did it look like before hand :S

[Black_Apalachi]

Looks very clear and easy to read while incorporating all the main points nicely. :) Does the description for Rule A6 not relate to threads such as; 'What are you eating?', 'What are you listening to?' etc? Also, loopholes shouldn't be a problem if you just take people down early on and don't let them take the piss. :P

[Hecktix]

Looks very clear and easy to read while incorporating all the main points nicely. :) Does the description for Rule A6 not relate to threads such as; 'What are you eating?', 'What are you listening to?' etc? Also, loopholes shouldn't be a problem if you just take people down early on and don't let them take the piss. :P

In my honest opinion I don't think the example given in rule A6 is very valid tbh, I think a discussion about what colour socks you are wearing would not be pointless at all. I'll look into this.

[today]

In my honest opinion I don't think the example given in rule A6 is very valid tbh, I think a discussion about what colour socks you are wearing would not be pointless at all. I'll look into this.
I hope that was sarcasm.

[Black_Apalachi]

I think it just needs an additional clause; '...with the exception of certain forum sections'. This would be more valid as those types of threads would be deemed pointless in most sections, but there are certain sections where they are OK.

[Hecktix]

I think it just needs an additional clause; '...with the exception of certain forum sections'. This would be more valid as those types of threads would be deemed pointless in most sections, but there are certain sections where they are OK.

This just brings more complications in my opinion, we have removed the example and left "a thread that doesn't prompt discussion" which I think is self explanatory really, I think an example of a thread under this description could be one in the sports section when one of the members posts a thread saying "OI BOB COME ON XBL" or something, I think the "What are you listening to", "What are you eating" and "What are you listening to" all have possibility to generate discussion, for instance someone could see a song someone is listening too and like it and compliment them on that song, or maybe they'd never heard the song before so they listen to it, etc.

I think where the line can be drawn is at the discretion of moderation.

[Catzsy]

They seem concise enough but with conciseness there comes a ream of loopholes, enjoy :P

That sentence seems terrible gramatically but I can't work out why :(

Which are? I have had a good look and can't really see any. =]

[The Professor]

Which are? I have had a good look and can't really see any. =]

There will inevitably be some, although Garion seems content to cover any potential ones with "moderator discretion" which imo is asking for trouble. I can't see any glaring ones but there are always some that come up when the rules are shortened, that's why they get long in the first place: phrases and additional rules get added to plug the loopholes.

[GommeInc]

They're clearer, but for God's sake put "A moderator may use their own discretion when a rule is believed to have been broken." It'll make you somewhat believable :P

[Catzsy]

There will inevitably be some, although Garion seems content to cover any potential ones with "moderator discretion" which imo is asking for trouble. I can't see any glaring ones but there are always some that come up when the rules are shortened, that's why they get long in the first place: phrases and additional rules get added to plug the loopholes.

Well as I say I have looked pretty closely at these and they seem to cover all the bases. We will have to wait and see! :P :D

[Nixt]

There will inevitably be some, although Garion seems content to cover any potential ones with "moderator discretion" which imo is asking for trouble. I can't see any glaring ones but there are always some that come up when the rules are shortened, that's why they get long in the first place: phrases and additional rules get added to plug the loopholes.

I guess we'll have to see. Moderators are allowed to use their discretion when in keeping with the rules, it's not like they can go about doing things willy nilly.


They're clearer, but for God's sake put "A moderator may use their own discretion when a rule is believed to have been broken." It'll make you somewhat believable :P

I might put something like that in the T&Cs.

[iJoe]

They're better but still really long haha

Is there really a need to explain what a pointless post is? :P

Should have a short code and long code, cut them down to just the headers as the short code than explain them as a long code (:

[Black_Apalachi]

This just brings more complications in my opinion, we have removed the example and left "a thread that doesn't prompt discussion" which I think is self explanatory really, I think an example of a thread under this description could be one in the sports section when one of the members posts a thread saying "OI BOB COME ON XBL" or something, I think the "What are you listening to", "What are you eating" and "What are you listening to" all have possibility to generate discussion, for instance someone could see a song someone is listening too and like it and compliment them on that song, or maybe they'd never heard the song before so they listen to it, etc.

I think where the line can be drawn is at the discretion of moderation.

Fair enough. As long as the example isn't any of those which are allowed, than it shouldn't cause confusion. :)


They're better but still really long haha

Is there really a need to explain what a pointless post is? :P

Should have a short code and long code, cut them down to just the headers as the short code than explain them as a long code (:

Are you serious?! Any shorter and I would barely be able to take them seriously! The explanations are necessary for new and younger members. Imagine if you were using the internet for the first time, you wouldn't have a clue what any forum-related lingo meant. Even something that seems so self-explanatory as Pointless posting is not always clear - as is proven by the amount of feedback threads we regularly see regarding confusion over various rules.

[iJoe]

Are you serious?! Any shorter and I would barely be able to take them seriously! The explanations are necessary for new and younger members. Imagine if you were using the internet for the first time, you wouldn't have a clue what any forum-related lingo meant. Even something that seems so self-explanatory as Pointless posting is not always clear - as is proven by the amount of feedback threads we regularly see regarding confusion over various rules.

The habbo way isn't a patch on habbox's rules and I wouldn't say new users get confused over them.

Fair enough about explaining some of them, but really, the way they're explained is a bit excessive.