Please do not...offend... other users

[The Don]

Just been edited with this by Zuth; "Please stay on topic & don't offend other users!" Surely what someone takes offence to is subjective? Me posting a picture of meat could offend vegetarians (poor example but the point still stands) does that mean the picture should be removed? no, it doesn't, not unless it was directly aimed and insulting towards that user. please change how 'offensive' posts are dealt with. Thanks.

Oh, also Zuth; there's a difference between directly calling someone something, insinuating and implying.

[Chris]

The edit reads "Please stay on topic & respect other users!", so surely this would imply that you were rude towards someone?

[Zuth]

At least wait for a PM instead of getting all fired up?

[The Don]

The edit reads "Please stay on topic & respect other users!", so surely this would imply that you were rude towards someone?

Well obviously he realised his mistake and edited it?

It does imply I was being rude, but It's inaccurate. I suggested that if someone couldn't interpret and obvious joke they either lacked socialisation or intelligence, never said they lacked socialisation or intelligence though.

[Lee]

Can you link us to the thread? Chances are your post was pointless/off topic, and at the same time ( :O multi-tasking) contained offensive material/content.

[Chris]

Maybe the edit was changed, but the old edit means exactly the same thing :S

Surely you would have aimed that comment towards someone making it rude? :P

[The Don]

Can you link us to the thread? Chances are your post was pointless/off topic, and at the same time ( :O multi-tasking) contained offensive material/content.

My post was just as offensive as yours... Here you're implying (with the patronising :O face in brackets) that I can't multi-task whilst mine implied that she was an idiot/lacked socialisation.

---------- Post added 02-05-2012 at 05:50 PM ----------


Maybe the edit was changed, but the old edit means exactly the same thing :S

Surely you would have aimed that comment towards someone making it rude? :P

No, it wasn't aimed at someone, I never said "you're an idiot" I said something along the lines of "if you can't understand that you're an idiot/lack socialisation"

[Lee]

My post was just as offensive as yours... Here you're implying (with the patronising :O face in brackets) that I can't multi-task whilst mine implied that she was an idiot/lacked socialisation.

---------- Post added 02-05-2012 at 05:50 PM ----------



No, it wasn't aimed at someone, I never said "you're an idiot" I said something along the lines of "if you can't understand that you're an idiot/lack socialisation"

I think your're exaggerating, I never attempted to offend you, and if you find one of the official emotions offensive I'll try and avoid using them when quoting you in future. Can we see the thread, because I still have no idea what you said/posted...

[Chris]

My post was just as offensive as yours... Here you're implying (with the patronising :O face in brackets) that I can't multi-task whilst mine implied that she was an idiot/lacked socialisation.

Thats ridiculous, in no way is his post implying that you can't multi-task. lol


No, it wasn't aimed at someone, I never said "you're an idiot" I said something along the lines of "if you can't understand that you're an idiot/lack socialisation"

You were speaking towards another member, it wasn't a generalised comment which is why its rude.

[beth]

everything that isn't iluvuletzgetmarriedlol is considered rude on this forum.

[Chippiewill]

My post was just as offensive as yours... Here you're implying (with the patronising :O face in brackets) that I can't multi-task whilst mine implied that she was an idiot/lacked socialisation.
It was also obvious humour rather than a direct attempt to incite anger.

[The Don]

Thats ridiculous, in no way is his post implying that you can't multi-task. lol



You were speaking towards another member, it wasn't a generalised comment which is why its rude.

I wasn't telling her she was an idiot, the first comment was "are you an idiot?" the second i've already posted.

Didn't Oli tell people to piss off when he was agm? or was that Jin? Which is more offensive??

[GirlNextDoor15]

well, the grammar mistakes repeated by the mods are rude and offensive to us who rarely repeat grammar mistakes after being told. just saying.

[Chris]

I wasn't telling her she was an idiot, the first comment was "are you an idiot?" the second i've already posted.

Didn't Oli tell people to piss off when he was agm? or was that Jin? Which is more offensive??

Well I cant see what was said so I can't really judge it, but going by what you've told me I would agree with the edit.

Errm I don't recall him ever doing that on the forum, but even if he did that doesn't mean everyone can. :P

[Zelda]

Even though this stuff was directed to me anyway i ihave to agree i don't like the edits tbh. Not fair that the person who it's directed towards doesn't get to see it while moderators and whoever reports does is it tbh, you just leave someone wondering how rude someone was to them, and quite frankly if someone wants to be rude to me, they are perfectly justified i put up with it enough, much prefer if someone is rude to my face then rude about me behind my back?

So ye this being rude edit stuff goes really far sometimes, tbh i'd at least say send the user a pm who it was directed to saying what was in it?

[Zuth]

I wasn't telling her she was an idiot, the first comment was "are you an idiot?" the second i've already posted.

Didn't Oli tell people to piss off when he was agm? or was that Jin? Which is more offensive??

You do know you're just going to get into more bother by just posting the things again? It was removed for a reason.

[Richie]

i got told off for asking someone 'will you shut up?' previous general managers told me they can't do much with posts like this as the person can reply to it with no. It's a question.


i remember when i told people to shut up i got warned which is fair enough but when i reported someone for asking me 'to shut up' oli said it was fine as it was a question. Obviously olis not here with us today RIP but if indirect rules like that change we should be notified.

[Chris]

Even though this stuff was directed to me anyway i ihave to agree i don't like the edits tbh. Not fair that the person who it's directed towards doesn't get to see it while moderators and whoever reports does is it tbh, you just leave someone wondering how rude someone was to them, and quite frankly if someone wants to be rude to me, they are perfectly justified i put up with it enough, much prefer if someone is rude to my face then rude about me behind my back?

So ye this being rude edit stuff goes really far sometimes, tbh i'd at least say send the user a pm who it was directed to saying what was in it?

But if rude posts were left then some people would respond to them rudely, thus causing arguments. :P

[beth]

don't know why we can't all just chill with the forum rules a bit. even though it's been proven in a recent poll the majority of the forum are 16+ and don't need everything sugar coating like babies.

[GirlNextDoor15]

But if rude posts were left then some people would respond to them rudely, thus causing arguments. :P

you're not a smod now. why do u care so much and get defensive lol. jsjs

[The Don]

You do know you're just going to get into more bother by just posting the things again? It was removed for a reason.

Yes, a pathetic reason which is why a feedback thread has been made. Jesus Christ, even the person it was directed at has said the edits are poor. Can't get the staff these days... (inb4 edit for being rude ;) )

[CaptainAce$$]

Mods are doing their jobs. If it's been removed or edited. Then its always for a reason. Follow the rules, then nothing will be changed. :)

[Zelda]

But if rude posts were left then some people would respond to them rudely, thus causing arguments. :P

Then pm the person it was directed to with what it said as if anything not letting them know is just as rude as what was written tbh, dunno if others would agree on that but people might aswell be talking behind my back if its removed :p

[GirlNextDoor15]

wait.. is history repeating? mods/smods are doing it for them log or whatev?? :S omg wth is wrong with this forum

[Chris]

you're not a smod now. why do u care so much and get defensive lol. jsjs

I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are.


Mods are doing their jobs. If it's been removed or edited. Then its always for a reason. Follow the rules, then nothing will be changed. :)

EXACTLY


Then pm the person it was directed to with what it said as if anything not letting them know is just as rude as what was written tbh, dunno if others would agree on that but people might aswell be talking behind my back if its removed :p

Moderators don't have time to start PM'ing someone everytime something rude is said about them :P


wait.. is history repeating? mods/smods are doing it for them log or whatev?? :S omg wth is wrong with this forum

No one said anything about logs. You can't use that as an excuse everytime someone disagrees with the rules!

[CaptainAce$$]

wait.. is history repeating? mods/smods are doing it for them log or whatev?? :S omg wth is wrong with this forum

It's called, the mods doing their jobs.

[Zuth]

I agree. It's like posting something directed to the user and yet, the mods/smods were offended. wth is that lol

---------- Post added 03-05-2012 at 01:07 AM ----------

wait.. is history repeating? mods/smods are doing it for them log or whatev?? :S omg

The log does not really count to anything, so I wouldn't comment if you don't know the way things work.

[Samantha]

The log does not really count to anything, so I wouldn't comment if you don't know the way things work.

It's a feedback thread, she asked a question, get off her case.

[GirlNextDoor15]

The log does not really count to anything, so I wouldn't comment if you don't know the way things work.

I'm no MOD. So, you tell me what you're doing that for when obv the one who was directed at felt the edit was unnecessary?
I AM OFFENDED BECAUSE YOU ARE INDIRECTLY TELLING ME TO SHUT UP IF I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE LOG. WELL, I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT BOOKING AT LEAST 3 SLOTS TO DJ/WEEK SO THAT YOU WONT GET FIRED? why do i feel like you're just another clone of infectious


It's called, the mods doing their jobs.

i assume nobody reported the post and the person who was directed at was ok with it. so, where's the offensive and rude part?

[Zelda]

I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are.



EXACTLY



Moderators don't have time to start PM'ing someone everytime something rude is said about them :P

Then 1 of 3 things then -

-don't keep removing rude things that are only mild, can understand racism and stuff though
-offer the option to ask for it by pming whoever removed
-the moderators clearly need to get some priorities with this, removing it only moves arguements from thread to vms or habbo or pms, so not really preventing anything unless people are told what is said so they can laugh at the person irl and move on

[The Don]

The log does not really count to anything, so I wouldn't comment if you don't know the way things work.

Suggesting that Yuen not comment isn't exactly respecting other members. Will your post get edited now?

[Samantha]

Tbh though, I would rather have that post stay (as I didn't find it rude if it was a question) than waiting 12 hours+ for a mod to edit a post that was more offensive as that's what it's getting to atm.

Don didn't you just ask a question and it got edited in PAPOY?

[Zuth]

I'm no MOD. So, you tell me what you're doing that for when obv the one who was directed at felt the edit was unnecessary?
I AM OFFENDED BECAUSE YOU ARE INDIRECTLY TELLING ME TO SHUT UP IF I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE LOG. WELL, I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT BOOKING AT LEAST 3 SLOTS TO DJ/WEEK SO THAT YOU WONT GET FIRED? why do i feel like you're just another clone of infectious


i assume nobody reported the post and the person who was directed at was ok with it. so, where's the offensive and rude part?

It's not a case if she felt the edit was necessary or not, its the forum rules.

[GirlNextDoor15]

It's not a case if she felt the edit was necessary or not, its the forum rules.

basically, it's based on pride and prejudice? yes

[The Don]

It's not a case if she felt the edit was necessary or not, its the forum rules.

That's a great attitude to have... Saying "it's the forum rules" isn't an excuse. The rules are there to protect users, here it shows that the user it was trying to protect didn't need protecting so obviously the rules are flawed hence why we are discussing it in a feedback thread.

[beth]

think i've brought this up before but i'll do it again: moderators should be using their common sense and discretion; the forum rules say one thing, you need to use yr initiative.

[Zelda]

It's not a case if she felt the edit was necessary or not, its the forum rules.

Right so urm just explain 2 things

-if noone including me who it was directed to thought it wasn't rude then how is it rude and against the rules and rude, ?
-Surely you are making more arguements by removing it, as shown by this and what would happen also if I didn't know it was nothing serious?

[Zuth]

That's a great attitude to have... Saying "it's the forum rules" isn't an excuse. The rules are there to protect users, here it shows that the user it was trying to protect didn't need protecting so obviously the rules are flawed hence why we are discussing it in a feedback thread.

It wasn't an excuse, it was a fact. I'm also not a mind reader so I would not know if the user was offended or not.

---------- Post added 02-05-2012 at 06:24 PM ----------


Right so urm just explain 2 things

-if noone including me who it was directed to thought it wasn't rude then how is it rude and against the rules and rude, ?
-Surely you are making more arguements by removing it, as shown by this and what would happen also if I didn't know it was nothing serious?

I'm not making arguments, its people over reacting.

[The Don]

In the warning PM you sent me, Zuth; you put "Secondly although very mild the comments were disrespecting the user and could of offended him/her." Here it shows that you yourself are uncertain whether or not it should have been removed. Wouldn't common sense suggest leaving it and if reported, then act on it?

[Zuth]

In the warning PM you sent me, Zuth; you put "Secondly although very mild the comments were disrespecting the user and could of offended him/her." Here it shows that you yourself are uncertain whether or not it should have been removed. Wouldn't common sense suggest leaving it and if reported, then act on it?

As I've already said, I'm not a mind reader and didn't know if it did or did not offend the user. I also can not see reported posts so I had to act.

P.S Posting private content is also against the rules.

[Samantha]

Why can't mods ever admit that they're wrong sometimes? Does it take PM's to Brandon yet again to ensure mods get it right...?

[The Don]

As I've already said, I'm not a mind reader and didn't know if it did or did not offend the user. I also can not see reported posts so I had to act.

P.S Posting private content is also against the rules.

It's my private content, if I choose to share it, that's my choice. You didn't have to act lmao, if you would have used some initiative you would have left it and if it appeared to offend the other user (their response is usually a good indication) then act.

[Zelda]

I'm not making arguments, its people over reacting.
But you could have done if I didn't read this and was in a common moaning mood, then where would it have gone?
Plus this ain't people overeacting this is people moaning at the mods for Being more rude than the person they edit themselves by conceiling stuff from the people it was directed at.

Zuth;

[GirlNextDoor15]

then why not brandon be the forum MOD hahhahha

[Zuth]

It's my private content, if I choose to share it, that's my choice. You didn't have to act lmao, if you would have used some initiative you would have left it and if it appeared to offend the other user (their response is usually a good indication) then act.


A5. Do not post private details or information ~ We do not allow you to post private information about yourself due to security concerns. Disclosing any information about another forum user without their consent is also not allowed. This includes:
Private messages
Reputation comments
Private conversations (MSN, Habbo, etc.)
Images / videos of the user or links to a page where an image/video of another user is located (this includes social networking sites, facebook, myspace etc))
Trying to organize real life meet-ups
It is also not allowed to give out the personal details (specific address, phone number etc) of anyone, forum user or otherwise.



I'm not making arguments, its people over reacting.
But you could have done if I didn't read this and was in a common moaning mood, then where would it have gone?
Plus this ain't people overeacting this is people moaning at the mods for Being more rude than the person they edit themselves by conceiling stuff from the people it was directed at.

So you're calling MODS rude because I've removed something that's against the forums rules?

[Zelda]

It's my private content, if I choose to share it, that's my choice. You didn't have to act lmao, if you would have used some initiative you would have left it and if it appeared to offend the other user (their response is usually a good indication) then act.

Ikr especially considering according to the rules I'm not allowed to see stuff concerning stuff about me and not even allowed to see what people have said to me?

---------- Post added 02-05-2012 at 05:34 PM ----------


So you're calling MODS rude because I've removed something that's against the forums rules?

Yes ... I wouldn't mind if I got told by the mod who removes it what was in it .... But Instead mods seem to think that "oh these people don't care what's been said about them, they enjoy things being said behind their back" where's the fairness in that?

[Chippiewill]

Going to be honest, this is pretty trivial and if you have a problem with it then that's sad. I frequently get notices which I disagree with but arguing them is pointless because neither side wants to lose ground and it's incredibly subjective anyway. At the end of the day moderators have full discretion and you should trust them to make the right call 95% of the time and stop panicking because you got a user-note and a PM telling you off.

[The Don]

So you're calling MODS rude because I've removed something that's against the forums rules?

It wasn't against the forum rules, surely being disrespectful is subjective, You telling yuen not to post was disrespectful in my opinion, here the person who was 'disrespected' is blatantly telling you that she would rather you left the post than remove it and that she wasn't offended. Why can't mods use common sense rather than seeing something that might/could be against the rules depending on how it's interpreted and straight away editing and warning?

[Zuth]

Going to be honest, this is pretty trivial and if you have a problem with it then that's sad. I frequently get notices which I disagree with but arguing them is pointless because neither side wants to lose ground and it's incredibly subjective anyway. At the end of the day moderators have full discretion and you should trust them to make the right call 95% of the time and stop panicking because you got a user-note and a PM telling you off.

Well said, totally agree

[The Don]

Going to be honest, this is pretty trivial and if you have a problem with it then that's sad. I frequently get notices which I disagree with but arguing them is pointless because neither side wants to lose ground and it's incredibly subjective anyway. At the end of the day moderators have full discretion and you should trust them to make the right call 95% of the time and stop panicking because you got a user-note and a PM telling you off.

Why is it 'sad' trying to improve a currently faulty system?

---------- Post added 02-05-2012 at 06:36 PM ----------


Well said, totally agree

Any response to my post?

[Zelda]

Going to be honest, this is pretty trivial and if you have a problem with it then that's sad. I frequently get notices which I disagree with but arguing them is pointless because neither side wants to lose ground and it's incredibly subjective anyway. At the end of the day moderators have full discretion and you should trust them to make the right call 95% of the time and stop panicking because you got a user-note and a PM telling you off.

Read the thread and u will see that it concerns both sides as we are both angry .

[Zuth]

Ikr especially considering according to the rules I'm not allowed to see stuff concerning stuff about me and not even allowed to see what people have said to me?

---------- Post added 02-05-2012 at 05:34 PM ----------



Yes ... I wouldn't mind if I got told by the mod who removes it what was in it .... But Instead mods seem to think that "oh these people don't care what's been said about them, they enjoy things being said behind their back" where's the fairness in that?

If I told you, what'd be the point in removing it?

[Chris]

Then 1 of 3 things then -

-don't keep removing rude things that are only mild, can understand racism and stuff though
-offer the option to ask for it by pming whoever removed
-the moderators clearly need to get some priorities with this, removing it only moves arguements from thread to vms or habbo or pms, so not really preventing anything unless people are told what is said so they can laugh at the person irl and move on

True that arguments are often continued via visitor messages, but they are always dealt with separately.


That's a great attitude to have... Saying "it's the forum rules" isn't an excuse. The rules are there to protect users, here it shows that the user it was trying to protect didn't need protecting so obviously the rules are flawed hence why we are discussing it in a feedback thread.

But saying "it's the forum rules" is an excuse...because you kinda agreed to follow them when you signed up to the forum.

[Zelda]

Oh + Zuth; the old saying

I would rather someone was rude to my face then talk about me behind my back

Appears quite frequently about this sorta stuff tbh, surely when you see both sides thoroughly against what your saying it should click?

[Zuth]

It wasn't against the forum rules, surely being disrespectful is subjective, You telling yuen not to post was disrespectful in my opinion, here the person who was 'disrespected' is blatantly telling you that she would rather you left the post than remove it and that she wasn't offended. Why can't mods use common sense rather than seeing something that might/could be against the rules depending on how it's interpreted and straight away editing and warning?

How can she say she was not offended when she didnt see the post?

[Samantha]

So Ben edited the post and put the warning 'stay on topic and respect other users' why set it in stone? Why not say 'please do not use chat that may offend users. Established that Jan wasn't offended and didn't feel disrespected (some how) to it so why use that warning. I think it would be more appropriate to put the latter quote (even if the post was/wasn't obeying the rules).

[The Don]

If I told you, what'd be the point in removing it?

There was no point in removing it.

It feels like you are trying to take over the empty position of outspoken and often incorrect moderator which Chris left behind.

I think Matt needs to hire more capable mods if they can't grasp a simple point after 6 pages.

[Chippiewill]

Why is it 'sad' trying to improve a currently faulty system?
It would be a fair point if that were your aim, really you should have made a thread in this forum (http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1543) saying why you think it's unfair rather than airing you dirty laundry here because you were to inpatient to wait for the PM to arrive.

Also some of the things you're saying would be better suited to:
http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1331

[Zelda]

How can she say she was not offended when she didnt see the post?

Urm that's established after I see the post because you haven't removed it, then I either most likely accept what has been said and love on or very unlikely then report it

[Chippiewill]

I think it would be more appropriate to put the latter quote (even if the post was/wasn't obeying the rules).
Sorry but that's just nitpicking for a bad argument. Moderators shouldn't have to be lawyers and close up the loopholes behind them.

[The Don]

It would be a fair point if that were your aim, really you should have made a thread in this forum (http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1543) saying why you think it's unfair rather than airing you dirty laundry here because you were to inpatient to wait for the PM to arrive.

Posting in the complaints section renders the point of feedback useless... Here everyone can discuss the situation whereas the complaints section limits those who can view the thread.

[Zelda]

It would be a fair point if that were your aim, really you should have made a thread in this forum (http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1543) saying why you think it's unfair rather than airing you dirty laundry here because you were to inpatient to wait for the PM to arrive.

Also some of the things you're saying would be better suited to:
http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1331

2 points, firstly if he did that I would be less likely to find out what really was said, and also by doing this even if that ain't his aim I can strive personally for it as that is my aim.

[The Don]

Sorry but that's just nitpicking for a bad argument. Moderators shouldn't have to be lawyers and close up the loopholes behind them.

No, moderators should use their initiative rather than issuing pointless/incorrect warnings.

[Samantha]

IT'S A PITY WHEN THE MOD DOESN'T READ THE WHOLE THREAD SO DOESN'T REMOVE THE 'OFFENSIVE' PART IN THE QUOTE BELOW THE ORIGINAL POST OF IT! SAD DAY, SAD DAY.

That can be how Jan saw it :rolleyes:

[Zuth]

There was no point in removing it.

It feels like you are trying to take over the empty position of outspoken and often incorrect moderator which Chris left behind.

I think Matt needs to hire more capable mods if they can't grasp a simple point after 6 pages.

Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it, I don't agree.
Trying to take over the SMOD position? I'm doing my job?
Matt is not the forum manager.

[Inseriousity.]

Being offended is subjective, moderation discretion is subjective. I do not like the idea that something has to be direct for it to constitute being offensive because it is often those indirect remarks that are, in my opinion, more offensive. Perhaps moderators should wait until someone complains about the material before acting on it but I think it's wrong to suggest that your post was fine because it was only implying something nasty rather than saying it outright.

[Zuth]

IT'S A PITY WHEN THE MOD DOESN'T READ THE WHOLE THREAD SO DOESN'T REMOVE THE 'OFFENSIVE' PART IN THE QUOTE BELOW THE ORIGINAL POST OF IT! SAD DAY, SAD DAY.

What would the point of that be when people can still read it?

[Zelda]

Sorry but that's just nitpicking for a bad argument. Moderators shouldn't have to be lawyers and close up the loopholes behind them.

Tbh your just trying to win a nonwinabble arguement, considering both sides of the not rude but warned post agree with each other ...

[Chippiewill]

No, moderators should use their initiative rather than issuing pointless/incorrect warnings.
If you have a problem with the warning then ask for it to be removed IN THE CORRECT FORUM. Feedback isn't the place for your personal issues with moderators and how they've screwed up on occasion. Errors are probable and there's a system to handle them. use it.


IT'S A PITY WHEN THE MOD DOESN'T READ THE WHOLE THREAD SO DOESN'T REMOVE THE 'OFFENSIVE' PART IN THE QUOTE BELOW THE ORIGINAL POST OF IT! SAD DAY, SAD DAY.
Report button is there for a reason :)


2 points, firstly if he did that I would be less likely to find out what really was said, and also by doing this even if that ain't his aim I can strive personally for it as that is my aim.
return please when you grammar has. Can't read what you're saying.

[Zelda]

What would the point of that be when people can still read it?

That whoever was rude gets warned and the person it was directed to sees the post still so they don't start further arguements

[Samantha]

What would the point of that be when people can still read it?

That's exactly the point? You haven't removed Don's 'offensive' part in the quote.....

[The Don]

Being offended is subjective, moderation discretion is subjective. I do not like the idea that something has to be direct for it to constitute being offensive because it is often those indirect remarks that are, in my opinion, more offensive. Perhaps moderators should wait until someone complains about the material before acting on it but I think it's wrong to suggest that your post was fine because it was only implying something nasty rather than saying it outright.

Considering the fact that Zuth wrote in the warning pm he sent me that he was pretty much unsure himself if it deserved removal I would say it's safe to suggest it shouldn't have been removed and left unless it was reported.

[Chippiewill]

Considering the fact that Zuth wrote in the warning pm he sent me that he was pretty much unsure himself if it deserved removal I would say it's safe to suggest it shouldn't have been removed and left unless it was reported.
There's no point removing it after someone's been offended.

[Zuth]

Considering the fact that Zuth wrote in the warning pm he sent me that he was pretty much unsure himself if it deserved removal I would say it's safe to suggest it shouldn't have been removed and left unless it was reported.

At what point did I say I was unsure, oh I didn't. I said it could of offended her, as already stated, I'm not a mind reader.

[Zelda]

If you have a problem with the warning then ask for it to be removed IN THE CORRECT FORUM. Feedback isn't the place for your personal issues with moderators and how they've screwed up on occasion. Errors are probable and there's a system to handle them. use it.


Report button is there for a reason :)


return please when you grammar has. Can't read what you're saying.

Utter rubbish if you can't read that, your on an internet forum, people don't write like the queen on here you know, how elitist are you really? Not that that was even that bad tbh.

[The Don]

If you have a problem with the warning then ask for it to be removed IN THE CORRECT FORUM. Feedback isn't the place for your personal issues with moderators and how they've screwed up on occasion. Errors are probable and there's a system to handle them. use it.

Evidently numerous other people agree that there's a problem so feedback appears to be the most suitable section, however you are correct, initially the thread deserved to be in the complaints section but clearly this thread has evolved from its original purpose.

---------- Post added 02-05-2012 at 06:53 PM ----------


At what point did I say I was unsure, oh I didn't. I said it could of offended her, as already stated, I'm not a mind reader.

wait, isn't that private information?

[Chippiewill]

wait, isn't that private information?
He's the one that sent it.


initially the thread deserved to be in the complaints section but clearly this thread has evolved from its original purpose.
From you being burthurt about being told off to you saying the system is flawed when you're not even using the system?

[The Don]

He's the one that sent it.

And I'm the one that received it yet he still told me I wasn't entitled to post it?

[Samantha]

He's the one that sent it.

Did he get consent off himself ;).

Nah in all seriousness though, the quote is still viewable by anyone and asking a question isn't offensive imo.

[Inseriousity.]

wait, isn't that private information?

hahaha private information after you mentioned it first. Now you really are just trying to take cheap shots.
Although I agree that the 'please do not offend other users' rule would actually need to offend someone before it was removed. :P

[Grig]

Mind reader you are not, and someone with common sense from what I can tell you are really not.

Why are you banging on about reading minds, it's more or less common sense.

[The Don]

hahaha private information after you mentioned it first. Now you really are just trying to take cheap shots.
Although I agree that the 'please do not offend other users' rule would actually need to offend someone before it was removed. :P

I thought it was quite obvious my post was in jest :P

I'm glad you agree though! :)

[Chippiewill]

Although I agree that the 'please do not offend other users' rule would actually need to offend someone before it was removed. :P
Bit like saying we need to wait for someone to die before speed limits are enforced.

[The Don]

From you being burthurt about being told off to you saying the system is flawed when you're not even using the system?

No need to get all uptight, it's obvious other users, including an AGM agree that the rule needs changing, surely logic would suggest that this outcome is precisely the point of a thread in the feedback section.

[Zelda]

Bit like saying we need to wait for someone to die before speed limits are enforced.
Well what's the point in removing If no-one will get angry, all that means is that both the poster and the person it was directed to then both get angry, because one has been warned unfairly and the other has had info kept from them that concerns them.

[Inseriousity.]

Bit like saying we need to wait for someone to die before speed limits are enforced.

Yes it is. If no accidents happen on a road, why would you need to enforce a speed limit on the basis that someone might die even though there's days/months/years of evidence to suggest that it's only a rare - sad all the same but rare too - occurance (if it all). Same principle with offending someone imo.

edit: I don't agree the rule needs changing. The 'please do not offend other users' is perfectly fine as it is, merely commenting on how it's enforced. I do agree with chippiewill that closing loopholes is a rather pointless exercise because you can find loopholes in any system and trying to close them with more regulation will just create more loopholes so no, I don't agree that the rule needs changing at all.

[Zelda]

No need to get all uptight, it's obvious other users, including an AGM agree that the rule needs changing, surely logic would suggest that this outcome is precisely the point of a thread in the feedback section.

What I don't get is this doesn't even effect him either way and all he seems to want to do is cause more arguement by the look of things, we aren't originally even moaning at him anyway unless he's a mod in disguise so not sure why he's still pursuing this view.

[Inseriousity.]

What I don't get is this doesn't even effect him either way and all he seems to want to do is cause more arguement by the look of things, we aren't originally even moaning at him anyway unless he's a mod in disguise so not sure why he's still pursuing this view.

Don't moan when someone has an opinion that is different to yours! It was posted in the feedback forum so is open to everyone to express their view and that doesn't mean it has to agree with yours whether he's effected or not. If the OP got their way, the rule did change and he never said anything then it'd effect him then!

[FlyingJesus]

Wow I don't think I've seen an argument where both sides are this wrong for a while. It shouldn't even be about whether or not someone is offended by being told to shut up, it's an extremely simple case of someone posting off topic in PAPOY, which we all know has pretty strict posting rules. Whether you said "I like floaty butterflies" or "die in a hole you worthless maggot", the post should have been edited. The fact that the mod got the wrong edit just makes the situation more ridiculous

[Chippiewill]

o need to get all uptight, it's obvious other users, including an AGM agree that the rule needs changing, surely logic would suggest that this outcome is precisely the point of a thread in the feedback section.
I still haven't worked out what you're trying to achieve. You just still seem to be pointing fingers around because you feel like you got unfairly warned.

Unless you're referring to your silly attempt to change the offending users rule which seems to be designed with prevention rather than reaction in mind.


What I don't get is this doesn't even effect him either way and all he seems to want to do is cause more arguement by the look of things, we aren't originally even moaning at him anyway
Are you seriously trying to conspire in a public locale? And apparently because something doesn't affect me either:
a) I have to hold your opinion
b) I don't get an opinion


unless he's a mod in disguise so not sure why he's still pursuing this view.
Me modsta.

[Zelda]

Wow I don't think I've seen an argument where both sides are this wrong for a while. It shouldn't even be about whether or not someone is offended by being told to shut up, it's an extremely simple case of someone posting off topic in PAPOY, which we all know has pretty strict posting rules. Whether you said "I like floaty butterflies" or "die in a hole you worthless maggot", the post should have been edited. The fact that the mod got the wrong edit just makes the situation more ridiculous

How is the non mod side wrong, noone has said anything about the pointless posting being unfair, cause that was, if anything we were agreeing with your point that Ben gave the wrong edit

[Chippiewill]

Yes it is. If no accidents happen on a road, why would you need to enforce a speed limit on the basis that someone might die even though there's days/months/years of evidence to suggest that it's only a rare - sad all the same but rare too - occurance (if it all). Same principle with offending someone imo.
But people taking offence isn't rare so you do need precautionary measures.

[Zelda]

But people taking offence isn't rare so you do need precautionary measures.

People more likely to take offence if stuff hidden from them though, and if people take offence from niggly little things then they needa get out into the open world more. As i've already said but ill repeat this wonderful quote again -

"I would rather someone was rude to my face then talk about me behind my back"

By hiding stuff from them it might aswell just be talking behind their back and causing more offence then not hiding it from them.

[Zuth]

That's exactly the point? You haven't removed Don's 'offensive' part in the quote.....

Sorry I completely misread your post, I totally forgot as I had 4 posts to deal with, sorting the quotes didnt even cross my mind.


Mind reader you are not, and someone with common sense from what I can tell you are really not.

Why are you banging on about reading minds, it's more or less common sense.

My life ambition is to become a mind reader :P

[Lee]

Think use should all give Ben a break, he's not done anything wrong. Surely the decision on whether the post is offensive or not lies with the moderator - who was authorised to make those calls when he was accepted onto the team. I'd say that instead of posting a thread for you to publicly appeal the decision, you should send a PM to Scott who will deal with it appropriately.

[Zelda]

Think use should all give Ben a break, he's not done anything wrong. Surely the decision on whether the post is offensive or not lies with the moderator - who was authorised to make those calls when he was accepted onto the team. I'd say that instead of posting a thread for you to publicly appeal the decision, you should send a PM to Scott who will deal with it appropriately.

Surely the one who decides if the post was going to be offensive TO ME happens to be ME. Hence why it should only be removed if I report it or its bleeding obvious that its rude, instead of asking a question, which as Sam said would hardly constitute ruse anyway

[Chippiewill]

Because if you're already offended then removing it isn't going to achieve anything. Pre-emptive removal only makes sense.

[The Don]

Because if you're already offended then removing it isn't going to achieve anything. Pre-emptive removal only makes sense.

It punishes the user who was rude...

[Chippiewill]

It punishes the user who was rude...
I would think that is the goal?

[Zelda]

I would think that is the goal?

It also punishes the person its aimed at though

[Glen Coco]

Sorry I didn't read this thread.
But I agree, countless posts of mine have been completely removed for being 'rude' when they have not been offensive and the person it was targeted at had already seen it.
Please explain the point in removing a post for being offensive when the person targeted had seen it already?

[GommeInc]

I've never understood the logic behind "You could offend someone" arguments that seem to come from moderators, when the word "could" is the keyword - they could take offense, but it doesn't mean they will take offense. Loads of people seem to get these edits in their posts, yet the general forum demographic (13+) do not need to be spoon fed or protected like Under 13s. Obviously you should keep the peace, but sometimes the peacekeepers become the problem.

[Stephen]

tbh when it comes to someone saying stuff like "Are you an idiot?" etc then it should only be edited if the person it's directed at reacts back or reports the post

It's like this post that I got an edit for

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=745724&p=7512950#post7512950 (my post is in her post below's quote cos mods failz)

she replied back to me saying "I know, I know."

if she reported my post or started having a go at me for saying it then it should have been edited, by her reply she obviously didn't find what I said rude so I don't see why I had to get an edit for it

[GommeInc]

tbh when it comes to someone saying stuff like "Are you an idiot?" etc then it should only be edited if the person it's directed at reacts back or reports the post

It's like this post that I got an edit for

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=745724&p=7512950#post7512950 (my post is in her post below's quote cos mods failz)

she replied back to me saying "I know, I know."

if she reported my post or started having a go at me for saying it then it should have been edited, by her reply she obviously didn't find what I said rude so I don't see why I had to get an edit for it
What's more shocking is that none of those posts in that thread are pointless posts. Someone has been at the red crayola felt tip pen in that thread :P They are all in reply to a previous post and serve a purpose. Your post didn't even need editing considering someone left what you said in Lizzie's quote, so it's not offensive. Talk about poor use of powers, that entire thread needs reporting :S

[Catzsy]

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill! LOL. Chippie and Inseriousity made the most sense to me. I am quite frankly amazed to see an Assistant Department Manager make such damning comments about the mod department though. There has to be some uniformity in edits otherwise the forum users would not know where they were at all. This did not need a thread at all. A pm would have done to the forum managers.

[Zelda]

Well if a thread wasn't made then the other side wouldn't be hears would it, me for instance who the supposed "rude comment" was aimed at would not be able to share our disgust at the system and agree with the warned side x

[FlyingJesus]

Similarly, if mods edit a person's post when they've faked pictures of themselves then users who weren't online at the time can't see the offending images and share their disgust... right?

[Zelda]

Fj we're on about the person it was aimed at in the first place, so other people get to see it but not the person who was aimed at, and they don't even get the option of having the mod tell them what it said? That's what half this arguement on this thread has been for tbh, the other half for those who think their post got unfairly removed for being rude in the first place.

[Samantha]

Catzsy; am I that assistant manager or someone else. Anyway the post shouldnt really be removed when it was asking a question. Of course I got the 'it's a rhetorical question' so what its still a question and if you're offended by the word idiot well.

[Zelda]

Catzsy; am I that assistant manager or someone else. Anyway the post shouldnt really be removed when it was asking a question. Of course I got the 'it's a rhetorical question' so what its still a question and if you're offended by the word idiot well.

Ikr Sam if u can't take the heat get out of the kitchen to paraphrase a horribly over used saying. If people are offended by simple little things then quite frankly what are they doing on the internet tbh?

Plus rosie about the ass manager that commented, if people have an opinion about a department its better said then kept in otherwise noone improves, and quite frankly most people would have a good few comments about the mod department but just aren't the slating type always, but clearly still get a lot of sparing when chance comes.

[Chippiewill]

Ikr Sam if u can't take the heat get out of the kitchen to paraphrase a horribly over used saying. If people are offended by simple little things then quite frankly what are they doing on the internet tbh?Browsing HabboxForum, a safe, mature, responsible environment that moderators kindly volunteer to keep that way and do not deserve the abuse they receive.


Plus rosie about the ass manager that commented, if people have an opinion about a department its better said then kept in otherwise noone improves,
Better said to scott directly than acting as slander.

[Zelda]

Browsing HabboxForum, a safe, mature, responsible environment that moderators kindly volunteer to keep that way and do not deserve the abuse they receive.


Better said to scott directly than acting as slander.

They wouldn't get the abuse if they didn't do pointless mod warnings that cause these threads to get put up, as i've said coutless times before i'm not even the one who got the mod warn i'm the one it was aimed at ... so clearly if people like me are angry somethings gone wrong.

+ No not better said to scott only though i admit pm to scott AS WELL would be good, these things allow us to contribute our thoughts.

[Chippiewill]

They wouldn't get the abuse if they didn't do pointless mod warnings that cause these threads to get put up, as i've said coutless times before i'm not even the one who got the mod warn i'm the one it was aimed at ... so clearly if people like me are angry somethings gone wrong.
One person does not a correlation prove.


No not better said to scott only though i admit pm to scott AS WELL would be good, these things allow us to contribute our thoughts.
If they PMed Scott suggesting x,y,z then scott can implement those changes without everyone abusing the moderators.

[Zelda]

One person does not a correlation prove.


If they PMed Scott suggesting x,y,z then scott can implement those changes without everyone abusing the moderators.

one doesn't, about 20 on this thread does.

+ what's the point in that without others saying their views on teh 2nd thing?

[Chippiewill]

one doesn't, about 20 5 on this thread does.
Five - most of them annoyed about being told off because this is a teenager forum.



what's the point in that without others saying their views on teh 2nd thing?
Not everything needs to be public, especially when you are criticizing people.

[Grig]

Browsing HabboxForum, a safe, mature, responsible environment that moderators kindly volunteer to keep that way and do not deserve the abuse they receive.

This made the most sense out of the posts here. Sure, I sometimes disagree with discrepancy, but at the end of the day things are much more lenient than they have been in years.