Leave moderating to the moderators

[Neversoft]

Not a dig at you or anything Rosie, just a general enquiry. :P

Just wondering, why exactly does this rule exist? I have seen countless non-staff members help others by pointing them in the right direction concerning the rules and such, but this rule pretty much classes those helpful people as rule breakers. Someone posted a thread on New Years Resolutions earlier (here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=682016)) and I posted to say that a thread had already been made and gave them the link. The poster then went to the correct thread and posted where they should have done and if they were VIP I am sure they would have acknowledged the mistake and closed the duplicate thread themselves (which I have seen happen countless times in the same situation), thus saving the moderators a job. Yet I get a moderator warning edited into my post?

A8. Leave moderating to the moderators ~ If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with and provide a brief description. Also, you may not discuss bans on the forum. If you wish to dispute a ban use the Support System. You should also never ignore a moderators warning, change their warnings, open a thread they have closed or use the Moderator Specific BBcode ([modwar]).

Whereas it is explained why rules like pointless posting and posting inappropriately are in place (even though they're quite self-explanatory), the 'leave moderating to the moderators' rule can't even justify itself. Surely a mod-log or two wouldn't go a miss. Never have I ever seen this rule anywhere else but on this forum.

[hamheyelliot]

Mishaps like posting in the wrong forum or creating multiple threads aren't officially recorded as Rules either so really giving a gentle nudge in the right direction isn't really breaking the moderator rule in the first place.

[Jamesy]

The rule exists I'd say because moderators+ are the only ones who should have the authority to point out rule breaks. If everyone did it, whether intentions good or not, it would become confusing to new members who need to see who the moderators are and such. I agree with elliot though that things that you can't be punished for shouldn't come under acting as a moderator - although posting completely off topic just to point it out is a bit far - you should just report it and move on.

[Nemo]

Mishaps like posting in the wrong forum or creating multiple threads aren't officially recorded as Rules either so really giving a gentle nudge in the right direction isn't really breaking the moderator rule in the first place.
indeed, ive never been told off doing so.

But in all its a really dumb rule, i remember it being there and their reasoning was "as some people will give false information" well then warn them :l

[GommeInc]

Mishaps like posting in the wrong forum or creating multiple threads aren't officially recorded as Rules either so really giving a gentle nudge in the right direction isn't really breaking the moderator rule in the first place.
Interesting point. It should also come down to how you say it, to who and why. As long as it isn't mentioned in a rude "u r stupido" way then it's fine. I think they may disallow you from saying such things because it's seen as messy and pointless in a thread (when it is moved it looks odd and out of place). Saying that though, they love their red writing/mod warnings which would say it had been moved to a new forum, thus destroying much of the point :P


indeed, ive never been told off doing so.

But in all its a really dumb rule, i remember it being there and their reasoning was "as some people will give false information" well then warn them :l
Isn't that the whole point of a forum, a mix-match of true and false information? It's up to the individual if they're dumb enough to accept false information (even though most of the useful information is listed somewhere anyway).

[Inseriousity.]

Hmm I agree. There are people who can be quite rude about it but they could probably be sanctioned under the 'don't be a ********' rule rather than this one tbh.

[Neversoft]

The rule exists I'd say because moderators+ are the only ones who should have the authority to point out rule breaks. If everyone did it, whether intentions good or not, it would become confusing to new members who need to see who the moderators are and such. I agree with elliot though that things that you can't be punished for shouldn't come under acting as a moderator - although posting completely off topic just to point it out is a bit far - you should just report it and move on.

I think there is a huge misconception that new members of this forum are completely illiterate. It's not hard to see who the moderators are, they all have a userbar pointing it out. I really find it hard to see how new members would become confused if someone other than a moderator helped them out as well. At the end of the day it just seems strange to me that a good deed is against the rules. The rule needs a little more clarity as well, how far do you have to go before you're 'moderating' in place of the moderators. Pretty sure my post and countless others never had this intention.

[GommeInc]

The rule exists I'd say because moderators+ are the only ones who should have the authority to point out rule breaks. If everyone did it, whether intentions good or not, it would become confusing to new members who need to see who the moderators are and such. I agree with elliot though that things that you can't be punished for shouldn't come under acting as a moderator - although posting completely off topic just to point it out is a bit far - you should just report it and move on.
Surely making members useful is a better aim? Better to have social, helpful members than ones that have to go about saying nothing just to make moderators look smarter and superior :P

And last time I chcked new members weren't born without a brain, it's probably why there aren't that many new members as they feel like they're being patronised :/

[Jamesy]

I think there is a huge misconception that new members of this forum are completely illiterate. It's not hard to see who the moderators are, they all have a userbar pointing it out. I really find it hard to see how new members would become confused if someone other than a moderator helped them out as well. At the end of the day it just seems strange to me that a good deed is against the rules. The rule needs a little more clarity as well, how far do you have to go before you're 'moderating' in place of the moderators. Pretty sure my post and countless others never had this intention.

I never intended to say new members are illiterate, but its a common rule on many forums that users shouldn't act as a moderator. In the case of your post simply reporting it and moving on would have had the same effect - because you then posted simply to say it, it comes under it. But I've seen replies to threads in wrong sections that append something like "by the way you'll get better replies in this forum" and they don't get edited.

[Hecktix]

I think there is a huge misconception that new members of this forum are completely illiterate. It's not hard to see who the moderators are, they all have a userbar pointing it out. I really find it hard to see how new members would become confused if someone other than a moderator helped them out as well. At the end of the day it just seems strange to me that a good deed is against the rules. The rule needs a little more clarity as well, how far do you have to go before you're 'moderating' in place of the moderators. Pretty sure my post and countless others never had this intention.

I think it's about the rights of who has to say what really, I mean personally in my opinion I don't think pointing out that a thread already exists is breaking this rule, you aren't suggesting they are breaking the rules as such merely informing them of something - should you dispute the action taken against your post to Nicola and I am sure she will probably take a similar viewpoint and remove the edit.

The rule is in place to stop members telling other members what they can and cannot do on the forum and believe me a lot of people get up their own backside and do it, they sometimes don't totally cross the rudeness line therefore sanction for being rude wouldn't quite cover it but this rule is there to stop these kind of people, having ago at others for breaking the rules in public - that's the main reason for it, if a member breaks the rules they are dealt with by a moderator in the privacy of their own inbox, what is said is between the moderator and the user and an edit is left on the post to show that the post was against the rules (which is quite educating for the other members, I know I didn't learn a lot of the rules on this forum until I saw other people break them, or broke them myself). It's not too pleasent to be brought up by another member when most of the time when this happens it's quite unpleasent, stuff like "this thread is breaking the rules" - although it looks innocent this can also appear rude/condescending and it isn't the users place to suggest that the thread is breaking the rules, should it be breaking the rules then they should report it.

That's what it's used for, arrogant people who decide to go around telling people what they can and cannot do around this forum when they are in no position to do so, things like "there's already a thread on this here: XXXXXXXX" is more advice than moderation, as you aren't really telling them they have broken the rules. Perhaps this should be clarified with the moderators.

[Jamesy]

Surely making members useful is a better aim? Better to have social, helpful members than ones that have to go about saying nothing just to make moderators look smarter and superior :P

And last time I chcked new members weren't born without a brain, it's probably why there aren't that many new members as they feel like they're being patronised :/

It's not saying nothing to make the moderators superior :P. As I said above I've seen members point things out and I'd never have encouraged any moderator to edit those. But if you're just going to go "thread's already made" which is the moderator's job to act upon then I'd say the rule comes into effect.

Edit: Oli's posted, ignore this post haha!

[GommeInc]

I think it's about the rights of who has to say what really, I mean personally in my opinion I don't think pointing out that a thread already exists is breaking this rule, you aren't suggesting they are breaking the rules as such merely informing them of something - should you dispute the action taken against your post to Nicola and I am sure she will probably take a similar viewpoint and remove the edit.

The rule is in place to stop members telling other members what they can and cannot do on the forum and believe me a lot of people get up their own backside and do it, they sometimes don't totally cross the rudeness line therefore sanction for being rude wouldn't quite cover it but this rule is there to stop these kind of people, having ago at others for breaking the rules in public - that's the main reason for it, if a member breaks the rules they are dealt with by a moderator in the privacy of their own inbox, what is said is between the moderator and the user and an edit is left on the post to show that the post was against the rules (which is quite educating for the other members, I know I didn't learn a lot of the rules on this forum until I saw other people break them, or broke them myself). It's not too pleasent to be brought up by another member when most of the time when this happens it's quite unpleasent, stuff like "this thread is breaking the rules" - although it looks innocent this can also appear rude/condescending and it isn't the users place to suggest that the thread is breaking the rules, should it be breaking the rules then they should report it.

That's what it's used for, arrogant people who decide to go around telling people what they can and cannot do around this forum when they are in no position to do so, things like "there's already a thread on this here: XXXXXXXX" is more advice than moderation, as you aren't really telling them they have broken the rules. Perhaps this should be clarified with the moderators.


If that's the only reason not to inform other users then surely you don't need this extra rule when this one already exists?


A1. Respect other forum members ~ Always respect other forum members, this means do not be rude towards them and respect their opinions. You should not bully or victimise other members for any reason and you should not behave in a negative manner excessively.

It does seem kinda harsh that you're attacking all members with this rule, especially the ones that are genuinely being helpful and useful. Also, you contradict yourself:


...if a member breaks the rules they are dealt with by a moderator in the privacy of their own inbox, what is said is between the moderator and the user and an edit is left on the post to show that the post was against the rules


I don't think pointing out that a thread already exists is breaking this rule, you aren't suggesting they are breaking the rules as such merely informing them of something - should you dispute the action taken against your post to Nicola and I am sure she will probably take a similar viewpoint and remove the edit.

It isn't against the rules so editing the post to hint towards it isn't informative at all. You're pretty much suggesting "anyone who is helpful and kind towards other members IS against the rules". It creates a negative air which does get disputed a lot on Habbox - why the unnecessary strictness etc etc. It is a pretty dumb rule to enforce, when it blanket covers everyone to be hit by the "moderators are better than you" stick until you're red all over.

Edit: ClubHabbo does not have a rule about this. I seem to have noticed most other forums do not have a rule like this, but this rule does seem to be a confusing mess so they probably feel it difficult or unnecessary to enforce a rule which, as we can see from this thread, makes no sense :P

[Hecktix]

If we used the respect other members rule to blanket that we would get further complaints that the rules are not precise enough, I think I was rambling on in that reply a little bit but the point I was trying to make is that users may offer advice in terms like Neversoft did.

All members should not be attacked with this rule unless they are acting all high and mighty trying to be clever by pointing out rule breaks, that's what the rule is for and it's quite handy in those circumstances.

As Jamesy highlighted, users who make comments such as "perhaps this would be better suited in XX forum?" or "there's already a thread on this here XXXX :P" are not breaking any rules including this one, they aren't acting as a moderator either as posting in the wrong forum or posting a thread that already exists are technically not wrongs, just mistakes - it's when users point out that another member is in the wrong in their conduct on the forum that the rule should be applied.

[Catzsy]

Not a dig at you or anything Rosie, just a general enquiry. :P

Just wondering, why exactly does this rule exist? I have seen countless non-staff members help others by pointing them in the right direction concerning the rules and such, but this rule pretty much classes those helpful people as rule breakers. Someone posted a thread on New Years Resolutions earlier (here (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=682016)) and I posted to say that a thread had already been made and gave them the link. The poster then went to the correct thread and posted where they should have done and if they were VIP I am sure they would have acknowledged the mistake and closed the duplicate thread themselves (which I have seen happen countless times in the same situation), thus saving the moderators a job. Yet I get a moderator warning edited into my post?

A8. Leave moderating to the moderators ~ If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with and provide a brief description. Also, you may not discuss bans on the forum. If you wish to dispute a ban use the Support System. You should also never ignore a moderators warning, change their warnings, open a thread they have closed or use the Moderator Specific BBcode ([modwar]).

Whereas it is explained why rules like pointless posting and posting inappropriately are in place (even though they're quite self-explanatory), the 'leave moderating to the moderators' rule can't even justify itself. Surely a mod-log or two wouldn't go a miss. Never have I ever seen this rule anywhere else but on this forum.


I think it's about the rights of who has to say what really, I mean personally in my opinion I don't think pointing out that a thread already exists is breaking this rule, you aren't suggesting they are breaking the rules as such merely informing them of something - should you dispute the action taken against your post to Nicola and I am sure she will probably take a similar viewpoint and remove the edit.

The rule is in place to stop members telling other members what they can and cannot do on the forum and believe me a lot of people get up their own backside and do it, they sometimes don't totally cross the rudeness line therefore sanction for being rude wouldn't quite cover it but this rule is there to stop these kind of people, having ago at others for breaking the rules in public - that's the main reason for it, if a member breaks the rules they are dealt with by a moderator in the privacy of their own inbox, what is said is between the moderator and the user and an edit is left on the post to show that the post was against the rules (which is quite educating for the other members, I know I didn't learn a lot of the rules on this forum until I saw other people break them, or broke them myself). It's not too pleasent to be brought up by another member when most of the time when this happens it's quite unpleasent, stuff like "this thread is breaking the rules" - although it looks innocent this can also appear rude/condescending and it isn't the users place to suggest that the thread is breaking the rules, should it be breaking the rules then they should report it.

That's what it's used for, arrogant people who decide to go around telling people what they can and cannot do around this forum when they are in no position to do so, things like "there's already a thread on this here: XXXXXXXX" is more advice than moderation, as you aren't really telling them they have broken the rules. Perhaps this should be clarified with the moderators.



Chris, please accept my apologies. I did not realise that this had changed as far as pointing out
people had already posted threads go. As Oli has confirmed this above I will remove the edit and the user note. Obviously that is not all that is up for dicussion here but I hope it will go some way in solving this particular point. I know you were not having a go at me, by the way. Thanks. :D

[Chris]

I agree with what Oli said. Neversoft was only being helpful towards the user and didnt actually do anything wrong.

[GommeInc]

If we used the respect other members rule to blanket that we would get further complaints that the rules are not precise enough, I think I was rambling on in that reply a little bit but the point I was trying to make is that users may offer advice in terms like Neversoft did.

All members should not be attacked with this rule unless they are acting all high and mighty trying to be clever by pointing out rule breaks, that's what the rule is for and it's quite handy in those circumstances.

As Jamesy highlighted, users who make comments such as "perhaps this would be better suited in XX forum?" or "there's already a thread on this here XXXX :P" are not breaking any rules including this one, they aren't acting as a moderator either as posting in the wrong forum or posting a thread that already exists are technically not wrongs, just mistakes - it's when users point out that another member is in the wrong in their conduct on the forum that the rule should be applied.
But as you said previously, that IS pointless posting saying "it would have got better replies in suchandsuch a forum", so they are breaking a rule if that is the only thing they post when replying :P Judging from the responses (from members and moderators), this rule needs editing/removing as it is already covered by other rules - pointless posting, behavioural rules. No where in that rule does it say that it is okay to inform, which is the central point to this thread, as it is a blanket cover rule at the moment. If it is just to target arrogant, pointless, rude posters, then make that obvious, because at the moment it isn't. It's all well and good saying that, but you need to highlight that in the rule otherwise this thread and what you said is pointless (afterall, I cannot take what you say for fact when the rule says, or suggests, otherwise).

[Hecktix]

But as you said previously, that IS pointless posting saying "it would have got better replies in suchandsuch a forum", so they are breaking a rule if that is the only thing they post when replying :P Judging from the responses (from members and moderators), this rule needs editing/removing as it is already covered by other rules - pointless posting, behavioural rules. No where in that rule does it say that it is okay to inform, which is the central point to this thread, as it is a blanket cover rule at the moment. If it is just to target arrogant, pointless, rude posters, then make that obvious, because at the moment it isn't. It's all well and good saying that, but you need to highlight that in the rule otherwise this thread and what you said is pointless (afterall, I cannot take what you say for fact when the rule says, or suggests, otherwise).

That wouldn't be up to me, if the Forum Manager reads this thread and decides that the rule should be re-worded then I'm sure she'll do it. Do not get me wrong, I think at the time this rule was written it was meant to be a blanket covering the lot of it, even what Neversoft posted so perhaps it has become outdated. You notice in moderation that when we urge leniency (which has been a big thing over the past 12 months) moderation shifts aren't usually done officially but by moderators themselves, for instance say 12 months ago what Chris posted would have been against the rules completely and the Forum Management of that day would have stuck up for the moderator, we urge leniency and one day a moderator see's a post like Chris' and thinks "well actually, I'll leave that", later in the day another moderator points the post out and the original mod says "well I left that as I think it's just polite" - moderation evolves and it's quite hard to keep up with and document each and every change as we work towards more leniency.

I havent seen someone be edited for this in a while however it is the lack of documentation that has caused the issue, which I am sure Nicola will address.

[nvrspk4]

The first reason is because some people react badly when they view others as "telling them what to do" and it tended to create a harsher environment for newer members when they joined the forum, as they would have multiple forum members telling them off instead of one Forum Moderator sending a nice PM and fixing it. The second way is much more friendly.

The second reason was purely logistic, you would get multiple people saying that it was in the wrong forum, that you shouldn't double post, that the post broke the rudeness rules, etc. This had the effect of having several useless posts and also pulling threads off-topic as a debate ensued as to whether the thread was in the right forum (or perhaps merely because there was a page of people saying it was in the wrong forum).

There are reasons for it, though I think that there should be an exception for suggesting a more appropriate forum/a thread having already been posted if the post also contains something that contributes to the topic. As long as it's only to do with placing threads in the right forum or the thread being similar to an already-active thread and avoiding posting only about rulebreaking, I would think that both goals are still achieved. Of course it would be left to the moderators' discretion to deal with users who were doing this in a condescending/rude manner. I still think that things like rudeness, double posting, etc. should be handled by moderators.

PS: Gomme, the simple reason not to include this under pointless posting is because it's not immediately evident. As a new user, I'd be pretty pissed if I posted something like, "I already posted this thread here" and had it edited, and was told that my post was against the rules under the pointless posting rules. There's no point having implied rules which come from interpretations of other rules, it's much simpler and much more straightforward to have another rule.

[Nicola]

I don't mind members telling other members that there is already a thread on a certain topic or that they have posted something in the wrong forum. The only problem I do have with it is that it can be seen as pointless posting. It isn't making any contribution to the topic of the thread so really the best thing to do would be to report the thread and just let the moderators deal with it.

As said by others in the thread, if members are commenting on other members conduct then that is where the rule comes into place as this will only make the member feel uneasy, especially if they are new to the forum.

In my opinion the whole rule needs a good rewording.

[AgnesIO]

I think the rule should be abolished as a lot of the time, another member can point out that a member has done something wrong (providing that they provide a link displaying the rule/the thread already posted) without a moderator getting involved.

Moderators are not there to step on anything and everything - I would prefer a member to tell me what I did wrong, instead of my post being edited by a moderator - who might not even know the rules as well as half the other members!

[GommeInc]

I think the rule should be abolished as a lot of the time, another member can point out that a member has done something wrong (providing that they provide a link displaying the rule/the thread already posted) without a moderator getting involved.

Moderators are not there to step on anything and everything - I would prefer a member to tell me what I did wrong, instead of my post being edited by a moderator - who might not even know the rules as well as half the other members!
I wouldn't care less to be honest, I get told what to do by any Tom, Dick and Harry whenever I'm using a forum :P Besides, as all new members are born with only half a brain I don't think they'd care much either. The only real concern is if it comes off as rude and pointless, but there are already rules there to solve such an issue. The rule does need updating though, judging by the information given by some of the team involved with the handlings of staff and rules, the rule says one thing but the staff say another :P

[Neversoft]

Thanks for the replies everyone, glad to get some clarification on this and glad to see that everyone is pretty much on the same page. Hope the rule is updated soon and no worries Rosie. Thanks for removing the usernote and edit. :D