Posting private info

[Recursion]

In response to the complaints thread really :P

If it's a PM, surely the person who receives the PM can also give permission for it to be made public? People should understand that when they send someone a PM the decision to make it public is with either the sender or recipient.

[buttons]

it's called private cause you don't want it to be public, don't be so ridiculous O.o
wow if that's the case whats the point in a private msging system
i didn't give permission to post it so why should it be:S

[Inseriousity.]

Makes sense to me - the same's done for photos - but I suppose it's just easier to say no exceptions to make it easier to moderate.

[xxMATTGxx]

It just makes it more complex on moderation. Users shouldn't post private messages if they haven't got permission from the person who sent it in the first place, fairly simple.

[Lee]

I suppose if this is the case, you may as well use visitor messaging, what's the difference?

[Recursion]

Because obviously some people aren't going to want to make all their messages public, but on occasion, like today, I don't see the issue, it's not exactly damaging.

[Mr-Trainor]

Because obviously some people aren't going to want to make all their messages public, but on occasion, like today, I don't see the issue, it's not exactly damaging.

It may not always be damaging, but it is still private.

[xxMATTGxx]

Because obviously some people aren't going to want to make all their messages public, but on occasion, like today, I don't see the issue, it's not exactly damaging.

It's not private for no reason, regardless of what the content is. It's still private to whoever sent it in the first place, therefore permissions is needed to post it.

[Chris]

I suppose if this is the case, you may as well use visitor messaging, what's the difference?

By using visitor messaging, the users are choosing to make it public. Is that what you meant?

[Lee]

By using visitor messaging, the users are choosing to make it public. Is that what you meant?

Yeah if a Private Message can be made public with out consent of both sides, it is basicly the same funtion as a visitor message because neither are private :P

[The Don]

I thought the application was a joke? Surely it's not that big of a deal unless it was a genuine application/pm
edit: ok can see jen acutally didn't want it
if the person however doesn't want it on the forum, then the person who posted it should remove it

[Catzsy]

I thought the application was a joke? Surely it's not that big of a deal unless it was a genuine application/pm
edit: ok can see jen acutally didn't want it
if the person however doesn't want it on the forum, then the person who posted it should remove it

I can see this point of view. It was a spoof pm it was not a serious one. Had it been then yes it would have been totally wrong. 'Rules' were being broken all over the place in the 'name' of the 'truth or dare' thread yesterday and that was considered 'fun' but this wasn't. Not sure I understand why tbh. In normal circumstances, though, I do not agree they should be published without the agreement of both parties.

[AgnesIO]

Because obviously some people aren't going to want to make all their messages public, but on occasion, like today, I don't see the issue, it's not exactly damaging.

It isn't, however my view was if the rule is there it should be applied. I had nothing against the PM as it was amusing, however if you are allowed to break the rules in one thread, you have to allow the breaking of rules elsewhere.

I didn't initially have a problem with the PM, however I did have an issue when my PM was removed, but Dave put his back after it was removed (again, no problem with Dave - I just didn't think that was very fair on the 'smaller guy'!)


I can see this point of view. It was a spoof pm it was not a serious one. Had it been then yes it would have been totally wrong. 'Rules' were being broken all over the place in the 'name' of the 'truth or dare' thread yesterday and that was considered 'fun' but this wasn't. Not sure I understand why tbh.

They were but eventually rules were pulled down on the thread (such as encouraging others to break the rules by posting pointlessly..)

[Catzsy]

It isn't, however my view was if the rule is there it should be applied. I had nothing against the PM as it was amusing, however if you are allowed to break the rules in one thread, you have to allow the breaking of rules elsewhere.

I didn't initially have a problem with the PM, however I did have an issue when my PM was removed, but Dave put his back after it was removed (again, no problem with Dave - I just didn't think that was very fair on the 'smaller guy'!)



They were but eventually rules were pulled down on the thread (such as encouraging others to break the rules by posting pointlessly..)

So does that mean we should go back and edit those threads seriously as 'normal' rule breaks? We accepted and the members accepted that it was part of the 'fun' so I see no reason that this thread wasn't accepted in the same spirit as those. This is my personal opinion.

[AgnesIO]

So does that mean we should go back and edit those threads seriously as 'normal' rule breaks? We accepted and the members accepted that it was part of the 'fun' so I see no reason that this thread wasn't accepted in the same spirit as those. This is my personal opinion.


Gonna have to be a spoil sport and say...Stop daring people to post threads in the incorrect forums because I've been told the posts have to be edited as encouraging members to break the forum rules....

If that is applied, then so does the PM and any other rule break relating to the thread.

[Catzsy]

If that is applied, then so does the PM and any other rule break relating to the thread.

Where is that post quoted from?

[AgnesIO]

Where is that post quoted from?

Truth or Dare thread. Scott was told by an AGM or Matt I imagine.

[Catzsy]

Where is that post quoted from?

I don't think it was suggested that it should be applied retrospectively so my point still stands.

Scott posted at 8.16 pm
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=706654&p=7163622#post7163622


The thread was posted at 5.56 when 'breaking the rules for fun' was still being considered okay.
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=706759

In these circumstances still harsh in my opinion.

[AgnesIO]

I don't think it was suggested that it should be applied retrospectively so my point still stands.

Scott posted at 8.16 pm
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=706654&p=7163622#post7163622


The thread was posted at 5.56 when 'breaking the rules for fun' was still being considered okay.
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=706759

In these circumstances still harsh in my opinion.

The difference is, obviously the PM thread was still there and had nothing done to it. Whereas the threads posted in the wrong places had already been dealt with. I don't see what is harsh in your opinion? It isn't like Dave got warned/usernoted/infracted or whatever. How since that particular thread had not been dealt with at all, the stricter rule has to be applied.

[Catzsy]

The difference is, obviously the PM thread was still there and had nothing done to it. Whereas the threads posted in the wrong places had already been dealt with. I don't see what is harsh in your opinion? It isn't like Dave got warned/usernoted/infracted or whatever. How since that particular thread had not been dealt with at all, the stricter rule has to be applied.

Only dealt with i.e. moved back to spam as if they were left there they would have been considered as pointless/spamming. No pms and not regarded as rule breaks. The pm was a 'spoof' only sent as part of a dare. Hardly a private affair. That thread was already already in spam so what needed to be dealt with? How do you know what action was taken against David, anyway? I don't :P I see it as harsh as everybody else was allowed to 'break the rules' without impunity except for one. Harsh.

[AgnesIO]

Only dealt with i.e. moved back to spam as if they were left there they would have been considered as pointless/spamming. No pms and not regarding as rule breaks. That thread was already already in spam so what needed to be dealt with? How do you know what action was taken against David, anyway? I don't :P I see it as harsh as everybody else was allowed to 'break the rules' without impunity except for one. Harsh.

People were allowed to break the rules, however that was eventually not allowed. And the difference is, the other threads were moved to spam as pointless, and I am sure if people continued to post pointless threads after that warning they would have been punished. You then need to look at the fact David's thread wouldn't have needed to be moved to spam, as it wasn't a 'pointless' thread. It was posting private content - which is different. If the rule is applied and a thread is breaking a rule and has not yet had anything said about it I believe it should be looked back on - as I don't think it would be fair allowing some people to get away with it and some not?

Also, the members on this forum are not complete imbeciles. I am certain David did not have action taken against him apart from the edited post.

---------- Post added 20-06-2011 at 11:34 AM ----------


Only dealt with i.e. moved back to spam as if they were left there they would have been considered as pointless/spamming. No pms and not regarded as rule breaks. The pm was a 'spoof' only sent as part of a dare. Hardly a private affair. That thread was already already in spam so what needed to be dealt with? How do you know what action was taken against David, anyway? I don't :P I see it as harsh as everybody else was allowed to 'break the rules' without impunity except for one. Harsh.

Clearly they were regarded as rulebreaks, too? If a thread is moved it must have been breaking the rules - whether you warn/infract/user note the user - you have moved a thread as it is pointless - whether that is because of the game or not..

---------- Post added 20-06-2011 at 11:39 AM ----------

Sorry. There was one key point I forgot to mention in this thread.

Another difference is the 'pointless' threads were dares. Jen sending that PM was a dare. David posting the PM was not a dare, and therefore not part of the truth or dare thread.

As stated, don't get me wrong as I have nothing against David - just if a rule is going to be applied it has to be applied for everyone

[Catzsy]

People were allowed to break the rules, however that was eventually not allowed. And the difference is, the other threads were moved to spam as pointless, and I am sure if people continued to post pointless threads after that warning they would have been punished. You then need to look at the fact David's thread wouldn't have needed to be moved to spam, as it wasn't a 'pointless' thread. It was posting private content - which is different. If the rule is applied and a thread is breaking a rule and has not yet had anything said about it I believe it should be looked back on - as I don't think it would be fair allowing some people to get away with it and some not?

Also, the members on this forum are not complete imbeciles. I am certain David did not have action taken against him apart from the edited post.

---------- Post added 20-06-2011 at 11:34 AM ----------



Clearly they were regarded as rulebreaks, too? If a thread is moved it must have been breaking the rules - whether you warn/infract/user note the user - you have moved a thread as it is pointless - whether that is because of the game or not..

---------- Post added 20-06-2011 at 11:39 AM ----------

Sorry. There was one key point I forgot to mention in this thread.

Another difference is the 'pointless' threads were dares. Jen sending that PM was a dare. David posting the PM was not a dare, and therefore not part of the truth or dare thread.

As stated, don't get me wrong as I have nothing against David - just if a rule is going to be applied it has to be applied for everyone


Sorry I really don't agree with you here. It was a joke, plain and simple and as the result of a dare in which David was included as one of the recipients of the pm. None of the others has any sanctions against them at all. The threads were not treated as rule breaks just simply moved back and were not edited as being pointless which if the rules had been applied they would have been closed and edited as being 'pointless' and a pm sent. David's was actually edited as a rule break so there may have been further action - it has nothing to do with treating members as 'imbeciles'. It amazes me that it was even picked up upon by members and seen negatively considering everything else that was going on at the time. Rule breaks are rule breaks. Where does it say 'posting private information' is any different? I agree if a rule is to be applied it should be applied to everyone but it wasn't here.

[HotelUser]

I will not become a part of this discussion other than mention these two things:

1. Scott posted in the dares thread after I told him I didn't want people encouraging rulebreaks, as you can see because his reply even says "I have been asked".

2. I might have added the edits back to my post that Matt made, and I don't mind doing that and not allowing any quotes as such at all, but now this entire thing is just being blown way out of proportion. If I may say so it was a minor and innocent error and considering management are still very human. What more are you looking to get out of discussing this when I've already sided with you?

[AgnesIO]

I will not become a part of this discussion other than mention these two things:

1. Scott posted in the dares thread after I told him I didn't want people encouraging rulebreaks, as you can see because his reply even says "I have been asked".

2. I might have added the edits back to my post that Matt made, and I don't mind doing that and not allowing any quotes as such at all, but now this entire thing is just being blown way out of proportion. If I may say so it was a minor and innocent error and considering management are still very human. What more are you looking to get out of discussing this when I've already sided with you?

I would like to apologise for my input in this thread. I never intended an entire thread to be in feedback on this (hence why I put it in complaints, as I didn't want an argument over it?

Also the end of your post there seems like you are aiming this at me? I didn't make the thread, I didn't aim to make the discussion, but since the thread was started ABOUT my complaint, I feel I should reply with my input. As I have now said countless times:

1) It is nothing personal
2) Posting the PM was not a dare or anything - so surely it is posting private information - despite the fun side to it
3) No matter what Rosie says, the pointless threads WERE dealt with - albeit not as strongly as normal - but still dealt with
4) I totally understand that you are all human, and never made any intention for this to be this big
5) It isn't like I always have arguments with you guys, since unlike most I do appreciate what you try to do etc, however on this occasion I did feel that the PM should not have been posting.


Sorry I really don't agree with you here. It was a joke, plain and simple and as the result of a dare in which David was included as one of the recipients of the pm. None of the others has any sanctions against them at all. The threads were not treated as rule breaks just simply moved back and were not edited as being pointless which if the rules had been applied they would have been closed and edited as being 'pointless' and a pm sent. David's was actually edited as a rule break so there may have been further action - it has nothing to do with treating members as 'imbeciles'. It amazes me that it was even picked up upon by members and seen negatively considering everything else that was going on at the time. Rule breaks are rule breaks. Where does it say 'posting private information' is any different? I agree if a rule is to be applied it should be applied to everyone but it wasn't here.

The threads were moved - and therefore seen as pointless. I treally doesn't matter if they were told off or not - they were still moved as they were pointless (which is a rule?)

My point is David posting the PM was not a dare, and although I see it was just a laugh (and the PM was funny), it surely still needs to be noted just like all the pointless posts were?

[Catzsy]

I would like to apologise for my input in this thread. I never intended an entire thread to be in feedback on this (hence why I put it in complaints, as I didn't want an argument over it?

Also the end of your post there seems like you are aiming this at me? I didn't make the thread, I didn't aim to make the discussion, but since the thread was started ABOUT my complaint, I feel I should reply with my input. As I have now said countless times:

1) It is nothing personal
2) Posting the PM was not a dare or anything - so surely it is posting private information - despite the fun side to it
3) No matter what Rosie says, the pointless threads WERE dealt with - albeit not as strongly as normal - but still dealt with
4) I totally understand that you are all human, and never made any intention for this to be this big
5) It isn't like I always have arguments with you guys, since unlike most I do appreciate what you try to do etc, however on this occasion I did feel that the PM should not have been posting.



The threads were moved - and therefore seen as pointless. I treally doesn't matter if they were told off or not - they were still moved as they were pointless (which is a rule?)

My point is David posting the PM was not a dare, and although I see it was just a laugh (and the PM was funny), it surely still needs to be noted just like all the pointless posts were?

Last word on this because I think David has probably had enough. None of the threads were edited as 'rule breaks' that is my point. Yes the pm was funny so why was there such a big fuss about it? The contents could have been removed without any sanction if the people who complained really felt aggrieved about it. :P

[AgnesIO]

Last word on this because I think David has probably had enough. None of the threads were edited as 'rule breaks' that is my point. Yes the pm was funny so why was there such a big fuss about it? The contents could have been removed without any sanction if the people who complained really felt aggrieved about it. :P

There was no sanction though, so I don't see what you are saying there?

If a thread is moved, it has been moved for a reason. That is because they were pointless - whether part of truth or dare or not!

---------- Post added 20-06-2011 at 12:26 PM ----------


In response to the complaints thread really :P

If it's a PM, surely the person who receives the PM can also give permission for it to be made public? People should understand that when they send someone a PM the decision to make it public is with either the sender or recipient.

A final word from me, but this original post is incorrect.

You cannot make your private messages public! If you could, that rule wouldn't be needed since every time a PM is send, if one of the two gives permission then they would ALWAYS be allowed to be post haha

[xxMATTGxx]

I'm going to close this thread for these reasons:

1. When any member of the forum staff or not breaks a rule it's edited and privately sorted. It's not anyone else's business how this was dealt with and if you ask me you are extremely fortunate that David even decided on his own to side with you, add the edits back to the post and even apologize.


2. I also don't feel there is nothing more about to discuss the rule or what David posted last night. It has already been sorted and dealt with and today is another day.