Really dont get this rule.

[Nemo]

~ It is not allowed to post pointless posts or threads like "aifdhgsdfhgsdo" or numerous threads which essentially "spam" the New Posts search.

Like, i dont know if management realised when they were typing the rules, but it's spam. Spam is in itself, pointless. You dont get any posts for it, its completely pointless. The reasoning for this makes no sense as well, it's hardly spamming the new posts if someone is doing this in a thread, because the thread will be in new posts anyway, and if its a thread, then just prevent excessive spamming. Not to mention the fact there are a billion other threads that spam new posts anyway, like the entire forum games section and welcome threads.

So ya, kinda not getting this.

[Eoin247]

Not to mention people get away with typing pointless things like "wcejfrgtgefdwswefgr" all the time in spam. So since the rule is not even enforced, might as well remove it.

[Chris]

Like, i dont know if management realised when they were typing the rules, but it's spam. Spam is in itself, pointless. You dont get any posts for it, its completely pointless. The reasoning for this makes no sense as well, it's hardly spamming the new posts if someone is doing this in a thread, because the thread will be in new posts anyway, and if its a thread, then just prevent excessive spamming. Not to mention the fact there are a billion other threads that spam new posts anyway, like the entire forum games section and welcome threads.

So ya, kinda not getting this.

All posts in spam should have meaning and actually make sense. If everyone was to go around posting junk like that then it would be quite unpleasant, hence this rule is in place. :P


Not to mention people get away with typing pointless things like "wcejfrgtgefdwswefgr" all the time in spam. So since the rule is not even enforced, might as well remove it.

Its not very often the rule is actually broken, but on the occasion that it is, it is dealt with. :)

[Mathew]

I've always found it quite ironic how Spam is probably the forum with the highest amount of discussion in it, yet the post count doesn't raise. I do suppose it depends on what you call "pointless" - the community in Spam are probably a closer-knit group than any other section on this site, and while it may appear "pointless" to the powers that be, there is actually some decent stuff in there, whether it be jokes or simply talking about daily life.

Let's be honest, which has a more useful discussion out of posting a number up to 100, and finding out what your fellow members have been doing today? Which takes the most interaction? Which creates an ACTIVE DISCUSSION (as the FAQs suggest)? I've always tended to keep out of discussions and I've always thought it a bit annoying when people moan about the "Forum Games" section, but I've just occured to me that the rules just don't add up. If this has been answered with a good reason then please do tell.


A6. Do not post pointlessly ~ ~ Do not post off-topic ~ An off-topic post has no relevance to the topic or any previous post that is relevant, or does little to positively contribute to the discussion.
~ Do not spam/make pointless posts. It is not allowed to post random, meaningless, posts or threads on the forum. Examples of this are (ROFLCOPTER!!!!!!); (BYRDSB +HKK; ) (I am a plane)
~ Do not posts threads which only allow for short, one or two word answers and do not promote active discussion.

What is this thread doing then? -> http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=636663. Where the hell is the active discussion and why is that more worthy of post count than the spam section?

But yeah, it's depressing how a rule has been implented on what is spam and what isn't..... lmao.

[scott]

I've always found it quite ironic how Spam is probably the forum with the highest amount of discussion in it, yet the post count doesn't raise. I do suppose it depends on what you call "pointless" - the community in Spam are probably a closer-knit group than any other section on this site, and while it may appear "pointless" to the powers that be, there is actually some decent stuff in there, whether it be jokes or simply talking about daily life.

Let's be honest, which has a more useful discussion out of posting a number up to 100, and finding out what your fellow members have been doing today? Which takes the most interaction? Which creates an ACTIVE DISCUSSION (as the FAQs suggest)? I've always tended to keep out of discussions and I've always thought it a bit annoying when people moan about the "Forum Games" section, but I've just occured to me that the rules just don't add up. If this has been answered with a good reason then please do tell.



What is this thread doing then? -> http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=636663. Where the hell is the active discussion and why is that more worthy of post count than the spam section?

But yeah, it's depressing how a rule has been implented on what is spam and what isn't..... lmao.

Post count doesn't rise in the forum games section either.

I do agree that if the rule is staying then it should be enforced all the time and not just every so often. Personally I don't think the rule is really needed because it's hardly broken anyway and the odd post like "asybsunikmofa" isn't exactly going to cause a huge problem.

[Mathew]

Post count doesn't rise in the forum games section either.

I do agree that if the rule is staying then it should be enforced all the time and not just every so often. Personally I don't think the rule is really needed because it's hardly broken anyway and the odd post like "asybsunikmofa" isn't exactly going to cause a huge problem.
ooooh it doesn't say it in the description like it does for Spam so I assumed it did. :P That's not so bad then, but it's still in violation of the active discussion rule!

[Catzsy]

Like, i dont know if management realised when they were typing the rules, but it's spam. Spam is in itself, pointless. You dont get any posts for it, its completely pointless. The reasoning for this makes no sense as well, it's hardly spamming the new posts if someone is doing this in a thread, because the thread will be in new posts anyway, and if its a thread, then just prevent excessive spamming. Not to mention the fact there are a billion other threads that spam new posts anyway, like the entire forum games section and welcome threads.

So ya, kinda not getting this.


What used to happen is that we would get spam attacks where loads of pointless rubbishy threads in that vein were made that completely blocked up new posts. I can see what you are saying about the posts but if it was only enforced in relation to threads I can see it happening with someone going on a spree on posts that are just completely random and don't make sense.
The rule is there for a reason which is still as valid today as it was when Seacat made it many years ago. There are no random, posts or threads in the other sections/forums you mention that are random and pointless like this.

[Hecktix]

ooooh it doesn't say it in the description like it does for Spam so I assumed it did. :P That's not so bad then, but it's still in violation of the active discussion rule!

Ah but let's remember our rules are subjective and open to interpretation & moderator discretion. To be fair, if the rules were stuck to rigidly we'd need a moderation department of a similar style to the Gestapo.

What Rosie said was true about the numerous threads thing - it really is for threads, there's nothing more annoying than when some idiot in spam posts 20 or so threads (especially if you browse via new posts), so that rule is to cover that and we have had a lot of problems with people doing that in the past.

[FlyingJesus]

This rule is useful for two reasons that I can think of:

1) Posts like that can only really prompt a response of "aiuhiugbeiub" in return or "oh how interesting, tell me more" neither of which are amusing
2) New people often post things like that in spam because they think it'll be hilarious, then they get warned for it and leave spam forever, thus ridding us of the type of people who DO think that's funny

[Stephen]

i think the leave moderating to moderators rule is stupid in spam too.

U BROKE THE RULES OOOOOOOOH

yes I'm really being serious to the person and I get a usernote for it. IT'S SPAM GET OVER IT

[Nemo]

and if its a thread, then just prevent excessive spamming.


Ah but let's remember our rules are subjective and open to interpretation & moderator discretion. To be fair, if the rules were stuck to rigidly we'd need a moderation department of a similar style to the Gestapo.

What Rosie said was true about the numerous threads thing - it really is for threads, there's nothing more annoying than when some idiot in spam posts 20 or so threads (especially if you browse via new posts), so that rule is to cover that and we have had a lot of problems with people doing that in the past.
Kind of already answered that point :P

This rule is useful for two reasons that I can think of:

1) Posts like that can only really prompt a response of "aiuhiugbeiub" in return or "oh how interesting, tell me more" neither of which are amusing
2) New people often post things like that in spam because they think it'll be hilarious, then they get warned for it and leave spam forever, thus ridding us of the type of people who DO think that's funny
However you guys might as well get Tom to answer for you, those points make sense to me. ta.

That is all.





No wait that is not all! Stephen did make a point also, that rule is damn dumb.

[Hecktix]

Spam is not exempt from forum rules other than pointless & double posting. Leave moderating to the moderators is a fine and necessary rules, you can't be going round telling people they've broken the rules, we hire people to do that :P

[Nemo]

Spam is not exempt from forum rules other than pointless & double posting. Leave moderating to the moderators is a fine and necessary rules, you can't be going round telling people they've broken the rules, we hire people to do that :P
No, you hire people to punish those who break the rules, and sometimes tell. Surely cant hurt for someone to say "oh btw you avoided the filter" and then that person edits their post and takes out the swear word, saving a mod their job. Just does not compute

[Stephen]

But if I said

"you have broken the rules" then yeah im breaking that rule

but when I put it in a jokey sort of pisstake way "YOU BROKE THE RULES OOOOOHHHH" in MY thread in SPAM it just seems errr dunno what word to use

stupid
dumb
******ed
silly
maybe a lil bit gay too

[Hecktix]

But if I said

"you have broken the rules" then yeah im breaking that rule

but when I put it in a jokey sort of pisstake way "YOU BROKE THE RULES OOOOOHHHH" in MY thread in SPAM it just seems errr dunno what word to use

stupid
dumb
******ed
silly
maybe a lil bit gay too

Wouldn't say that's against the rules personally - if you have been contacted for that you should PM Nicki or Scott

[Catzsy]

Kind of already answered that point :P

However you guys might as well get Tom to answer for you, those points make sense to me. ta.

That is all.





No wait that is not all! Stephen did make a point also, that rule is damn dumb.

Why is that different to what we said? In any event I remember what it was like before this rule was introduced and the forum was spammed with hundreds of 'ROFLCOPTERs', and such like and other worthless stuff. I am sure you would have been the first to complain about it Niamh. :P

[Nemo]

Why is that different to what we said? In any event I remember what it was like before this rule was introduced and the forum was spammed with hundreds of 'ROFLCOPTERs', and such like and other worthless stuff. I am sure you would have been the first to complain about it Niamh. :P
DAMN STRAIGHT! But as said i am fine with the rule.

[GommeInc]

Depends how you go about telling someone they've broken the rules. If you're polite and informative, then it's fine but when you come off as someone who has the power to jurisdict the rules to someone you will get in trouble. It also falls under this rule about pointless posting anyway, as telling someone they have broken the rules isn't useful at all and doesn't contribute to discussion :P

Besides, it's better just to tell moderators how to do their jobs, like when they make pointless edits to posts which are relevant to the thread. For example, someone posting an image which sums up the sentiments of the thread in the exact same way as someone typing it - moderators still make these edits :P

EDIT: In fact, I'm fairly certain I've told someone they will get in trouble for their actions before and not been in trouble, but that may have been by PM :/

[Richie]

Remove the spam forum from the new post section if that's the main reason why the rule was implemented. I think this is a perfect time to use the phrase:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CZDAdu2Xl9Q/SKFF0gD3ybI/AAAAAAAAB-8/-B7wKdakFUY/s400/y_so_srs.jpg


I never realised there was a rule against spamming threads in spam, I always do it. If that means I have broken the rules, feel free to punish me. Spam has always been pretty laid back and just because the odd *** likes to ruin the forum doesn't mean you should punish us all. Spam is a bit of fun banter, I say ignore it unless it's breaking the obvious forum rules like avoiding the filter or bullying etc.. Just when I thought the forum was finally at a stage that was laid back and suited us all.


Send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet

Which would strike out that rule. Spam is pointless messages that people usually ignore. If you got a spam email would you consider it pointless?


One thing I hate about this forum is moderators can use their discretion, one user could be constantly targeted by moderators whilst other users can do as they please. I'm not saying they do, it's just an example of what could be the outcome. All users should be treated equally and posts should only be removed if they break the forum rules, not if the moderators feel like they have or not. It's common sense.

[Hecktix]

Remove the spam forum from the new post section if that's the main reason why the rule was implemented. I think this is a perfect time to use the phrase:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CZDAdu2Xl9Q/SKFF0gD3ybI/AAAAAAAAB-8/-B7wKdakFUY/s400/y_so_srs.jpg


I never realised there was a rule against spamming threads in spam, I always do it. If that means I have broken the rules, feel free to punish me. Spam has always been pretty laid back and just because the odd *** likes to ruin the forum doesn't mean you should punish us all. Spam is a bit of fun banter, I say ignore it unless it's breaking the obvious forum rules like avoiding the filter or bullying etc.. Just when I thought the forum was finally at a stage that was laid back and suited us all.



Which would strike out that rule. Spam is pointless messages that people usually ignore. If you got a spam email would you consider it pointless?


One thing I hate about this forum is moderators can use their discretion, one user could be constantly targeted by moderators whilst other users can do as they please. I'm not saying they do, it's just an example of what could be the outcome. All users should be treated equally and posts should only be removed if they break the forum rules, not if the moderators feel like they have or not. It's common sense.

Richie it is very rare that someone would be contacted for "spamming in spam", if I went and posted 30 threads in there in the space of 2 mins would you not suggest it's right to have that against the rules? I don't think removing spam from new posts is an option, a lot of users browse HxF using new posts so this would mean they don't get to see content in the spam forum?

Moderator discretion is a good thing, of course it CAN lead to bad things but if that was to happen the moderator would be punished/removed, moderator discretion allows for leniance - if we stuck to the rules rigidly, like I said we'd need a moderation team in a similar style to that of the Gestapo.

---------- Post added 24-05-2011 at 01:54 PM ----------


Depends how you go about telling someone they've broken the rules. If you're polite and informative, then it's fine but when you come off as someone who has the power to jurisdict the rules to someone you will get in trouble. It also falls under this rule about pointless posting anyway, as telling someone they have broken the rules isn't useful at all and doesn't contribute to discussion :P

Besides, it's better just to tell moderators how to do their jobs, like when they make pointless edits to posts which are relevant to the thread. For example, someone posting an image which sums up the sentiments of the thread in the exact same way as someone typing it - moderators still make these edits :P

EDIT: In fact, I'm fairly certain I've told someone they will get in trouble for their actions before and not been in trouble, but that may have been by PM :/

"You will probably get an infraction for that" is different to "Learn the forum rules" or "stop breaking rules or get out" - these are things I've seen edited by mods in the past under that particular rule.

[GommeInc]

"You will probably get an infraction for that" is different to "Learn the forum rules" or "stop breaking rules or get out" - these are things I've seen edited by mods in the past under that particular rule.
All three of them are quite bad. "You will get an infraction for that" - says who? That's broken the rule as it's suggesting you know they will get an infraction. The last one is rude and the second can be rude depending on context. Infact, I'd say point 1 and 3 are the ones that would get the warning, while point 2 won't.

So your sentence should be:

"You will probably get an infraction for that" or "stop breaking the rules or get out" is different to "Learn the forum rules" - these are things I've seen edited by mods in the past under that particular rule.

Not sure what you meant by the rest of your sentence as you seem to be suggesting moderators can say those things and not be considered rude - weren't we talking about members pretending they're moderators or advising members about the rules?. If a moderator said any of those I'd probably tell them to get "stuffed" and learn some manners :P

[Hecktix]

All three of them are quite bad. "You will get an infraction for that" - says who? That's broken the rule as it's suggesting you know they will get an infraction. The last one is rude and the second can be rude depending on context. Infact, I'd say point 1 and 3 are the ones that would get the warning, while point 2 won't.

So your sentence should be:

"You will probably get an infraction for that" or "stop breaking the rules or get out" is different to "Learn the forum rules" - these are things I've seen edited by mods in the past under that particular rule.

Not sure what you meant by the rest of your sentence as you seem to be suggesting moderators can say those things and not be considered rude - weren't we talking about members pretending they're moderators or advising members about the rules?. If a moderator said any of those I'd probably tell them to get "stuffed" and learn some manners :P

Quite true about the mods saying that being rude, but generally they are examples of what people have said in the past. I think telling someone to learn the rules should be against that rule as it's not the place of a member to say that.

However, saying to someone "you'll probs get infracted for that" is in my eyes, you just saying to someone that you think the mods might deal with them, it's not acting as a mod.. i.e. telling them NOT to break the rules or reading them the riot act etc. This rule (in my eyes) is rarely broken, it was much so more when we had a lot of hostility towards newer/younger members in 08/09.

[Catzsy]

Remove the spam forum from the new post section if that's the main reason why the rule was implemented. I think this is a perfect time to use the phrase:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CZDAdu2Xl9Q/SKFF0gD3ybI/AAAAAAAAB-8/-B7wKdakFUY/s400/y_so_srs.jpg


I never realised there was a rule against spamming threads in spam, I always do it. If that means I have broken the rules, feel free to punish me. Spam has always been pretty laid back and just because the odd *** likes to ruin the forum doesn't mean you should punish us all. Spam is a bit of fun banter, I say ignore it unless it's breaking the obvious forum rules like avoiding the filter or bullying etc.. Just when I thought the forum was finally at a stage that was laid back and suited us all. If you removed the spam section from new posts view then the spam section could well be faced with pages and pages of rubbish which would not be good at all.



Which would strike out that rule. Spam is pointless messages that people usually ignore. If you got a spam email would you consider it pointless?

One thing I hate about this forum is moderators can use their discretion, one user could be constantly targeted by moderators whilst other users can do as they please. I'm not saying they do, it's just an example of what could be the outcome. All users should be treated equally and posts should only be removed if they break the forum rules, not if the moderators feel like they have or not. It's common sense.

Pretty good rant there, Richie. :P The only thing I would point out is this rule has been there since 2006 and maybe even before that , for the reasons stated quite a few times, so nobody has changed anything and I really think that this whole thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. Mods/Smods are human and they all have to learn as they go along so a few mistakes maybe made on the way which are admitted. I really don't think that moderator discretion can be used to target anybody as it is usually used to be a bit more lenient. Moderators cannot give a harsher penalty than is allowed anyway.

[GommeInc]

However, saying to someone "you'll probs get infracted for that" is in my eyes, you just saying to someone that you think the mods might deal with them, it's not acting as a mod.. i.e. telling them NOT to break the rules or reading them the riot act etc. This rule (in my eyes) is rarely broken, it was much so more when we had a lot of hostility towards newer/younger members in 08/09.
It is a bit rude, but I guess it depends on how the member who has allegedly broken the rules reacts and how it is portrayed. If it's done playfully and as a miniscule warning it's fine, but if they're saying "you will get an infraction for that" it comes off as a bit rude and authoritative, and may cause arguments. The rule was more broken in the past when moderators felt any action like this require immediate action. I remember the Habbo forums constantly having these warnings :P