Linking to another forum with photos of somebody else on? [Archive]

Hecktix

18-07-2010, 07:31 PM

I'm guessing they might not want them spread around beyond that forum, but that's just a guess :)

This is correct, if someone posts a picture on a forum that is not this one, they may not want it posting on this one, when posting pictures of users permission must always be requested.

I got a warning for this, before it was even in the rules. Thought i'd throw that in ;)

It has always been against the rules and users have been contacted regarding it many months before your occurance.

Moh

18-07-2010, 07:35 PM

This is correct, if someone posts a picture on a forum that is not this one, they may not want it posting on this one, when posting pictures of users permission must always be requested.
But the pictures aren't posted on here directly, was a link to a thread that contains photos.

If you're not allowed to do that, then surely you can't post anything because there's surely going to be a photo of somebody.

Hecktix

18-07-2010, 07:38 PM

But the pictures aren't posted on here directly, was a link to a thread that contains photos.

If you're not allowed to do that, then surely you can't post anything because there's surely going to be a photo of somebody.

You are giving people on here access to those photographs.

Moh

18-07-2010, 07:41 PM

You are giving people on here access to those photographs.
Was a thread that linked to another thread on another forum

Hecktix

18-07-2010, 07:42 PM

Was a thread that linked to another thread on another forum

Which you knew contained photographs of people whom may not want their photographs on HabboxForum, there's a simple answer really: ask permission.

Moh

18-07-2010, 07:50 PM

Which you knew contained photographs of people whom may not want their photographs on HabboxForum, there's a simple answer really: ask permission.
I don't understand why Habbox have to do anything. It's not your responsibility, it's the people who uploaded their photo. If they don't want people to see them, then don't upload them.

I'd understand if it was off somebodys facebook as they have privacy settings etc.. but on another forum not so much.

Hecktix

18-07-2010, 07:53 PM

I don't understand why Habbox have to do anything. It's not your responsibility, it's the people who uploaded their photo. If they don't want people to see them, then don't upload them.

I'd understand if it was off somebodys facebook as they have privacy settings etc.. but on another forum not so much.

It's the same principle really, different people use HxF than CHF and whilst they may trust the CHF community with their images they may not trust the HxF community, on top of this some users do not like their pictures being discussed on a forum which they don't use as much, therefore cannot say anything or see what is being said about them.

As I said, it's pretty simple if you ask permission, that way there's no problem.

Nixt

18-07-2010, 07:54 PM

The aim is to really prevent people from doing it from any website. You might find a picture on a random website that they may have (or may not have) uploaded themselves, but they might not want people to view it on here. Granted it is less likely they'd be against it being posted on here, but at the end of the day it is not up to YOU to post pictures of other members - if they want to themselves, then fine. It makes no difference to us where you found the image, if you post it without their permission you are breaking the rules because if they wanted it on this forum, they would have posted it themselves.

flatface

18-07-2010, 08:06 PM

This is correct, if someone posts a picture on a forum that is not this one, they may not want it posting on this one, when posting pictures of users permission must always be requested.

It has always been against the rules and users have been contacted regarding it many months before your occurance.

Well thats very stupid then isn't it :S. You shouldn't be punishing members for doing something that isn't actually breaking the rules, end of really lol.

During my time as a forum (super) moderator I don't think I dealt with this situation once.

Hecktix

18-07-2010, 08:07 PM

Well thats very stupid then isn't it :S. You shouldn't be punishing members for doing something that isn't actually breaking the rules, end of really lol.

It is and always has been breaking the rules, it comes under posting images of other forum members, you asked for it to be clearer in highlighting that so we added a few words - the rule hasn't changed at all.

Nemo

18-07-2010, 08:10 PM

I agree with management on this one (:O), you could just link their imagine then instead of embedding it, it would be insanely easy to get around. Pretty simple at the moment. And if u wanna show a picture of someone then u can just get the link, not hard

flatface

18-07-2010, 08:13 PM

It is and always has been breaking the rules, it comes under posting images of other forum members, you asked for it to be clearer in highlighting that so we added a few words - the rule hasn't changed at all.

I don't think you quite understand somehow. Posting a link to another publicly viewable thread on another forum that happens to contain a picture of another member is not the same as posting a direct image of another member on the forum - I asked for it to be added to the rules, not to be made clearer. How can you make something clearer when it doesn't actually exist.

Moh

18-07-2010, 08:14 PM

It is and always has been breaking the rules, it comes under posting images of other forum members, you asked for it to be clearer in highlighting that so we added a few words - the rule hasn't changed at all.
But what if they aren't of members of this forum? =S

I agree with management on this one (:O), you could just link their imagine then instead of embedding it, it would be insanely easy to get around. Pretty simple at the moment. And if u wanna show a picture of someone then u can just get the link, not hard
The first time I did embed them, which I'm fine with. But I got a warning for linking to a thread on another forum. I can't remember if you have to be registered to view CHF's threads either.

Hecktix

18-07-2010, 08:15 PM

I don't think you quite understand somehow. Posting a link to another publicly viewable thread on another forum that happens to contain a picture of another member is not the same as posting a direct image of another member on the forum - I asked for it to be added to the rules, not to be made clearer. How can you make something clearer when it doesn't actually exist.

Well, it's something that we clearly disagree on Josh because when we wrote the rules that was one of the circumstances considered when writing the posting images of other forum members rule :) Posting a link to a page which contains an image of another forum member has always been against the forum rules, simple really.

@ Moh - if they are still Habbos that's even more reason not to post images of them on this forum.

Catzsy

18-07-2010, 08:19 PM

It is and always has been breaking the rules, it comes under posting images of other forum members, you asked for it to be clearer in highlighting that so we added a few words - the rule hasn't changed at all.

Totally agree you have never been able to post personal information/private content about another member without prior permission. This has been in force since pictures were allowed. Before that no pictures not even your own were allowed.

flatface

18-07-2010, 08:22 PM

Well, it's something that we clearly disagree on Josh because when we wrote the rules that was one of the circumstances considered when writing the posting images of other forum members rule :) Posting a link to a page which contains an image of another forum member has always been against the forum rules, simple really.

If it was a circumstance considered then why wasn't it added to the list under the rule like it is now? Yes it maybe simple really, to people who can read minds. I checked the rules before posting the link. What I was punished for wasn't covered by the rules so I posted it, unfortunately I must be one of those darn members who were not blessed to be able to read minds. :'(

Hecktix

18-07-2010, 08:24 PM

Josh, it's posting an image of another member and you posted the link with the intention of sharing the image, this has been against the rules for a very long time as most members know.

flatface

18-07-2010, 08:30 PM

Josh, it's posting an image of another member and you posted the link with the intention of sharing the image, this has been against the rules for a very long time as most members know.

Well xxMATTGxx didn't seem to know before he got the chance to speak to you about my punishment (sorry to pick you out Matt).

I have included a few replies from a selection of members that didn't seem to be 100% clear on the previous rule, I say a few because you were fast enough to close both threads.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=656394&p=6612211#post6612211
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=656394&p=6612220#post6612220
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=656397&p=6612241#post6612241
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=656397&p=6612655#post6612655

Hecktix

18-07-2010, 08:32 PM

Well xxMATTGxx didn't seem to know before he got the chance to speak to you about my punishment (sorry to pick you out Matt).

I have included a few replies from a selection of members that didn't seem to be 100% clear on the previous rule, I say a few because you were fast enough to close both threads.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=656394&p=6612211#post6612211
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=656394&p=6612220#post6612220
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=656397&p=6612241#post6612241
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=656397&p=6612655#post6612655

Yes Josh, and following those replies the rule was clarified, and MattGarner did know about the rule because he highlighted it to me without me even saying anything.

And to be honest, although Saurav disagreed with the rule his post states he was aware of it, graham stated the rules are unclear too - as I've said, the rule has been clarified.

flatface

18-07-2010, 08:34 PM

Yes Josh, and following those replies the rule was clarified, and MattGarner did know about the rule because he highlighted it to me without me even saying anything.

Well I have evidence to suggest otherwise. Your definition of clarified must be totally different to mine, and quite a few others.

Hecktix

18-07-2010, 08:37 PM

Well I have evidence to suggest otherwise. Your definition of clarified must be totally different to mine, and quite a few others.

Well myself and the people I have spoken to regarding this (General Management and Super Moderation) happen to agree this has been against the rules for some time, and the definition of clarified is to clear up and avoid any misunderstanding, to highlight something more clearly - which is what we have done. It was always against the rules, following your request we clarified the rule to make it more clear that posting links to locations where there are pictures of other forum members is forbidden, but it always has been.

flatface

18-07-2010, 08:50 PM

Well myself and the people I have spoken to regarding this (General Management and Super Moderation) happen to agree this has been against the rules for some time, and the definition of clarified is to clear up and avoid any misunderstanding, to highlight something more clearly - which is what we have done. It was always against the rules, following your request we clarified the rule to make it more clear that posting links to locations where there are pictures of other forum members is forbidden, but it always has been.

Thanks for that patronising response, anyway obviously we disagree on this. I have made it clear what I think and you have made it clear what you think. As far as i'm concerned this situation has been dealt with - not in the most professional manor, may I add. I think we should leave it at that, no further reply is needed on your behalf.

Blinger$

19-07-2010, 02:57 AM

Nixt

19-07-2010, 06:36 AM

At the end of the day, almost 90% of the time I have seen users post links, be it from a different forum or their social networking site, the purpose in doing this is to ridicule or bully the user. I don't see any other pressing reason for posting a picture of someone else? Other than to target the person and discuss them, which is something they probably do not want and in the event they did, they would post it themselves or grant you permission to post it.

Blinger$

19-07-2010, 07:41 AM

Why bother posting it on THIS forum then? It's stupid.

At the end of the day, almost 90% of the time I have seen users post links, be it from a different forum or their social networking site, the purpose in doing this is to ridicule or bully the user. I don't see any other pressing reason for posting a picture of someone else? Other than to target the person and discuss them, which is something they probably do not want and in the event they did, they would post it themselves or grant you permission to post it.

Nixt

19-07-2010, 07:44 AM

Why bother posting it on THIS forum then? It's stupid.

They post it on the forum because they choose to do so. They choose to do so at a given time, in a given thread, having a relatively good idea on who uses and browses the forum and who, therefore, may reply.

Any individual later posting the image, wherever they have procured their image, will generally do so without permission and with malicious intent. When an individual submits an image to any website, I doubt they expect that the image they posted will later be brought up, posted on a forum and discussed amongst members who they have not expressly given permission to do so.

flatface

19-07-2010, 11:53 AM

xxMATTGxx

19-07-2010, 11:58 AM

Another member wasn't clear who this user was, so I shown her the link to the image. We hardly bullied him... He was in the same thread and judging from his replies you can tell that we all were joking around with each other, including the member whos picture it was.

Considering on recent threads/posts made by that user, you have to wonder whether it was him who posted in the first place!

Nixt

19-07-2010, 11:58 AM

I am not referring specifically to your situation, just why it is against the rules in the first place.

flatface

19-07-2010, 12:12 PM

Considering on recent threads/posts made by that user, you have to wonder whether it was him who posted in the first place!

Confused :S what do you mean

xxMATTGxx

19-07-2010, 12:14 PM

Confused :S what do you mean

He posted a thread on the forum last night mentioning he got hacked and whatever else. Meaning you saying "even the user was going along" etc. You then wonder "was it actually him" though.

flatface

19-07-2010, 12:17 PM

He posted a thread on the forum last night mentioning he got hacked and whatever else. Meaning you saying "even the user was going along" etc. You then wonder "was it actually him" though.

Well that isn't my problem really :P His account made the posts therefore I assumed it was him

Catzsy

19-07-2010, 12:48 PM

Another member wasn't clear who this user was, so I shown her the link to the image. We hardly bullied him... He was in the same thread and judging from his replies you can tell that we all were joking around with each other, including the member whos picture it was.

The issue is only whether or not you had permission to post the image. If he pm'd Oli saying you had permission then most likely it would be reversed. Josh the rule has always been the same since we were allowed to post pictures.

flatface

19-07-2010, 12:57 PM

The issue is only whether or not you had permission to post the image. If he pm'd Oli saying you had permission then most likely it would be reversed. Josh the rule has always been the same since we were allowed to post pictures.

I understand that posting a image directly onto the forum is against the rules if done so without permission. What I didn't understand is the posting a link to another publicly viewable thread on another forum was classed as posting a picture of another member - this wasn't in the rules. I then suggested it should be added and it has been. :P

Hecktix

19-07-2010, 12:58 PM

I understand that posting a image directly onto the forum is against the rules if done so without permission. What I didn't understand is the posting a link to another publicly viewable thread on another forum was classed as posting a picture of another member - this wasn't in the rules. I then suggested it should be added and it has been. :P

It was always in the rules, Josh - you asked for it to be made clearer that it was against the rules. Nothing has been added or taken away.

Catzsy

19-07-2010, 01:00 PM

I understand that posting a image directly onto the forum is against the rules if done so without permission. What I didn't understand is the posting a link to another publicly viewable thread on another forum was classed as posting a picture of another member - this wasn't in the rules. I then suggested it should be added and it has been. :P

I actually think it was but last time they trimmed them down a lot of this detail went which was a bit unfortunate.

Hecktix

19-07-2010, 01:01 PM

I actually think it was but last time they trimmed them down a lot of this detail went which was a bit unfortunate.

This is correct Rosie, we thought that it would be obvious that linking to a page which contains an image would be the same rule which forbids people from posting images without permission, perhaps not - it has been clarified now anyway.

Catzsy

19-07-2010, 01:05 PM

This is correct Rosie, we thought that it would be obvious that linking to a page which contains an image would be the same rule which forbids people from posting images without permission, perhaps not - it has been clarified now anyway.

Yes I totally agree but as I said at the time sometimes the obvious has to be put into 'black and white'.

flatface

19-07-2010, 01:09 PM

This is correct Rosie, we thought that it would be obvious that linking to a page which contains an image would be the same rule which forbids people from posting images without permission, perhaps not - it has been clarified now anyway.

Thanks again for the patronising comment.

Before:

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.
After:

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 links to a page where an image/video of another user is located (this includes social networking sites, facebook, myspace 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.

You are, however, allowed to post pictures of yourself although they are not allowed in your avatar or signature. You may also share your email address and social networking profiles on the forum.

Unless that sentence magically appeared, I think it was added. No where in the previous A4 rule did it state anything about linking to another thread on a publicly viewable forum - so in response to your statement Oli, it wasn't made clearer, it was added.

Catzsy

19-07-2010, 01:11 PM

Thanks again for the patronising comment.

Before:

After:

Unless that sentence magically appeared, I think it was added. No where in the previous A4 rule did it state anything about linking to another thread on a publicly viewable forum - so in response to your statement Oli, it wasn't made clearer, it was added.

Tbf Josh he said it had been added. It always used to be like that until the recent trim which was done at the request of members for simpler wording if I remember correctly.

Hecktix

19-07-2010, 01:11 PM

Thanks again for the patronising comment.

Before:

[/LIST]
After:

Unless that sentence magically appeared, I think it was added. No where in the previous A4 rule did it state anything about linking to another thread on a publicly viewable forum - so in response to your statement Oli, it wasn't made clearer, it was added.

As Catzsy and myself pointed out, the rules are blanket rules which include multiple things, as you very well know we cannot highlight absolutely everything that is against the rules, therefore we highlight blanket rules which cover many things, posting an image of another forum member whether it be by embedding, direct link to the image or a link to the page where the image is, is still posting an image of another forum member - and as Rosie quite rightly pointed out, this has been the case since pictures have been allowed at Habbox Forum.

flatface

19-07-2010, 01:20 PM

As Catzsy and myself pointed out, the rules are blanket rules which include multiple things, as you very well know we cannot highlight absolutely everything that is against the rules, therefore we highlight blanket rules which cover many things, posting an image of another forum member whether it be by embedding, direct link to the image or a link to the page where the image is, is still posting an image of another forum member - and as Rosie quite rightly pointed out, this has been the case since pictures have been allowed at Habbox Forum.

I'm not going to argue with you. Many other members have said before that you are so stubborn which i'm going to have to agree with, not sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. As far as i'm concerned thats it, I know what I mean and a few other members agree with me. Sometimes what you consider to be "obvious" other people may not consider to be, I think you need to realise that... I'm not stupid and I don't need you to imply that I am, so please don't.

Hecktix

19-07-2010, 01:27 PM

I'm not going to argue with you. Many other members have said before that you are so stubborn which i'm going to have to agree with, not sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. As far as i'm concerned thats it, I know what I mean and a few other members agree with me. Sometimes what you consider to be "obvious" other people may not consider to be, I think you need to realise that... I'm not stupid and I don't need you to imply that I am, so please don't.

Yes, Josh I understand that perhaps the rule was not clear enough which is why I added that part on your suggestion, if I was completely stubborn I would have insisted that it would remain how it was and users should understand - no, I saw your point and added a few extra words to the rule - whether or not it covered it in the first place in our eyes it did - Garion and I wrote the rules however we do not account for the majority of HabboxForum members and these rules are still relatively new and I suppose it's these kind of misunderstandings that will help these rules develop. Catzsy, the longest-running Super Moderator to ever work at HabboxForum has confirmed it was always against the rules and was highlighted in the rules beforehand, perhaps Garion and myself were wrong to assume that users would understand that "do not post images of other members" was a blanket for any method of posting images.

We are both going round in circles here and there is no need for it, I have said it's always been against the rules, Garion has, Matt has and Catzsy has, why we are still both here discussing it I do not know :P Perhaps we are both stubborn.

flatface

19-07-2010, 01:54 PM

Nice to know that General Management and a previous super moderator know every aspect of the rules even though half of the detail seems to be missing from the rules page itself, shame about the rest of the users, especially the newer ones :). Anyone that actually knows me will agree I am definitely not stubborn, I am actually quite an easy going person.

Nixt

19-07-2010, 07:40 PM

When writing the rules we aimed for a simple but direct approach that did not mean you were inundated with loads of text but a small amount with clear points that tell you what is or is not against the rules. This was changed because members were constantly moaning about how the rules were just getting bigger and bigger and were far too confusing for the new members you have cited. At the end of the day the rules stated that posting a picture of another member was a violation of the rules, and this means in whatever context you have posted this picture.

The rules are not able to cover every possible form of rule break. As I said at the time, I can certainly write up a piece of legislation that will cover page after page and prevent any "loophole" as it were, but this is undesirable. The rules are designed to prevent rule breaking and therefore, they are sometimes interpreted and applied in a more liberal sense so as to prevent undesirable behaviour on the forum that may not be explicitly stated in the rules.