Rule Need Reviewing - opinion

[GommeInc]

The following parts of rule A2. need reviewing:


A2. Do not post inappropriately ~ Habbox Forum has an audience that includes younger members, and as such all content must be suitable for those members. You must not:

Talk about adult subjects in an explicit manner.
Swear or avoid the forum filter in any way (including by using abbreviations)
Post images, videos or links that with inappropriate content like gore, nudity, obscenity or annoyance.
Post links which may cause a nuisance to other forum members, such as "Rick Rolling" etc.

Mildly inappropriate content (never anything rated 18+) is allowed where sufficient warning is added into the post and the image or link is placed within a spoiler. The final decision on what is or is not inappropriate is at the Moderator's discretion

I would like to ask the forum community for their feedback on this matter, the very community which, apparently, get offended by anything. Is this offensive, inappropriate, rude?


Windows Phone 7 is an interesting OS and one I am looking at with great pleasure. Android is a great OS, but lately I find that it isn't becoming as amazing as it could be with the latest Android OS releases. That said, it could be because I am using the Xperia X10, which is the mustard* child of Sony Ericsson and Android, there wasn't much commitment between Sony Ericsson and the Android platform, and they're only now releasing phones that properly sport it. I have about 9 months left on this contract so I could go for WP7 or an Android phone again, the future does look bright for WP7, even though it is a late comer :P

* Replace 'MU' with 'BA'

- Would you say this is inappropriate, rude or offensive?
- Would you say the asterix is a sufficient warning?
- Would you say a "younger" member would understand the asterix rule and apply it, and understand what it means?
- If so, do you consider these members young at all if they understand the asterix usage, can apply the asterix rule and get the understanding of the phrase?

What's also interesting is that moderator discretion is being ignored here. So far reasons for removal of the post is that it avoids the filter - it's not rude, offensive or inappropriate as we all know what ******* child means in the context of products. So applying the "rule" on the title of a sub-rule, but not for the description of the rule (inappropriate content etc) seems bizarre, brash and irrational, especially when there is no other reason for the action by the moderator(s) and management.

So, what do you all think?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I agree with this, I think the mantra of 'members may be offended' is a tired one and doesn't stand up to the reality of it. I have seen in the past (cannot provide examples) banter being very sexual in nature in spam, however this is perfectly within the rules provided its not explicit. An example would be in the health sections, sex can be graphically talked about but the example you gave Ryan of 'mustard child' is somehow worse than posts of a sexual nature.

[GommeInc]

I agree with this, I think the mantra of 'members may be offended' is a tired one and doesn't stand up to the reality of it. I have seen in the past (cannot provide examples) banter being very sexual in nature in spam, however this is perfectly within the rules provided its not explicit. An example would be in the health sections, sex can be graphically talked about but the example you gave Ryan of 'mustard child' is somehow worse than posts of a sexual nature.
Interesting you should say that:

Have you heard/seen your parent(s) having sexual intercourse? - http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=700788

The above thread doesn't even need you to use your imagination or puzzle solving skills to understand what is meant by that thread :P

[Catzsy]

I think you have got somewhat confused here, Gomme. This is the part of the rule that was sanctioned.


A2. Do not post inappropriately ~ Habbox Forum has an audience that includes younger members, and as such all content must be suitable for those members. You must not:

Talk about adult subjects in an explicit manner.
Swear or avoid the forum filter in any way (including by using abbreviations)
Post images, videos or links that with inappropriate content like gore, nudity, obscenity or annoyance.
Post links which may cause a nuisance to other forum members, such as "Rick Rolling" etc.

Mildly inappropriate content (never anything rated 18+) is allowed where sufficient warning is added into the post and the image or link is placed within a spoiler. The final decision on what is or is not inappropriate is at the Moderator's discretion

The only question as far as I can see is whether the word should be in the filter or not. It has nothing to do with inappropriate adult sexual content but to do with inappropriate language/avoiding the filter in this instance. I agree it has not been used in a rude way here but it is universally accepted as a very derogatory word that if not in the filter could be used to cause great offence to others. A line has to be drawn which words are included in the filter and which are not.

[Mathew]

Interesting you should say that:

Have you heard/seen your parent(s) having sexual intercourse? - http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=700788

The above thread doesn't even need you to use your imagination or puzzle solving skills to understand what is meant by that thread :P
Goodness knows why that thread is allowed, may I add. It's something you'd expect in the tacky corners of ClubHabbo who find discussion of sex to be oh-so-hilarious, not here.. :P

Oh and lol I don't see a problem with your post and yeah this is somewhere where the whole moderator discetion shabang should be in play. I find it to be pure wit rather than trying to break some rules on a fansite FOR teenagers.. :rolleyes:

[Zeptis]

I agree with the top one but the second one i couldn't understan, to much phone talk.

[Eoin247]

I agree that this isn't really offensive. I mean i don't know anybody who would even find the term "******* child" offensive if it wasn't directed at them. In my opinion it might be better to slacken the rules a bit with regards to this.

[Catzsy]

I agree that this isn't really offensive. I mean i don't know anybody who would even find the term "******* child" offensive if it wasn't directed at them. In my opinion it might be better to slacken the rules a bit with regards to this.

These are the key words in this post. The problem is that members would find it very offensive if it was directed at them so where do you draw the line. Avoiding the filter is 'avoiding the filter'. I do not see the moderators have any discretion at all - it is a black and white issue. Either it avoids the filter or it does not. If we left some then we could be accused of favourtism. I am not sure 'you can avoid the filter as long as it is not aimed at anybody in a rude way' would be a satisfactory alternative. As far as the 'sexual intercourse' thread is concerned yes IMO it is borderline and one wonders about the motives here but as far as I can see nothing breaks the rules and I am sure has been closely monitored by everybody in case it does.

[GommeInc]

I think you have got somewhat confused here, Gomme. This is the part of the rule that was sanctioned.

The only question as far as I can see is whether the word should be in the filter or not. It has nothing to do with inappropriate adult sexual content but to do with inappropriate language/avoiding the filter in this instance. I agree it has not been used in a rude way here but it is universally accepted as a very derogatory word that if not in the filter could be used to cause great offence to others. A line has to be drawn which words are included in the filter and which are not.
Now this is interesting as you're telling me one thing and I am getting different reasons by other people. No one seems to be giving a logical reason to why I was warned within in this rule. I have been told I wasn't being inappropriate for posting what I did, but I am also being told avoiding the filter is inappropriate. But my question is this - how is avoiding the filter inappropriate if what I said wasn't inappropriate?

I am also being told that this is my fault for having the rules changed in the first place, but what is interesting is the rule "A2. Do not post inappropriately" was written to combine multiple rules to make them easy to understand, but for some reason moderators do not understand that if the content of the post is appropriate, then every aspect of the rule is fine. Think of it like this:

I posted something appropriate, therefore my post isn't against rule A2 because the rule is about being inappropriate (hence the name of the rule written in bold). For some reason moderators think the rule needs to be looked into further, which is why the problem arises. I broke the sub-clause "avoiding the filter" but there is no reason (hence why it is unfair) for how or why other than I broke a sub-clause.

It's like creating a burger, the bun(s) are the confines of the rule, and the meat is the content. I didn't post inappropriately so the filling between the buns is non-existent, but the moderators feel they need to find something inbetween the buns to call meat, even though the buns are clean and untouched.

Another interesting thing is that there are huge contradictions, and a reasonabed argument should never have contradictions, further making the action taken for this unfair. IF avoiding the filter in any circumstance is not allowed, then why are we told by management we can avoid the filter if we're being appropriate and the post isn't rude?

Look at this thread of sinners and people being inappropriate for breaking rule A2:

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=692882&p=7050934#post7050934


I agree with tit but most definitely not **** as that can lead to sexually explicit conversations which aren't permitted here. I can't honestly see the filter changing too much but petty words like tit should and probably will be removed.

It's the same logic :/

So may I have the warning removed? It is unfair, especially if you can't give a solid answer to why it is fair and love to contradict yourself and give multiple answers. It also doesn't break any rule, so...


These are the key words in this post. The problem is that members would find it very offensive if it was directed at them so where do you draw the line. Avoiding the filter is 'avoiding the filter'. I do not see the moderators have any discretion at all - it is a black and white issue. Either it avoids the filter or it does not. If we left some then we could be accused of favourtism. I am not sure 'you can avoid the filter as long as it is not aimed at anybody in a rude way' would be a satisfactory alternative. As far as the 'sexual intercourse' thread is concerned yes IMO it is borderline and one wonders about the motives here but as far as I can see nothing breaks the rules and I am sure has been closely monitored by everybody in case it does.
Completely irrelevant. I have been told that my post was fine and appropriate. The meaning of the word has not been dragged up as the context the word was used in was fine. It means a product that acts completely different to succeeding and preceeding products, it's a business term. If someone gets offended then they shouldn't be on the forum, as my post was clearly about a product not a person. Again, this is all irrelevant as I have been told every aspect of my post was acceptable other than I avoided the filter, which makes no sense as the post was appropriate and the rule wasn't broken.

[Inseriousity.]

I think it's more the positioning of the 'Do not avoid the forum filter' in the rules that may cause some confusion as its position within the rule A2 would imply that it's only a rule if it's an inappropriate post when I do think it's taken more generally. Whether that's a good thing or not is entirely up for debate, I personally don't think it is. It's a forum, there's bound to be some banter every now and again.

That thread you quoted Hecktix in was in the Habbox Feedback forum and I'm sure you're allowed to avoid the filter in the Habbox feedback forum to make a point (as proved by your original post which has not been edited by the moderators even though rosie has been in the thread). :)

[GommeInc]

I think it's more the positioning of the 'Do not avoid the forum filter' in the rules that may cause some confusion as its position within the rule A2 would imply that it's only a rule if it's an inappropriate post when I do think it's taken more generally. Whether that's a good thing or not is entirely up for debate, I personally don't think it is. It's a forum, there's bound to be some banter every now and again.
Indeed, avoiding the filter is within the "Do not post inappropriately" rule to give the reader an understanding of what can be considering inappropriate. The rule should be read "Is the post inappropriate? Yes? Read on to find out how" but I am being told the post was appropriate, so there is no reason to read the rest of the rule, especially when what I said wasn't inappropriate. It's like they're trying to protect the filter rule because the filter is upset, when no one fleshy, sentient and made of organs gives a damn :P


That thread you quoted Hecktix in was in the Habbox Feedback forum and I'm sure you're allowed to avoid the filter in the Habbox feedback forum to make a point (as proved by your original post which has not been edited by the moderators even though rosie has been in the thread). :)
I'm playing the pedantic and paranoid game with the moderators as they seem to love that. No where in that rule does it say the Feedback forum is fine, so I expect all these people to have warnings by the end of the day. If they love making up unofficial rules then it's their problem. My warning is unfair.

[scott]

I'm playing the pedantic and paranoid game with the moderators as they seem to love that. No where in that rule does it say the Feedback forum is fine, so I expect all these people to have warnings by the end of the day. If they love making up unofficial rules then it's their problem. My warning is unfair.

Which would also lead to yourself getting a few infraction in the bargain.

Your warning "Inappropriate Language / Avoiding the filter"

I don't know why you don't understand that it was issued for avoiding the filter and not for being inappropriate.

The rule of "Do not post inappropriately" is just the heading but is many different rules under the one, as to cut the rules down.

[HotelUser]

Goodness knows why that thread is allowed, may I add. It's something you'd expect in the tacky corners of ClubHabbo who find discussion of sex to be oh-so-hilarious, not here.. :P

Oh and lol I don't see a problem with your post and yeah this is somewhere where the whole moderator discetion shabang should be in play. I find it to be pure wit rather than trying to break some rules on a fansite FOR teenagers.. :rolleyes:

It's allowed because it's not breaking any rules. If it were talking about specific things, describing things or the physical act of sexual intercourse than those posts wouldn't be allowed. This has always been the rule and is not some sort of newfound lack of judgement in the current group of moderators. I'd also like to point out that the thread is in the Health, Life & Relationships section and pursues a genuine topic. Again, if it didn't and was just made in humour to giggle at body parts a moderator likely would have removed of it by now.

Having said all that about the have you ever seen your parents having sexual intercourse thread it's not a valid thread to compare to the current situation because the current situation is retaining to filter avoidance. It was inappropriate because it was avoiding the filter but it was removed and dealt with because it was avoiding the filter. You knew the word you were using is against the forum rules when you used it in your post :P.


Indeed, avoiding the filter is within the "Do not post inappropriately" rule to give the reader an understanding of what can be considering inappropriate. The rule should be read "Is the post inappropriate? Yes? Read on to find out how" but I am being told the post was appropriate, so there is no reason to read the rest of the rule, especially when what I said wasn't inappropriate. It's like they're trying to protect the filter rule because the filter is upset, when no one fleshy, sentient and made of organs gives a damn :P


I'm playing the pedantic and paranoid game with the moderators as they seem to love that. No where in that rule does it say the Feedback forum is fine, so I expect all these people to have warnings by the end of the day. If they love making up unofficial rules then it's their problem. My warning is unfair.

Should admins start issuing moderators warnings because moderators PM users and have to avoid the filter to explain which words aren't allowed to be used on the forum when a user uses one? Mike is very right and I'm beyond myself why you've brought up not only a feedback post as an example of filter avoidance but one clearly set in the context of feedback. If we are playing by these rules then the first post of your thread here would also be in violation of the forum rules because you avoid the filter with the b word again. There has always been an appropriate amount of lenience in the feedback forums as to argue ones case. If this lenience is taken to vast extremes (such as posting graphic pictures) then it would be considered abused and wouldn't be allowed in the instance. But to make a post like Oli has, or like you have in your original post to try and justify your opinion is perfectly okay.

[Hecktix]

I think you have got somewhat confused here, Gomme. This is the part of the rule that was sanctioned.



The only question as far as I can see is whether the word should be in the filter or not. It has nothing to do with inappropriate adult sexual content but to do with inappropriate language/avoiding the filter in this instance. I agree it has not been used in a rude way here but it is universally accepted as a very derogatory word that if not in the filter could be used to cause great offence to others. A line has to be drawn which words are included in the filter and which are not.


These are the key words in this post. The problem is that members would find it very offensive if it was directed at them so where do you draw the line. Avoiding the filter is 'avoiding the filter'. I do not see the moderators have any discretion at all - it is a black and white issue. Either it avoids the filter or it does not. If we left some then we could be accused of favourtism. I am not sure 'you can avoid the filter as long as it is not aimed at anybody in a rude way' would be a satisfactory alternative. As far as the 'sexual intercourse' thread is concerned yes IMO it is borderline and one wonders about the motives here but as far as I can see nothing breaks the rules and I am sure has been closely monitored by everybody in case it does.


I think it's more the positioning of the 'Do not avoid the forum filter' in the rules that may cause some confusion as its position within the rule A2 would imply that it's only a rule if it's an inappropriate post when I do think it's taken more generally. Whether that's a good thing or not is entirely up for debate, I personally don't think it is. It's a forum, there's bound to be some banter every now and again.

That thread you quoted Hecktix in was in the Habbox Feedback forum and I'm sure you're allowed to avoid the filter in the Habbox feedback forum to make a point (as proved by your original post which has not been edited by the moderators even though rosie has been in the thread). :)

The above posts are the best responses to GommeInc's original post within this thread, +rep.



I'm playing the pedantic and paranoid game with the moderators as they seem to love that. No where in that rule does it say the Feedback forum is fine, so I expect all these people to have warnings by the end of the day. If they love making up unofficial rules then it's their problem. My warning is unfair.

- not so long ago, the HabboxForum Rules were much more detailed than they are now, however following pushes and suggestions by members such as yourself to condense the rules so they are easier to read - perhaps this is one of the reasons they shouldn't be condensed, as Rosie pointed out (and let me also point out that Rosie is the most experienced moderator on HabboxForum and most certainly wouldn't be "making up rules", it's a rule that's been in existence since the very beginning) you broke the avoiding the filter part. The rules will not be black & white, if we had everything that is and isn't accepted written out on the rules page it'd be very, very long.

As you've admitted playing "the pedantic paranoid game" aka "having a childish tantrum because you've got a warning for something which has been against the rules since HabboxForum opened", I'm going to close this thread because I don't have time for childish tantrums when actually this thread is really an infraction appeal (which we've already gone through a tonne of those with you). If you want to argue that it's not an infraction appeal, please view what I add in response to Scott's post.


Which would also lead to yourself getting a few infraction in the bargain.

Your warning "Inappropriate Language / Avoiding the filter"

I don't know why you don't understand that it was issued for avoiding the filter and not for being inappropriate.

The rule of "Do not post inappropriately" is just the heading but is many different rules under the one, as to cut the rules down.

You are quite right Scott, however due to this, I think we should probably start expanding the rules more. If anybody wants to oppose/suggest things for expanding the forum rules, please create a new feedback thread, but this one isn't remaining as it's a childish tantrum in response to a nothing but fair warning for someone deliberately avoiding the forum filter when there were more appropriate alternative words he could have used, such as "illegitimate".