Rules need to be clear

[Richie]

I'm confused to why I received a warning for:


A3. Do not accuse others of scamming or hacking, or any other illegal activity ~ making baseless accusations only leads to arguments and often members are targeted wrongly or unfairly. We do not allow you to accuse anyone of hacking, scamming or illegal activities with or without evidence so as to maintain a positive atmosphere about the forum.An accusation -To find fault with, to blame, to censure; To charge without having committed a crime or offence


I had solid proof that the site was illegal, If it wasn't, the users host wouldn't of suspended them. I was under the impression that my post was completely legit & not breaking any of the forum rules as the person did actually commit a crime / offence.



Nulled vbulletin forum
Copyrighting a piece of work which wasn't actually created by them


This is the second time in two days that I got a warning for something that wasn't actually breaking any rules.


This usernote as well as the other should be removed as I did nothing wrong, I was following the rules, if anyone's to fault its habbox as the rules were actually worded wrongly.

[Inseriousity.]

I had solid proof that the site was illegal, If it wasn't, the users host wouldn't of suspended them. I was under the impression that my post was completely legit & not breaking any of the forum rules as the person did actually commit a crime / offence.


We do not allow you to accuse anyone of hacking, scamming or illegal activities with or without evidence so as to maintain a positive atmosphere about the forum.

Looks pretty clear to me tbh!

[xxMATTGxx]

I see Rule A3 as this: Accusing anyone of illegal activity/hacking with or without 100% evidence is still breaking that rule, I believe having a nulled vBulletin hosted is classed as illegal? If so, then that is obviously breaking rule A3 because you are accusing them of taking part in illegal activity.

[Richie]

I see Rule A3 as this: Accusing anyone of illegal activity/hacking with or without 100% evidence is still breaking that rule, I believe having a nulled vBulletin hosted is classed as illegal? If so, then that is obviously breaking rule A3 because you are accusing them of taking part in illegal activity.

Yes, but its not an accusation its a fact.


These rules really are stupid, let me get this right. You can post illegal content, forums & such things that breach copyright terms. Yet I can't point out the fact that its illegal? its been done in the past, if you really want me to prove a point il dig up old posts just to prove I'm right.

[Calvin]

If you have proof then you are not accusing them of doing something illegal, you KNOW they're doing something illegal.

[Mr-Trainor]

If you have proof then you are not accusing them of doing something illegal, you KNOW they're doing something illegal.
You are still accusing someone, whether you have proof or not.

[wixard]

oh my god STOP COMPLAINING

[Tintinnabulate]

Lol Moderators don't even know how long usernotes are considered for. Staff are getting crap every day.

[Richie]

Meh, I don't really care about the usernote, I just want to make clear:

An accusation -To find fault with, to blame, to censure; To charge without having committed a crime or offence


maybe it could be tweaked a bit

[scott]

Lol Moderators don't even know how long usernotes are considered for. Staff are getting crap every day.

Well we have always been told they last 6 months, then Garion posted that it's 2 months it's hardly us that don't know. Obviously now I think it's been corrected and everybody knows what's happening with them.

About the rule, I don't think that it was really breaking the rules but if management think it is, it must be!

[Chippiewill]

An accusation -To find fault with, to blame, to censure; To charge without having committed a crime or offence

That definition is incorrect, an accusation is an accusation whether it is correct or not.

[xxMATTGxx]

Meh, I don't really care about the usernote, I just want to make clear:

An accusation -To find fault with, to blame, to censure; To charge without having committed a crime or offence


maybe it could be tweaked a bit

After having a little discussion in regards of the rule towards your post, we have came out with the decision that it isn't breaking Rule A3 and that any edits/usernotes will be reversed.

[HotelUser]

It's my mistake and misjudgement which triggered this controversy. I'm sorry, Richard.

[Storking]

I've never really agreed with this rule.. I've seen posts that are supposedly breaking this rule - even though they have clear evidence that the person/site is in the wrong.

(in the case of habbo scammers/hackers) By MODs removing the details that users post, from the outsite it looks as if Habbox is covering up and possibly even protecting these people. Whereas the information should really be allowed to be said to protect and warn other users about whatever happened..

[Jamesy]

I've never really agreed with this rule.. I've seen posts that are supposedly breaking this rule - even though they have clear evidence that the person/site is in the wrong.

(in the case of habbo scammers/hackers) By MODs removing the details that users post, from the outsite it looks as if Habbox is covering up and possibly even protecting these people. Whereas the information should really be allowed to be said to protect and warn other users about whatever happened..

If you suspect someone of breaking the rules you should PM the moderator / member of management and it will be dealt with like that. Accusing people of illegal activity is not that dissimilar to telling a user they broke the rules - or acting as a moderator.

The idea of the rule is to prevent people falsifying evidence in order to shame another user, which is why we do not allow it to be posted - as well as the reasons above.

[Mr-Trainor]

I've never really agreed with this rule.. I've seen posts that are supposedly breaking this rule - even though they have clear evidence that the person/site is in the wrong.

(in the case of habbo scammers/hackers) By MODs removing the details that users post, from the outsite it looks as if Habbox is covering up and possibly even protecting these people. Whereas the information should really be allowed to be said to protect and warn other users about whatever happened..
The reason the information is removed is to prevent arguments and fake accusations.

[Storking]

The possibility of helping other users avoid the scams/unsafe sites surely outweighs the possibility of an argument that the thread may cause? :S

[Recursion]

Gunna put my hands up and say I recommended David edited the post and sent the PM, at the end of the day, there was no proof posted and I thought the rule applied as an argument could have been caused.

[Matthew]

The possibility of helping other users avoid the scams/unsafe sites surely outweighs the possibility of an argument that the thread may cause? :S

Thats what makes it so hard.
We either remove the rule and face a lot more arguments over the issue, but the possibility of less scams working, or keep the rule and stop the arguments but allow possible scams to stay out for a bit longer.

To be fair, anything that is known to be a scam tends to be removed by moderators pretty swiftly, so it isn't really much of a problem.

[Storking]

Why is it that the information is removed before any type of argument has even started :S

It seems so odd, surely if an argument does occur then a moderator can deal with it then.. that's the normal procedure right.. It's like having a user kicked as soon as they walk into HxHD because there's already someone in the room they don't like and you 'suspect' that they're going to argue - you just wouldn't be able to get away with doing that there. Same principles should apply on the forum imo.

I think the rule should really be re-thought and possibly scrapped in these circumstances, it'll do more good than harm.

[Recursion]

Why is it that the information is removed before any type of argument has even started :S

It seems so odd, surely if an argument does occur then a moderator can deal with it then.. that's the normal procedure right.. It's like having a user kicked as soon as they walk into HxHD because there's already someone in the room they don't like and you 'suspect' that they're going to argue - you just wouldn't be able to get away with doing that there. Same principles should apply on the forum imo.

I think the rule should really be re-thought and possibly scrapped in these circumstances, it'll do more good than harm.

In the majority of cases this rule is fairly applied and it is better to avoid the argument all together rather than having to clean the thread up and dish out more warnings/infractions than is necessary.

[Richie]

Why is it that the information is removed before any type of argument has even started :S

It seems so odd, surely if an argument does occur then a moderator can deal with it then.. that's the normal procedure right.. It's like having a user kicked as soon as they walk into HxHD because there's already someone in the room they don't like and you 'suspect' that they're going to argue - you just wouldn't be able to get away with doing that there. Same principles should apply on the forum imo.

I think the rule should really be re-thought and possibly scrapped in these circumstances, it'll do more good than harm.

I disagree that's completely different. If someone in the desk was provoking an argument they would be warned.

[Mr-Trainor]

Why is it that the information is removed before any type of argument has even started :S
If you read my post, I stated that the information is removed to prevent further arguments and not to stop ongoing arguments :)

[Storking]

If you read my post, I stated that the information is removed to prevent further arguments and not to stop ongoing arguments :)

But why prevent further arguments if an argument hasn't even started and no one knows if it will actually create an argument in the first place.

If a user is simply warning other users on here about a known scammer and has solid evidence, then why would there be a need to remove their post? lol.. the scammer doesn't deserve any type of help by having the information removed and have numerous more users falling for the scam or hack.

That's what should happen if you were considering the best interests of Habbox/Habbo users imo.

[flatface]

But why prevent further arguments if an argument hasn't even started and no one knows if it will actually create an argument in the first place.

If a user is simply warning other users on here about a known scammer and has solid evidence, then why would there be a need to remove their post? lol.. the scammer doesn't deserve any type of help by having the information removed and have numerous more users falling for the scam or hack.

That's what should happen if you were considering the best interests of Habbox/Habbo users imo.

What one person classes as "solid evidence" might not be classed as that by another person. It's also very hard for a moderator to distinguish between what's fact and what's not, which I think definitely needs to be taken into account regarding this situation.

[FlyingJesus]

http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1086

Full of accusations

[Chippiewill]

http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1086

Full of accusations

It doesn't take a genius to work out that's different, also that's not what the rule's about.

[FlyingJesus]

In what way are Dan's unfounded rumours of oppressive powers destroying us all and tabloid rumours about celebs less accusatory and potentially damaging to the target than someone correctly stating that a certain website is illegal?

[Mr-Trainor]

But why prevent further arguments if an argument hasn't even started and no one knows if it will actually create an argument in the first place.
If you allow the argument to begin in the first place, then it could cause people to making enemies on the forum. If his happened to half the forum for example, then there would be a noticably negative atmosphere which could potentially lose forum activity.


If a user is simply warning other users on here about a known scammer and has solid evidence, then why would there be a need to remove their post? lol.. the scammer doesn't deserve any type of help by having the information removed and have numerous more users falling for the scam or hack.
Well I'll be honest, when I was a new member to this forum I was 'quicktraded' a throne and being unaware of the rule, I did accuse this user of scamming in my signature/thread. However, since then I have realised that what you may class as solid evidence could be classed as complete rubbish to someone else. Let's be honest, it isn't that hard to fake a habbo screenshot for someone that really wanted to.


That's what should happen if you were considering the best interests of Habbox/Habbo users imo.
In my opinion, considering the best interests of the users would be to prevent the arguments from beginning. An argument could make one or many users unhappy/upset and preventing them ensures that this does not happen.

[Chippiewill]

In what way are Dan's unfounded rumours of oppressive powers destroying us all and tabloid rumours about celebs less accusatory and potentially damaging to the target than someone correctly stating that a certain website is illegal?


A3. Do not accuse others of scamming or hacking, or any other illegal activity ~ making baseless accusations only leads to arguments and often members are targeted wrongly or unfairly. We do not allow you to accuse anyone of hacking, scamming or illegal activities with or without evidence so as to maintain a positive atmosphere about the forum.

Because the rule doesn't care about celebs :P

[GommeInc]

Looks pretty clear to me tbh!
He's technically not accusing - he's stating fact :P The vBulletin was nulled, therefore it's fact.

You could write somewhere, either in that rule or another rule that members should not cause arguments, be it as accusations or as fact, causing unnecessary friction in the forum. Letting users state that something is wrong is fine, but if it opens up to arguments then a moderator should step in.