Can moderating just stay as it is

[Richie]

I'm sick of moderating going from good to crap, good to crap, good to crap. The other day someone posted in a thread 'I think you have the wrong section' and they got a mod edit 'please leave moderating to moderators' they're clearly just trying to be nice by letting the user know they posted in the wrong section, stop getting all defensive they aren't trying to take your job. I just posted in a SPAM thread messing around 'omg that image just avoided the filter!!'. First of all I want to say it's such a ridiculous rule and secondly it should only be used if a user is actually trying to impersonate a moderator, if the moderator in question actually read my post properly I just stated the obvious, 'the image just avoided the filter' I didn't tell the user it wasn't allowed or warn them in anyway. Can you please sort out the rules because things like this is what makes the department look horrible.

[Lee]

I'm sick of moderating going from good to crap, good to crap, good to crap. The other day someone posted in a thread 'I think you have the wrong section' and they got a mod edit 'please leave moderating to moderators' and I just posted in a SPAM thread messing saying 'omg that image just avoided the filter!!'. First of all I want to say it's such a ridiculous rule and only should be used if a user is actually trying to be a moderator, if the moderator who edited my most actually read it properly I just stated the obvious, the image just avoided the filter, I didn't tell the user it wasn't allowed or warn them in anyway. Can you please sort out the rules because things like this is what makes the department look horrible.

Don't think you can dispute that edit really, there's a rule, your broke it. End of really no need for a feedback thread everytime someone doesn't like an edit we give them.

[Red]

Don't think you can dispute that edit really, there's a rule, your broke it. End of really no need for a feedback thread everytime someone doesn't like an edit we give them.

It was clearly a joke between friends and in spam. Didn't come across to me that he was trying to moderate.

[Lee]

It was clearly a joke between friends and in spam. Didn't come across to me that he was trying to moderate.

Lets face it, we're in an impossible situation because obviously it's important that we're consistent otherwise we face the whole favouritism thing but then when a post like this is made (I do understand the context but it was just so blatant) it gets edited.

[Richie]

Don't think you can dispute that edit really, there's a rule, your broke it. End of really no need for a feedback thread everytime someone doesn't like an edit we give them.

Well Lee the only time things actually change is when you give feedback. I don't agree with how some things in the moderation department work. I admit I'm posting this because I'm furious at your lack of moderation skills but at the same time feel sorry for that guy who innocently posted 'I think you have the wrong section' and you edited his post like he was trying to do your job.

[Catchy]

Don't think you can dispute that edit really, there's a rule, your broke it. End of really no need for a feedback thread everytime someone doesn't like an edit we give them.

Yes he can because anybody in the right mind can take things in the right context. It's clear he was joking...

[Samantha]

Well I know when the other person did it, like you mentioned they only thought they posted in the wrong section thus informed them, I think in this case, yes it was a joke but it was more moderating than the other if you get me. Not saying whether I agree or not btw.

[GoldenMerc]

Not saying its right or not, but obviously if everyone said that Kristy the rule would be pointless and every infraction for that would be reversed, personally it helps (this rule) other wise everyone posts saying OH YOU BROKE THE RULES!!!!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Lee]

Well Lee the only time things actually change is when you give feedback. I don't agree with how some things in the moderation department work. I admit I'm posting this because I'm furious at your lack of moderation skills but at the same time feel sorry for that guy who innocently posted 'I think you have the wrong section' and you edited his post like he was trying to do your job.

Alright then, so are you telling me you did not directly break


A9. Leave moderating to the moderators ~ If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with and provide a brief description. Also, you may not discuss bans on the forum. If you wish to dispute a ban use the Support System. You should also never ignore a moderators warning, change their warnings, open a thread they have closed or use the Moderator Specific BBcode ([modwarn]). This is considered 'Abuse of Moderator Features' and will result in an infraction without any prior warning.


Bearing in mind it says nothing about spam, sarcasm or sense of humour.

[Richie]

I think the rule is just being used wrongly, the rule is fine if staff know how to use it appropriately. Which clearly isn't the case.

---------- Post added 02-10-2012 at 09:40 PM ----------


Alright then, so are you telling me you did not directly break



Bearing in mind it says nothing about spam, sarcasm or sense of humour.

If you want I can pluck through 100s of posts that were left alone even though you think they're apparently breaking rules just so you can edit them? it just seems to be yourself who's using it wrongly.

[Lee]

I think the rule is just being used wrongly

I don't think your fully grasping what a rule is.

[Stephen]

Telling someone to stop breaking the rules should be an obvious edit

Being edited for saying that you think they've posted in the wrong section is called stupid moderation (no offense)

The annoying thing about some mods is that they seem to need a 2000 word essay on the exact rule otherwise they just edit the slightest things like PEOPLE JOKING ABOUT IN SPAM

[Lee]

Telling someone to stop breaking the rules should be an obvious edit

Being edited for saying that you think they've posted in the wrong section is called stupid moderation (no offense)

The annoying thing about some mods is that they seem to need a 2000 word essay on the exact rule otherwise they just edit the slightest things like PEOPLE JOKING ABOUT IN SPAM

I await your essay in my inbox.

[Catchy]

I don't think your fully grasping what a rule is.

I'm not being funny Lee or whoever you are but why are you being so condescending to Richie? There's no need for it... The rule is pointless, "omg u broke da rulezzzz" it's hardly enforcing any sort of moderation. Silly rule imo.

[Richie]

I don't think your fully grasping what a rule is.

Don't patronize me. Ever since I joined the forum not once have I been contacted in regards to posts such as 'omgz you just swore' it's stating the obvious not trying to moderate. So you are the one who needs to wrap your head around the rules a little better than me, find out what your job actually is to do. Stop telling people off for doing nothing wrong.

[Lee]

I'm not being funny Lee or whoever you are but why are you being so condescending to Richie? There's no need for it... The rule is pointless, "omg u broke da rulezzzz" it's hardly enforcing any sort of moderation. Silly rule imo.

Yep, it's Lee - Im enforcing the rules and I don't believe he said that at all.

[Stephen]

Just like to say that I've had a usernote removed for joking around in spam saying that someone avoided the filter

[Matthew]

I do think that the 'leave the moderating to the moderators' is a bit of a silly rule but its there to stop people trying to take things into their own hands.

If something breaks a rule- report it. I don't really see the issue... There's no need to post saying 'Already posted here: _'- just report the post. In some ways posting 'Already posted here _' actually breaks the pointless posting rule as it has no relevance to the topic at all.

As moderators we can't edit one on the grounds that it breaks the rule and not edit others.

TL;DR if something breaks a rule, report it. There is no need to post about it.

[David]

fire jordan

Edited by Matts (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly!

[Lee]

Don't patronize me. Ever since I joined the forum not once have I been contacted in regards to posts such as 'omgz you just swore' it's stating the obvious not trying to moderate. So you are the one who needs to wrap your head around the rules a little better not me, find out what your job actually is to do. Stop telling people off for doing nothing wrong.

And to be honest this rule has only recently risen in priority it was always left but we agreed it should be clarified and enforced. I am actually doing my job by enforcing these rules.

[Catchy]

Yep, it's Lee - Im enforcing the rules and I don't believe he said that at all.

It was an example. God knows how you're a super mod, you're horrible and patronizing. Bring @Catzy; back!!!

[Chris]

To an extent I agree with you that its a silly rule and it's something we have been discussing as a department because it's obviously something which is confusing both members and moderators. The problem is in deciding where to draw the line on whether someone is acting as a moderator and I think that seems to be the issue here too. While I don't particularly think you were telling her off for posting the image, I can also see it from Lee's view.

We'll be taking this into consideration before updating the rule. :)

[Samantha]

fire jordan

Why would you suggest such a thing? :O.

Also, I've noticed it being enforced more, which I suppose is a good thing but sometimes jokes get edited anyway for other rule breaks, should this be different?

[David]

Why would you suggest such a thing? :O.

Also, I've noticed it being enforced more, which I suppose is a good thing but sometimes jokes get edited anyway for other rule breaks, should this be different?

generally dont like jordan and his moderating ngl

[Kardan]

Alright then, so are you telling me you did not directly break



Bearing in mind it says nothing about spam, sarcasm or sense of humour.

Not read pages 2 or 3 so this may have been brought up, but the rule doesn't actually say to not comment that someone else has broke the rules, just that you should report it - so technically the rule wasn't broken?

[Richie]

I do think that the 'leave the moderating to the moderators' is a bit of a silly rule but its there to stop people trying to take things into their own hands.

If something breaks a rule- report it. I don't really see the issue... There's no need to post saying 'Already posted here: _'- just report the post. In some ways posting 'Already posted here _' actually breaks the pointless posting rule as it has no relevance to the topic at all.

As moderators we can't edit one on the grounds that it breaks the rule and not edit others.

TL;DR if something breaks a rule, report it. There is no need to post about it.

Yes which I agree with Matt. If I had of said it outside the spam forum I would expect to be contacted with 'Please do not post pointlessly' not 'Leave moderating to moderators' as I'm doing exactly that.. I'm just pointing out the obvious.


And to be honest this rule has only recently risen in priority it was always left but we agreed it should be clarified and enforced. I am actually doing my job by enforcing these rules.

Well whoever came up with that bloody idea xxMATTGxx; fire them now as it's ridiculous and was fine before.

[Catchy]

Also can I just say, how many sad acts do you actually see IMPERSONATING moderators on here? Can't say I've actually seen anyone trying to do a MOD's job in my whole 7 years here.

[Matthew]

Yes which I agree with Matt. If I had of said it outside the spam forum I would expect to be contacted with 'Please do not post pointlessly' not 'Leave moderating to moderators' as I'm doing exactly that.. I'm just pointing out the obvious.



Well whoever came up with that bloody idea @xxMATTGxx (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=1020); fire them now as it's ridiculous and was fine before.

Oh well if it was in spam them to be honest I wouldn't have edited it; maybe that's just me!

[Richie]

To an extent I agree with you that its a silly rule and it's something we have been discussing as a department because it's obviously something which is confusing both members and moderators. The problem is in deciding where to draw the line on whether someone is acting as a moderator and I think that seems to be the issue here too. While I don't particularly think you were telling her off for posting the image, I can also see it from Lee's view.

We'll be taking this into consideration before updating the rule. :)

The thing is Chris where abouts in my post was I trying to impersonate a moderator? If I had of said 'Please don't post words that are filtered on the forum' then I would be impersonating staff but when I make a little jokey message 'OMG THAT POST JUST SWORE' it did? I'm stating the obvious not trying to do a moderators job. It's like posting in a thread about a picture of a house 'OMG THAT HOUSE IS MADE OF BRICKS'.

I wonder if someone swore on habbo and I shouted back at the person who committed such a disgusting rude crime 'OMG YOU JUST SWORE' would I get done for impersonating staff?

[FlyingJesus]

I've brought this up in like 4 threads now but what's the deal with editing one post in CAREER OR LUV for supposedly being off topic (despite being about love) and then leaving all the 1-2 word answer that add nothing to anything, even though they were clearly reported? Is that just because the forum manager (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760238&p=7705156#post7705156), a super mod (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760238&p=7704928#post7704928), and the moderator who made the edit (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760238&p=7704977#post7704977) (among other staff) were all guilty of such posts themselves and thus that thread is above the rules?

I know things got thrown around a bit when Martin left and Chris stabbed him in the back got the job but there's really no excuse for this when even in this very thread it's being stated that rules MUST be followed at all times in all places by all people

btw I disagree with the thread title as I certainly don't want moderation to stay as it currently is :P

[Chris]

The thing is Chris where abouts in my post was I trying to impersonate a moderator? If I had of said 'Please don't post words that are filtered on the forum' then I would be impersonating staff but when I make a little jokey message 'OMG THAT POST JUST SWORE' it did? I'm stating the obvious not trying to do a moderators job. It's like posting in a thread about a picture of a house 'OMG THAT HOUSE IS MADE OF BRICKS'.

I wonder if someone swore on habbo and I shouted back at them 'OMG YOU JUST SWORE' would I get done for impersonating staff.

Oh no, I didn't say the action that Lee took was right, I can just see it from his point of view :P I'll PM you in a moment anyway.


I've brought this up in like 4 threads now but what's the deal with editing one post in CAREER OR LUV for supposedly being off topic (despite being about love) and then leaving all the 1-2 word answer that add nothing to anything, even though they were clearly reported? Is that just because the forum manager (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760238&p=7705156#post7705156), a super mod (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760238&p=7704928#post7704928), and the moderator who made the edit (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=760238&p=7704977#post7704977) (among other staff) were all guilty of such posts themselves and thus that thread is above the rules?

I know things got thrown around a bit when Martin left and Chris stabbed him in the back got the job but there's really no excuse for this when even in this very thread it's being stated that rules MUST be followed at all times in all places by all people

No rules were broken here by anyone other than yourself otherwise they would have been contacted.

[FlyingJesus]

Oh, is there no pointless posting rule now? Try clicking the links and looking for yourself Chris, I'm sure you're not THAT incompetant

[xxMATTGxx]

Can someone link me to the thread that has been edited? :P

[Richie]

Can someone link me to the thread that has been edited? :P

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=761204

[xxMATTGxx]

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=761204

Should have never been edited in the first place and thanks for linking.

[Stephen]

hitler Lee needs a spank

Edited by Matts (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly!

[Kardan]

I'll post this again considering people are overlooking it...

A9. Leave moderating to the moderators ~ If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with and provide a brief description. Also, you may not discuss bans on the forum. If you wish to dispute a ban use the Support System. You should also never ignore a moderators warning, change their warnings, open a thread they have closed or use the Moderator Specific BBcode ([modwarn]). This is considered 'Abuse of Moderator Features' and will result in an infraction without any prior warning.

Where does it say you can't comment on a rule break? It says leave moderating to the moderators, and you are - we're not issuing warnings or anything... It doesn't say that saying somebody broke a rule is in itself a rule break.

[Samantha]

Should have never been edited in the first place and thanks for linking.

Yet if someone has a joke elsewhere it's not ok? I know it's differently portrayed but if someone got it for moderating too by thinking it was in the wrong section then surely that's wrong too?

[Catchy]

Yet if someone has a joke elsewhere it's not ok? I know it's differently portrayed but if someone got it for moderating too by thinking it was in the wrong section then surely that's wrong too?

Don't think any of them should of been edited tbh :s what's so wrong with saying something is in the wrong section? lmao :S

[Lee]

xxMATTGxx; How should it not have thought considering it breaks the rule... Doesn't say anything about jokes or spam in the rule does it???

[Chris]

I'll post this again considering people are overlooking it...

A9. Leave moderating to the moderators ~ If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with and provide a brief description. Also, you may not discuss bans on the forum. If you wish to dispute a ban use the Support System. You should also never ignore a moderators warning, change their warnings, open a thread they have closed or use the Moderator Specific BBcode ([modwarn]). This is considered 'Abuse of Moderator Features' and will result in an infraction without any prior warning.

Where does it say you can't comment on a rule break? It says leave moderating to the moderators, and you are - we're not issuing warnings or anything... It doesn't say that saying somebody broke a rule is in itself a rule break.

It's been sorted, whats the issue? :P As I said its being discussed and will be changed.


Yet if someone has a joke elsewhere it's not ok? I know it's differently portrayed but if someone got it for moderating too by thinking it was in the wrong section then surely that's wrong too?

Who said it isn't ok to say it elsewhere? It would just be classed as a pointless post unless there was something there which was on topic.


xxMATTGxx; How should it not have thought considering it breaks the rule... Doesn't say anything about jokes or spam in the rule does it???

Richies post did not say something like "Don't do this, it breaks the rules". All he did was state the obvious.

[Kardan]

xxMATTGxx; How should it not have thought considering it breaks the rule... Doesn't say anything about jokes or spam in the rule does it???

What rule does it break?

[Richie]

Yet if someone has a joke elsewhere it's not ok? I know it's differently portrayed but if someone got it for moderating too by thinking it was in the wrong section then surely that's wrong too?

I agree, again it doesn't take a genius to see the line.

'I think you have the wrong section'
'stop posting pointlessly'

Obviously it isn't always going to be black and white but would be as easy as spotting someone avoiding the filter. If people use a jelly between their ears they can easily tell what's right and wrong. Then again my post wasn't even related to that rule and if it was done outside the spam forum I would have recieved a usernote for pointlessly posting but we've cleared that up lol

[Samantha]

Don't think any of them should of been edited tbh :s what's so wrong with saying something is in the wrong section? lmao :S

Well really, the one the other day was saying they think it's in the wrong forum, they aren't saying it actually is whereas Richie's was (joking I know, just putting that to the side a second). In theory, if we're going off how much it plays towards the leave moderating to the moderators rule, Richie's was worse than the one the other day. I think the rule should be rewritten to say the least then as I think confusion arises.

[The Don]

I dunno who this helps, but this is what xxMATTGxx; said when I had a similar experience not so long ago



I don't really want members going round just posting that in threads and then not adding anything to the actual discussion in the first place. Just replying to a thread telling them it's in the wrong section would just be for the sake of getting post count and would also be pointless in a way as they aren't contributing.

I also wouldn't put the blame to the moderators on editing the post for that rule, it's the rule that can be confusing at times. As there isn't really a line of what is them acting as a moderator or not - Probably something to clarify with them all.

[Lee]

What rule does it break?

"Leave moderating to the moderators" - by notifying people theyre breaking rules you are no longer leaving it to moderators...

[Samantha]

It's been sorted, whats the issue? :P As I said its being discussed and will be changed.



Who said it isn't ok to say it elsewhere? It would just be classed as a pointless post unless there was something there which was on topic.



Richies post did not say something like "Don't do this, it breaks the rules". All he did was state the obvious.

You edit posts that are jokes yet they can still be on topic, but because they're jokes they are edited. This is what used to happen, I know that much. Unsure if it still occurs.

[Matthew]

IMO providing you add something on topic to a post, then posting links to a duplicate thread is fine.

Having said that, I really don't think things like 'you just pointless posted' or 'your image is avoiding the filter' is something which needs to be posted- just report the post.

Clearly here with Richie; it was just a bit of a joke and (as it was in spam as well..) shouldn't have been edited, but aside from the obvious jokes in spam, I do think that a rule of this nature should be enforced. However then there's the tricky situation of 'well if a joke is allowed in spam, why isn't it outside?' etc.

its a tough one and we'll need to discuss it.

[xxMATTGxx]

Yet if someone has a joke elsewhere it's not ok? I know it's differently portrayed but if someone got it for moderating too by thinking it was in the wrong section then surely that's wrong too?

It depends on what it is in my own opinion. Let's do an example:

A user has posted a thread asking for help with Microsoft Office and it was posted in say "Gaming" - A user comes along and says "Posted in the wrong forum mate". Now that isn't really helping the user at all and could have just reported the post and said it's in the wrong section. Now if they they posted a helpful solution or something related to the actual thread and then said it was in the wrong section then I believe that should be ok.



xxMATTGxx; How should it not have thought considering it breaks the rule... Doesn't say anything about jokes or spam in the rule does it???

I do worry about you sometimes Lee, it was clearly a joke and look where it is posted and the context of the actual post.



I dunno who this helps, but this is what xxMATTGxx; said when I had a similar experience not so long ago

I think the above is pretty much similar? Not sure! Also you just reminded me to look at your PM again.

[Kardan]

"Leave moderating to the moderators" - by notifying people theyre breaking rules you are no longer leaving it to moderators...

Nowhere in that rule does it say you can't notify people of rule-breaks, as the rule states you shouldn't abuse or mimic MOD powers hence leaving moderating to the moderators.

[MKR&*42]

I really (personally) can't see the harm if someone goes "Oh this has already been posted - but nevertheless... [insert opinion here]", they're still contributing something and all they've done is remind a mod that a similar thread has been created. If their entire post is "Already posted kfnx bai" or "put in spoiler.. god", then yeah that's a bit blunt and a pointless post really, but if someone adds their own opinion on the original matter I see no harm?

[David]

all this wouldnt be a problem if richard wasnt in the filter

[Samantha]

It depends on what it is in my own opinion. Let's do an example:

A user has posted a thread asking for help with Microsoft Office and it was posted in say "Gaming" - A user comes along and says "Posted in the wrong forum mate". Now that isn't really helping the user at all and could have just reported the post and said it's in the wrong section. Now if they they posted a helpful solution or something related to the actual thread and then said it was in the wrong section then I believe that should be ok.




I do worry about you sometimes Lee, it was clearly a joke and look where it is posted and the context of the actual post.




I think the above is pretty much simialr? Not sure! Also you just reminded me to look at your PM again.

It shouldn't matter whether it was a joke or not though...

[Catchy]

"Leave moderating to the moderators" - by notifying people theyre breaking rules you are no longer leaving it to moderators...

Omg get a grip, honestly... You're going on like it's the biggest crime committed. There's nothing wrong with pointing something out to somebody, it's called trying to be helpful.

E.g. If I said to someone "oh btw hun I think you've posted in the wrong section just to let you know" would I be impersonating a mod? err don't think so...

[Lee]

It depends on what it is in my own opinion. Let's do an example:

A user has posted a thread asking for help with Microsoft Office and it was posted in say "Gaming" - A user comes along and says "Posted in the wrong forum mate". Now that isn't really helping the user at all and could have just reported the post and said it's in the wrong section. Now if they they posted a helpful solution or something related to the actual thread and then said it was in the wrong section then I believe that should be ok.




I do worry about you sometimes Lee, it was clearly a joke and look where it is posted and the context of the actual post.




I think the above is pretty much simialr? Not sure! Also you just reminded me to look at your PM again.

ha. Show me where it says that the rules are not to be enforced when used in a joking context or in spam? Because at the moment I don't see it anywhere.

[Richie]

Well really, the one the other day was saying they think it's in the wrong forum, they aren't saying it actually is whereas Richie's was (joking I know, just putting that to the side a second). In theory, if we're going off how much it plays towards the leave moderating to the moderators rule, Richie's was worse than the one the other day. I think the rule should be rewritten to say the least then as I think confusion arises.

How though Sam? I don't understand how people are struggling to see my point, my post wasn't even remotely relevant to that rule. It's like posting in a thread about a relationship 'OMG YOU'RE IN A RELATIONSHIP' no way really?

[The Don]

Richie; is right and Lee; is wrong if past instances account for anything...

http://i.imgur.com/XCsq0.png

---------- Post added 02-10-2012 at 10:08 PM ----------


ha. Show me where it says that the rules are not to be enforced when used in a joking context or in spam? Because at the moment I don't see it anywhere.

I think it's pretty much common sense...

[xxMATTGxx]

It shouldn't matter whether it was a joke or not though...

Read my example where I believe it is fine a user should say such a thing. If it's in spam then that is a whole different ballgame.


ha. Show me where it says that the rules are not to be enforced when used in a joking context or in spam? Because at the moment I don't see it anywhere.

Use your brain.

[Kardan]

ha. Show me where it says that the rules are not to be enforced when used in a joking context or in spam? Because at the moment I don't see it anywhere.

Rules aren't about when they SHOULDN'T be enforced, its when they SHOULD be enforced.

[Catchy]

Lee; It's something called using your own initiative, which you clearly can not do.

[Lee]

Rules aren't about when they SHOULDN'T be enforced, its when they SHOULD be enforced.

If I go ahead and stop moderating spam then, or turning a blind eye to rule breaking posts in a sarcastic manor then I can give a good guess who would create the first 10 feedback threads on it - we'll see.

[Matthew]

As I posted in the discussion thread on this topic in the mod section-

Linking to a dupe thread is fine BUT ONLY IF something is added to make the post on topic. That's a given for me and should be made clear in the rules. Intersocial;

[Kardan]

If I go ahead and stop moderating spam then, or turning a blind eye to rule breaking posts in a sarcastic manor then I can give a good guess who would create the first 10 feedback threads on it - we'll see.

The fact of the matter is, Richie didn't break any rules - and even if you want to say he did, common sense should be used, hence why we're allowed to say 'WTF' despite the F word being filtered, technically we're abbreviating a swear word which is against the rules, but common sense says its okay, hence why it's allowed in the rules.

[Samantha]

How though Sam? I don't understand how people are struggling to see my point, my post wasn't even remotely relevant to that rule. It's like posting in a thread about a relationship 'OMG YOU'RE IN A RELATIONSHIP' no way really?

Basically, if they're going on about it as though you can't pull someone up on the rules then:

Richie: OMG YOU AVOIDED DA FILTA - due to that being a rule (avoiding the filter) then you'd probably be warned. However, the other person goes I think this is in the wrong forum (but gives their opinion too), yet still gets warned even though it wasn't a set in stone thing like you saying they avoided it (admittedly you don't say which rule was broken) but if they're going on about if you talk about such rule and being a little strict then you'd get edited.

Do you know what I mean I confused myself.

[Richie]

I'M NOT IN THE RIGHT BECAUSE IT WAS IN SPAM I AM IN THE RIGHT BECAUSE IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GOD DAMN RULE. I WAS STATING THE OBVIOUS, NOT TELLING SOMEONE WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO. HOW BLOODY HARD IS IT TO UNDERSTAND.


BRB GOING TO GO GET SOME FRESH AIR BEFORE MY HEAD EXPLODES

[FlyingJesus]

"Leave moderating to the moderators" - by notifying people theyre breaking rules you are no longer leaving it to moderators...

By that logic, reporting posts isn't "leaving" it to the moderators either


It depends on what it is in my own opinion. Let's do an example:

A user has posted a thread asking for help with Microsoft Office and it was posted in say "Gaming" - A user comes along and says "Posted in the wrong forum mate". Now that isn't really helping the user at all and could have just reported the post and said it's in the wrong section. Now if they they posted a helpful solution or something related to the actual thread and then said it was in the wrong section then I believe that should be ok.

Yeah I always assumed such things were ok as long as there's a useful part to the post as well, or is in spam. Glad SOMEONE with the big powers knows how to differentiate between situations lol


ha. Show me where it says that the rules are not to be enforced when used in a joking context or in spam? Because at the moment I don't see it anywhere.

Show me where it says that the rules are not to be enforced just because it's a super mod (that's you, btw) making pointless posts? Because at the moment I don't see it anywhere. Chris might have completely ignored the actual content of my earlier post but since you seem to be such a stickler for abiding by every rule at every instance I suggest looking through the thread I mentioned previously, especially the posts I linked

[Catchy]

The fact of the matter is, Richie didn't break any rules - and even if you want to say he did, common sense should be used, hence why we're allowed to say 'WTF' despite the F word being filtered, technically we're abbreviating a swear word which is against the rules, but common sense says its okay, hence why it's allowed in the rules.

Swear I've received PM's about that so many times, omg!!

[Chris]

Everyone calm down and stop arguing over such a trivial issue which has been solved. I have said is going to be changed so theres nothing much to argue about. WOW.

Anyway here is a draft of the rule that we decided on a few weeks back. Any contribution to this is welcome from everyone.


A9. Leave moderating to the moderators ~ If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with and provide a brief description. You must not post a reply to tell another member that they have broken the rule, however if you find a thread which has already been posted then you MAY reply with a link to that thread however your post must also contain something which is relevant and on topic to the threads subject.

Also, you may not discuss bans on the forum. If you wish to dispute a ban use the Support System. You should also never ignore a moderators warning, change their warnings, open a thread they have closed or use the Moderator Specific BBcode ([modwarn]). This is considered 'Abuse of Moderator Features'. Editing a moderators warning or opening a close thread will result in a private message being sent, while using the moderator warning tags out of the blue will result in an infraction without any prior warning.

[MKR&*42]

As I posted in the discussion thread on this topic in the mod section-

Linking to a dupe thread is fine BUT ONLY IF something is added to make the post on topic. That's a given for me and should be made clear in the rules. @Intersocial (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=86637);

Oh good haha, would have found it a bit preposterous if it led to a usernote :) xo

[Samantha]

Read my example where I believe it is fine a user should say such a thing. If it's in spam then that is a whole different ballgame.



Use your brain.

Why is it different for spam though? If I posted porn in spam and posted it in discuss anything, I'd get it removed from both and probably get fired, yet on other rules they're not enforced in spam?

[Kardan]

Everyone calm down and stop arguing over such a trivial issue which has been solved. I have said is going to be changed so theres nothing much to argue about. WOW.

Anyway here is a draft of the rule that we decided on a few weeks back. Any contribution to this is welcome from everyone.

I think that's mostly fair, but I think a post of 'Hey, there's already a discussion on Harry Potter over here *link*' by a normal member shouldn't be punished.

[Matthew]

Why is it different for spam though? If I posted porn in spam and posted it in discuss anything, I'd get it removed from both and probably get fired, yet on other rules they're not enforced in spam?

To be perfectly honest sam there's a huge difference between posting porn and "breaking" an extremely minor rule :P

[FlyingJesus]

Why is it different for spam though? If I posted porn in spam and posted it in discuss anything, I'd get it removed from both and probably get fired, yet on other rules they're not enforced in spam?

Spam doesn't require posts to follow a subject, so isn't bound by Matt's earlier statement whereby posts letting a person know that they're breaking a rule must also contain useful information for the thread. Posts just saying "u broke dis rul" in areas outside of spam are problematic for being pointless posts, not for breaking A9

[Kardan]

Why is it different for spam though? If I posted porn in spam and posted it in discuss anything, I'd get it removed from both and probably get fired, yet on other rules they're not enforced in spam?

Certain rules don't apply in spam.

*Passes popcorn around*

[xxMATTGxx]

Why is it different for spam though? If I posted porn in spam and posted it in discuss anything, I'd get it removed from both and probably get fired, yet on other rules they're not enforced in spam?

I am talking about one specific rule and not all rules. Plus in spam you expect the thread to derail and go off-topic? :P


Spam doesn't require posts to follow a subject, so isn't bound by Matt's earlier statement whereby posts letting a person know that they're breaking a rule must also contain useful information for the thread. Posts just saying "u broke dis rul" in areas outside of spam are problematic for being pointless posts, not for breaking A9

This.

[The Don]

Everyone calm down and stop arguing over such a trivial issue which has been solved. I have said is going to be changed so theres nothing much to argue about. WOW.

Anyway here is a draft of the rule that we decided on a few weeks back. Any contribution to this is welcome from everyone.

Tbh, all the rule really needs to cover is not using modwarns etc as the pointless posting rule covers them only posting to tell the user they broke a rule/warning them for it

[Samantha]

Spam doesn't require posts to follow a subject, so isn't bound by Matt's earlier statement whereby posts letting a person know that they're breaking a rule must also contain useful information for the thread

I agree with you about the useful information but surely it would be enforced if I directly went 'OH YOU BROKE RULE A#' surely?

[The Don]

Why is it different for spam though? If I posted porn in spam and posted it in discuss anything, I'd get it removed from both and probably get fired, yet on other rules they're not enforced in spam?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[Kardan]

Swear I've received PM's about that so many times, omg!!

Best get reporting those warnings/infractions! Totally legal! WTF!


It is allowed to use abbreviated phrases, phrases such as; LMFAO, FML, WTF, FFS, OMFG and IDGAF etc are all acceptable.
However, it is not allowed to use abbreviated phrases to insult others.

[Lee]

Tbh, all the rule really needs to cover is not using modwarns etc as the pointless posting rule covers them only posting to tell the user they broke a rule/warning them for it

But then people are free to say dont be rude -ontopic part here- which could lead to arguments hence the origin for that particular rule I think.

[The Don]

I agree with you about the useful information but surely it would be enforced if I directly went 'OH YOU BROKE RULE A#' surely?

there we go.

[Catchy]

Best get reporting those warnings/infractions! Totally legal! WTF!

Well I said f off, IS THAT ALLOWED??? Can someone tell me xxMATTGxx;

[FlyingJesus]

I agree with you about the useful information but surely it would be enforced if I directly went 'OH YOU BROKE RULE A#' surely?

I added a bit to the end of my post but you got to it too quickly apparently :P

[Kardan]

But then people are free to say dont be rude -ontopic part here- which could lead to arguments hence the origin for that particular rule I think.

'Don't be rude' doesn't break any rules.

[Samantha]

Well I said f off, IS THAT ALLOWED??? Can someone tell me xxMATTGxx;

If you said it directly to someone then yes, if not then I don't think so. Like you could say that when you lose an event or something? Wouldn't be rude to anyone. That's always what I've followed/been told.

[Kardan]

Well I said f off, IS THAT ALLOWED??? Can someone tell me xxMATTGxx;

If its directed to a forum member, no - otherwise yes.

[xxMATTGxx]

Well I said f off, IS THAT ALLOWED??? Can someone tell me xxMATTGxx;

I don't believe that is one of the exceptions.

[Lee]

Well I said f off, IS THAT ALLOWED??? Can someone tell me @xxMATTGxx (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=1020);

No it is not allowed it's rude, avoids the filter and it not an abbreviation. FO is the abbreviation but would still be rude.

[Kardan]

No it is not allowed it's rude, avoids the filter and it not an abbreviation. FO is the abbreviation but would still be rude.

...*Sigh*

It is allowed.


F off, I just won £170 on the lotto!

[The Don]

But then people are free to say dont be rude -ontopic part here- which could lead to arguments hence the origin for that particular rule I think.

Isn't saying "don't patronise me" also telling a user not to be rude? I don't think telling somebody to use manners is attempting to impersonate a moderator. There's an obvious distinction between someone correcting someone and someone impersonating a moderator, for example:

A) Don't be so rude...
B) You must respect other users rules a32 says:

[FlyingJesus]

No it is not allowed it's rude, avoids the filter and it not an abbreviation. FO is the abbreviation but would still be rude.

Pretty sure F is an abbreviation

[Lee]

'Don't be rude' doesn't break any rules.

I mean if theres a rude comment towards another then someone else comments saying dont be rude to others.

Sorry should have been more specific.

[Catchy]

If its directed to a forum member, no - otherwise yes.


I don't believe that is one of the exceptions.


No it is not allowed it's rude, avoids the filter and it not an abbreviation. FO is the abbreviation but would still be rude.

What about if it was in a joke context though...

[Samantha]

No it is not allowed it's rude, avoids the filter and it not an abbreviation. FO is the abbreviation but would still be rude.

Depends in context really?

[Lee]

Pretty sure F is an abbreviation

I may have got the wrong idea then :)

[Matthew]

But then people are free to say dont be rude -ontopic part here- which could lead to arguments hence the origin for that particular rule I think.

I don't see too much of a problem in saying 'don't be rude -on topic part here-' to be honest. What's wrong with saying don't be rude?

If you were to say 'That's really rude and I'm gonna report you straight to a moderator and I hope you get banned for ever' then maybe that's a rule-breaker but a simple 'don't be rude' is hardly bad.

[xxMATTGxx]

What about if it was in a joke context though...

That's when it gets hard for moderators to determine whether something like that is a joke or not.

[Samantha]

Isn't saying "don't patronise me" also telling a user not to be rude? I don't think telling somebody to use manners is attempting to impersonate a moderator. There's an obvious distinction between someone correcting someone and someone impersonating a moderator, for example:

A) Don't be so rude...
B) You must respect other users rules a32 says:

Would Matt telling Lee to 'use his brain' be rude though? I know it's not that major or anything but it could be borderline.

[Lee]

Depends in context really?

Yeah if she/he goes theres a fly in my room f off then.. Personally I wouldn't want to see f off since its soo obvious. I'd class that as avoiding the filter.

[Kardan]

What about if it was in a joke context though...

Once again, common sense should prevail, usually it's pretty clear if the post is offensive - but the moderators will probably act on it.

[Richie]

Isn't saying "don't patronise me" also telling a user not to be rude? I don't think telling somebody to use manners is attempting to impersonate a moderator. There's an obvious distinction between someone correcting someone and someone impersonating a moderator, for example:

A) Don't be so rude...
B) You must respect other users rules a32 says:

Woops looks like I was trying to moderate a moderator

[The Don]

Would Matt telling Lee to 'use his brain' be rude though? I know it's not that major or anything but it could be borderline.

Nowhere near as rude as Oli telling people to "piss off" back in the day. But I don't see how that relates to someone impersonating a moderator lol

[Samantha]

I don't see too much of a problem in saying 'don't be rude -on topic part here-' to be honest. What's wrong with saying don't be rude?

If you were to say 'That's really rude and I'm gonna report you straight to a moderator and I hope you get banned for ever' then maybe that's a rule-breaker but a simple 'don't be rude' is hardly bad.

I think if they said don't be rude, it should be fine providing they post on topic. If they went don't be rude you ******* ****, then that would be hypocritical.

[Catchy]

Gotta love Richie;'s feedback threads :) anyways, it was deffo in a jokey context and in spam lmao but oh well...

[Kardan]

Isn't saying "don't patronise me" also telling a user not to be rude? I don't think telling somebody to use manners is attempting to impersonate a moderator. There's an obvious distinction between someone correcting someone and someone impersonating a moderator, for example:

A) Don't be so rude...
B) You must respect other users rules a32 says:

Personally I feel that option B still isn't impersonating a moderator, it's just a bit snotty and not needed :P The only way you can really impersonate a moderator, and I've never seen it happen in a real context in my 8 years here, is by using the red text thingy.

Epic thread by the way, not seen so much activity on one thread in months!

[Matthew]

I think if they said don't be rude, it should be fine providing they post on topic. If they went don't be rude you ******* ****, then that would be hypocritical.

Yeah, as long as the post is on topic then its fine IMO.

And yeah obviously if they said "Don't be rude you stupid ******* loser" or whatever then yeah that's clearly breaking a rule (however IMO there's nothing wrong with the don't be rude bit- its the other bit thats in the wrong and would be edited for rudeness).

[xxMATTGxx]

Would Matt telling Lee to 'use his brain' be rude though? I know it's not that major or anything but it could be borderline.

Probably, depends how people felt.

[Catchy]

I don't think any1 would be so sad enough to copy and paste the rules tbh. Never know though...

[Lee]

Probably, depends how people felt.

Are you openly admitting you've probably broken the rules :(

[Samantha]

Nowhere near as rude as Oli telling people to "piss off" back in the day. But I don't see how that relates to someone impersonating a moderator lol

True, unless they were rude when telling them they broke a rule. I remember a while back I -repped someone for posting in the wrong section as opposed to telling them.

That's a thing, if you -repped someone for breaking a rule/telling them they broke a rule, and gave the rule broken would that be moderated or am I overthinking it?

[Chris]

Would Matt telling Lee to 'use his brain' be rude though? I know it's not that major or anything but it could be borderline.

No because that would be ridiculous. We're trying to relax the rules.

[Lee]

I don't think any1 would be so sad enough to copy and paste the rules tbh. Never know though...

Me and Kardan; did not so long ago in this thread... -awkward-

[Richie]

It just doesn't seem like mods are using their trusty tool 'discretion' very often anymore.

I think it's a little obvious to spot what right and wrong is:

Don't be rude
-Inserts massive opinion here-


Don't be rude
-Leaves blank empty gap for moderators edit-


If it's spam and someone replies 'Don't be so rude!!!' you can tell they're joking so it should be left alone but if someone makes a massive rant in discuss anything and it's a serious thread, then some ejit comes along and says Don't be rude -Leaves back empty gap for moderators edit- then it should be edited.

[Samantha]

I don't think any1 would be so sad enough to copy and paste the rules tbh. Never know though...

Another fansite stole HabboxForum's rules so it wouldn't surprise me ;).

Anyway, think context depends on what gets moderated or not, maybe a simpler version of the rule as a lot appear unsure what is correct or not.

[Catchy]

Me and Kardan; did not so long ago in this thread... -awkward-

o... that's 1 of them 1s lmao. You know what I mean!!

[Kardan]

Me and Kardan; did not so long ago in this thread... -awkward-

He means in a context of impersonating a moderator.

And no, whatMatt said isn't offensive. I mean, if moderators have to take offensive sentences into context, then why can't they take jokes into context?

[xxMATTGxx]

Are you openly admitting you've probably broken the rules :(

Well no I don't think I've broken any forum rules in this thread. Some people may find it rude, others may not. If people have that much of a problem with the post then I'll simply write a PM to myself telling me off.

[Samantha]

No because that would be ridiculous. We're trying to relax the rules.

However, as said before in previous threads if Lee wished to report that wouldn't it have to be sorted? I thought that occurred if the person it was aimed at took offence, or has that changed too?

---------- Post added 02-10-2012 at 10:29 PM ----------


Well no I don't think I've broken any forum rules in this thread. Some people may find it rude, others may not. If people have that much of a problem with the post then I'll simply write a PM to myself telling me off.

Nah I'll tell Sierk about you, he'll warn you in a year or two.

[Kardan]

However, as said before in previous threads if Lee wished to report that wouldn't it have to be sorted? I thought that occurred if the person it was aimed at took offence, or has that changed too?

That's a load of crap if that's how it works, what if I reported someone for calling me ginger or tall? Just because someone is offended doesn't mean its a rule break.

[Samantha]

That's a load of crap if that's how it works, what if I reported someone for calling me ginger or tall? Just because someone is offended doesn't mean its a rule break.

I'm not saying it is but that's what we were told previously, I know in some cases it's obvious when it isn't a rule break etc.

[Chris]

However, as said before in previous threads if Lee wished to report that wouldn't it have to be sorted? I thought that occurred if the person it was aimed at took offence, or has that changed too?

---------- Post added 02-10-2012 at 10:29 PM ----------



Nah I'll tell Sierk about you, he'll warn you in a year or two.

It is up to the moderator who is dealing with it, but obviously it has to be within reason. If he reported that now then it wouldn't be dealt with.

[Kardan]

Well no I don't think I've broken any forum rules in this thread. Some people may find it rude, others may not. If people have that much of a problem with the post then I'll simply write a PM to myself telling me off.

Epic :P


I'm not saying it is but that's what we were told previously, I know in some cases it's obvious when it isn't a rule break etc.

Well, I hope it's not like that :P

[FlyingJesus]

It just doesn't seem like mods are using their trusty tool 'discretion' very often anymore.

THEY SEEM TO BE USING IT JUST FINE IN TOTALLY IGNORING THE RULE BREAKS (and subsequent notices of such rule breaks) THAT THEY THEMSELVES HAVE MADE IN A THREAD THAT I GOT EDITED IN

[Matthew]

It is up to the moderator who is dealing with it, but obviously it has to be within reason. If he reported that now then it wouldn't be dealt with.

well, rather funnily, he did report it LOL Lee; ;) ;)

[Lee]

well, rather funnily, he did report it LOL @Lee (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=45160); ;) ;)

I've just realised that its been no actioned. brb making a feedback thread!

I hope this issue is resolved and in the coming week we can apply the changes listed in chris's quote above.

[xxMATTGxx]

well, rather funnily, he did report it LOL Lee; ;) ;)

Then I'm not sending myself a PM because he reported it at 22:30. Dam it!

[The Don]

wait.
Lee;

is this what this threads about?


omg that image just avoided the filter!!!!

because if he was warned for that, someone really needs to train you to use your initiative, bold which part of that sentence was trying to moderate someone/warranted a modedit

[Richie]

wait.
@Lee (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=45160);

is this what this threads about?



because if he was warned for that, someone really needs to train you to use your initiative, bold which part of that sentence was trying to moderate someone/warranted a modedit

That is exactly my point akeam but people rambled on for about 7 pages on how its not fair that i got away with it spam when it had nothing to do with it being in spam

[Chris]

I've just realised that its been no actioned. brb making a feedback thread!

I hope this issue is resolved and in the coming week we can apply the changes listed in chris's quote above.

We can apply the change right now if everyones happy with it.

[Lee]

wait.
@Lee (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=45160);

is this what this threads about?



because if he was warned for that, someone really needs to train you to use your initiative, bold which part of that sentence was trying to moderate someone/warranted a modedit

You can see my opinions in this thread, but for your benefit I have bolded the specifc words that caught my attention.


omg that image just avoided the filter!!!!

[Kardan]

We can apply the change right now if everyones happy with it.

Isn't this where a poll should be created in feedback and an announcement is made so everyone reads the thread and the poll is totally fair? ;)

Yeah, go for it. :)

[Lee]

Chris; POLLLL TIME!

[Kardan]

You can see my opinions in this thread, but for your benefit I have bolded the specifc words that caught my attention.

Quite crucially, the parts that aren't bolded indicate the sarcasm intended in the post.

And sarcasm is probably not the correct word, but you all know what I'm saying...

[The Don]

You can see my opinions in this thread, but for your benefit I have bolded the specifc words that caught my attention.

so you overlooked the clear jest and joking around or any context for that matter and thought "OMG I TELL PEOPLE NOT TO AVOID THE FILTER... HE TOLD PEOPLE NOT TO AVOID THE FILTER... HE IS IMPERSONATING ME"

[Chris]

We're not doing a poll EVER AGAIN. But yeah I'll update it now.

[Lee]

so you overlooked the clear jest and joking around or any context for that matter and thought "OMG I TELL PEOPLE NOT TO AVOID THE FILTER... HE TOLD PEOPLE NOT TO AVOID THE FILTER... HE IS IMPERSONATING ME"

Ye I felt my species was threatened so modwarned him.

[FlyingJesus]

OH MY GOD AKEAM THIS HAS BEEN SOLVED ALREADY

Wait is the update adding in a bit saying that telling people they're breaking the rules IS a rule break? I thought Matt said pretty much the complete opposite

[Richie]

You can see my opinions in this thread, but for your benefit I have bolded the specifc words that caught my attention.

What you need to understand is stating someone and telling someone what they can/ can't do are two different things and to make it even worse, it was a joke and in a sub-forum where pointless crap goes.

[Kardan]

I just read the original thread, was the image filtered because of the word dick, or is there an actual offensive word in the image that I'm not seeing?

[The Don]

OH MY GOD AKEAM THIS HAS BEEN SOLVED ALREADY

Wait is the update adding in a bit saying that telling people they're breaking the rules IS a rule break? I thought Matt said pretty much the complete opposite

lol

but in all seriousness, i dont think the rules need changing, could you not just create some examples and make a stickied thread in the mod forum to show mods when a rule is/isn't being broken and how to judge the situation?

---------- Post added 02-10-2012 at 10:46 PM ----------


What you need to understand is stating someone and telling someone what they can/ can't do are two different things and to make it even worse, it was a joke and in a sub-forum where pointless crap goes.

this quote below makes me think he knew you were joking but he still felt the need to warn you anyway


ha. Show me where it says that the rules are not to be enforced when used in a joking context or in spam? Because at the moment I don't see it anywhere.

[MKR&*42]

I just read the original thread, was the image filtered because of the word dick, or is there an actual offensive word in the image that I'm not seeing?

Yeah that's what I wondered, I can't see anything in it either?
-
Oh yes, the username I see it now.

[Richie]

I just read the original thread, was the image filtered because of the word dick, or is there an actual offensive word in the image that I'm not seeing?

Yeah man it's because of that even though it's an actual name. Anyways that's a completely different thread that has already been deemed as WRONG dundundun, please stay on topic!!! haha I'M JOKING LEE!! just trying to wind you up :P don't warn me my account is too precious

[Kardan]

Yeah that's what I wondered, I can't see anything in it either?

Bit silly really, still think it should be unfiltered...

"Oi, Dick, over here! We need to go and see Harry" shouted Tom.

"Fancy any Spotted Dick?" whispered Sarah.

[Richie]

Bit silly really, still think it should be unfiltered...

"Oi, Dick, over here! We need to go and see Harry" shouted Tom.

"Fancy any Spotted Dick?" whispered Sarah.

people irl call me Di.ck so to me it's all a bit strange, it being filtered and that. To me it should only really be *removed* if someone is like OMG LEE YOU COMPLETE DI.CK!! (Just an example!!) but I suppose the word would be used for more good than bad so I understand why it's filtered

[David]

Bit silly really, still think it should be unfiltered...

"Oi, Dick, over here! We need to go and see Harry" shouted Tom.

"Fancy any Spotted Dick?" whispered Sarah.

yes

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=761209&p=7715682#post7715682

[MKR&*42]

Bit silly really, still think it should be unfiltered...

"Oi, Dick, over here! We need to go and see Harry" shouted Tom.

"Fancy any Spotted Dick?" whispered Sarah.

I think GommeInc; tried to argue for that to be unfiltered as well haha. I see why they've done it, but it's so commonly used like "arse" that it's losing its meaning of being a very offensive word. I don't think they want to unfilter any words though... tried this 1 month back haha.

[sex]

I'm not being funny Lee or whoever you are but why are you being so condescending to Richie? There's no need for it... The rule is pointless, "omg u broke da rulezzzz" it's hardly enforcing any sort of moderation. Silly rule imo.

Lee loves being condescending lol. He is on some power trip and constantly thinks he is right.

But yeah, this rule is totally stupid. There should be a line drawn between helping and clearly trying to act like a moderator. Can anyone even say why it is a rule? It doesn't make any sense to have a rule for that.

[Kardan]

Lee loves being condescending lol. He is on some power trip and constantly thinks he is right.

But yeah, this rule is totally stupid. There should be a line drawn between helping and clearly trying to act like a moderator. Can anyone even say why it is a rule? It doesn't make any sense to have a rule for that.

I'm assuming that the BBCode used for mod warns can be used by everyone, hence why it's a rule - and I'm guessing that the forum doesn't allow the BBCode to be restricted to certain user groups? I would try it out, but y'know, immediate infraction for me if it works :P

If it doesn't work, then why is there a rule? I mean, is it against the rules to use red bold text?

[LiquidLuck.]

I agree with what was said by Richie in the first posts in this thread.
The rule is a good one, just needs to be taken lightly. If it's obviously a joke or just to let someone know, when you're not really sure, then it should be let go.

[FlyingJesus]

But yeah, this rule is totally stupid. There should be a line drawn between helping and clearly trying to act like a moderator. Can anyone even say why it is a rule? It doesn't make any sense to have a rule for that.

No idea but for some reason it's just been made into a fully set in stone rule rather than one just alluded to, despite the GM and everyone else suggesting that it wasn't at all necessary to punish it unless it made the post pointless

[Catchy]

I'm assuming that the BBCode used for mod warns can be used by everyone, hence why it's a rule - and I'm guessing that the forum doesn't allow the BBCode to be restricted to certain user groups? I would try it out, but y'know, immediate infraction for me if it works :P

If it doesn't work, then why is there a rule? I mean, is it against the rules to use red bold text?

You could always preview it I guess o.O

[Kardan]

You could always preview it I guess o.O

Yeah, all users can do it, hence the rule.

[xxMATTGxx]

I'm assuming that the BBCode used for mod warns can be used by everyone, hence why it's a rule - and I'm guessing that the forum doesn't allow the BBCode to be restricted to certain user groups? I would try it out, but y'know, immediate infraction for me if it works :P

If it doesn't work, then why is there a rule? I mean, is it against the rules to use red bold text?

Yeah vbulletin doesn't let you restrict custom bbcode like that. So that is why there is a rule for it unfortunately.

[David]

Yeah vbulletin doesn't let you restrict custom bbcode like that. So that is why there is a rule for it unfortunately.

pretty sure you can get it done via plugin/edits though?

[GoldenMerc]

pretty sure you can get it done via plugin/edits though?

You can indeed

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[sex]

Yeah vbulletin doesn't let you restrict custom bbcode like that. So that is why there is a rule for it unfortunately.

but the rule was there before the bb codes where introduced lol

[xxMATTGxx]

pretty sure you can get it done via plugin/edits though?

I don't even want to bother with that right now. Plus that part of the rule isn't the issue? :P


but the rule was there before the bb codes where introduced lol

Probably for this though:

Edited by Username (Rank): DO NOT BREAK THE FORUM RULES.

[sex]

i use to do that all the time "edited by sex (forum hottie) - bla bla bla" or whatever it was and never got in trouble, the mods had common sense then i guess and could tell jokes apart from what was suppose to be serious lol

[xxMATTGxx]

i use to do that all the time "edited by sex (forum hottie) - bla bla bla" or whatever it was and never got in trouble, the mods had common sense then i guess and could tell jokes apart from what was suppose to be serious lol

I was just assuming it was for that, can't remember what else it would be for.

[Grig]

Relax, it's a forum. People are on here to have a good time and enjoy it. But making pointless rules and using silly logic doesn't solve that. I'm glad it has been clarified, but there are still loopholes. For example, why can't people say it in spam if someone avoids the filter. It is after-all "Spam" and does not have a clear-cut focus.

You should take pointers from when Rosie was a mod, she was always right on the money.

[xxMATTGxx]

Relax, it's a forum. People are on here to have a good time and enjoy it. But making pointless rules and using silly logic doesn't solve that. I'm glad it has been clarified, but there are still loopholes. For example, why can't people say it in spam if someone avoids the filter. It is after-all "Spam" and does not have a clear-cut focus.

You should take pointers from when Rosie was a mod, she was always right on the money.

I don't think anyone has said they can't say it in spam hm.

[Grig]

I don't think anyone has said they can't say it in spam hm.

Then add that to the rule. Seeing as we are being so precise now ;).

[xxMATTGxx]

Then add that to the rule. Seeing as we are being so precise now ;).

That's a specific forum rule so can be added to the rules in that specific area and not the main rules.

[Sian]

I'm going to say I know I'm going a bit backward here and the rule has been modified and clarified. But seeming as before Chris did that it said nothing about replying to a thread saying they've broken a rule, then the original point stands that it was unfair.

I'm just saying. But apart from that at least it got clarified, though honestly I don't see anything wrong with people replying like that, unless it's just done to spam.

[Samantha]

Relax, it's a forum. People are on here to have a good time and enjoy it. But making pointless rules and using silly logic doesn't solve that. I'm glad it has been clarified, but there are still loopholes. For example, why can't people say it in spam if someone avoids the filter. It is after-all "Spam" and does not have a clear-cut focus.

You should take pointers from when Rosie was a mod, she was always right on the money.

She wasn't always right but she was a great staff member.

[Grig]

She wasn't always right but she was a great staff member.

well we all have small margins for error. Some people more than others ;).

I was simply stating the above because it's pretty embarrassing when a super mod defends a ridiculous position.

[Chippiewill]

pretty sure you can get it done via plugin/edits though?

Not reliably, you could restrict it when editing a post but then if someone wants to change something about their post and a mod has already added a modwarn then it'll disable the modwarn. Not really needed as there's never problems with this rule anyway.

[Jack!]

That was a long read, reminds me of a thread I made about the moderating probably 6 months ago.

You ALL need to be singing from the same hymn.

And Lee, sort that attitude out, its not helping anything.

[Samantha]

Hasn't everyone been made aware of the new rule? Jordan; Didn't seem like it when I reported a post. Had to report again more indepth to understand.
Chris;

[Jordan]

Hasn't everyone been made aware of the new rule? @Jordan (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=57962); Didn't seem like it when I reported a post. Had to report again more indepth to understand.
@Chris (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=55895);

I do understand the new rule, I understood the last one too. The post you reported wasn't breaking the moderation rule because we don't tell people off for telling people that the furniture was released a few days back. In this case the furniture hasn't even been released yet.

[Chris]

Hasn't everyone been made aware of the new rule? Jordan; Didn't seem like it when I reported a post. Had to report again more indepth to understand.
Chris;

That post does not break the rules under the modified rule and would not have done under the old one either.

[Samantha]

I do understand the new rule, I understood the last one too. The post you reported wasn't breaking the moderation rule because we don't tell people off for telling people that the furniture was released a few days back. In this case the furniture hasn't even been released yet.

However, due to it not being released the OP said I assume this has been posted, if it isn't even released, someone saying it is may mean that it's already been posted. They didn't give any discussion about the furni therefore it's pointless anyway.

---------- Post added 03-10-2012 at 09:40 PM ----------


That post does not break the rules under the modified rule and would not have done under the old one either.

The OP didn't ask whether it had been released, they asked if it had been posted. The post was probably about it being posted as the furni isn't released yet. Can't you see what I'm getting at?

[Chris]

No I can't as your not really making much sense. He posted saying it's been released. Ok he made a mistake, it clearly hadn't but that doesn't mean we're going to punish him for it.

[sex]

However, due to it not being released the OP said I assume this has been posted, if it isn't even released, someone saying it is may mean that it's already been posted. They didn't give any discussion about the furni therefore it's pointless anyway.

---------- Post added 03-10-2012 at 09:40 PM ----------



The OP didn't ask whether it had been released, they asked if it had been posted. The post was probably about it being posted as the furni isn't released yet. Can't you see what I'm getting at?

Maybe they got confused about the furni being released, people can't start being infracted for being confused now :S and if we are going to talk about not adding to the discussion and pointless posts i could pull at least 20 from your last 50 posts that are like this from the habbo / trading sections lol

[Samantha]

No I can't as your not really making much sense. He posted saying it's been released. Ok he made a mistake, it clearly hadn't but that doesn't mean we're going to punish him for it.

I'm not saying punish him for that, his post can be taken two ways, either the furni isn't out or it's already been posted. Reading it (due to the furni not being out) it looked like he was saying it had been posted. Get me? :P.

---------- Post added 03-10-2012 at 09:46 PM ----------


Maybe they got confused about the furni being released, people can't start being infracted for being confused now :S and if we are going to talk about not adding to the discussion and pointless posts i could pull at least 20 from your last 50 posts that are like this from the habbo / trading sections lol

Lol you can't pull any from the trading sections unfortunately as I don't just comment. Please pull me some out, I'd love to see them as I haven't been edited for them, that's because they're not pointless.

[Chris]

I'm not saying punish him for that, his post can be taken two ways, either the furni isn't out or it's already been posted. Reading it (due to the furni not being out) it looked like he was saying it had been posted. Get me? :P.

---------- Post added 03-10-2012 at 09:46 PM ----------



Lol you can't pull any from the trading sections unfortunately as I don't just comment. Please pull me some out, I'd love to see them as I haven't been edited for them, that's because they're not pointless.

No, because no where in his post did he say "Omg this has been posted already". He wasn't trying to act as a moderator, he was simply suggesting that the furni had been released.

[sex]

I'm not saying punish him for that, his post can be taken two ways, either the furni isn't out or it's already been posted. Reading it (due to the furni not being out) it looked like he was saying it had been posted. Get me? :P.

---------- Post added 03-10-2012 at 09:46 PM ----------



Lol you can't pull any from the trading sections unfortunately as I don't just comment. Please pull me some out, I'd love to see them as I haven't been edited for them, that's because they're not pointless.

I dont think any gets what you are trying to say lol....... and you post in nearly every thread asking for the price of something when you have no intent of buying lol

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=761246&p=7716131#post7716131 but ill use this lol there was an image posted with the price yet you still asked what the prices where....

[Samantha]

No, because no where in his post did he say "Omg this has been posted already". He wasn't trying to act as a moderator, he was simply suggesting that the furni had been released.

I'm not saying he was acting like one dw, I know where you're coming from though lmao.

---------- Post added 03-10-2012 at 09:50 PM ----------


I dont think any gets what you are trying to say lol....... and you post in nearly every thread asking for the price of something when you have no intent of buying lol

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=761246&p=7716131#post7716131 but ill use this lol there was an image posted with the price yet you still asked what the prices where....


Last edited by Ellz; Today at 04:30 PM.

My post was at 04:28 before he posted the images.

If the images were on at first, xxMATTGxx; wouldn't have replied with the prices either.

[xxMATTGxx]

I dont think any gets what you are trying to say lol....... and you post in nearly every thread asking for the price of something when you have no intent of buying lol

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=761246&p=7716131#post7716131 but ill use this lol there was an image posted with the price yet you still asked what the prices where....

The images weren't in the post at the time of her post and mine.

[Samantha]

I dont think any gets what you are trying to say lol....... and you post in nearly every thread asking for the price of something when you have no intent of buying lol

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=761246&p=7716131#post7716131 but ill use this lol there was an image posted with the price yet you still asked what the prices where....

Oh also, I do have some intent of buying, but I won't pay too much. Thanks for clarifying matt.

[SorryDude]

I'm sick of moderating going from good to crap, good to crap, good to crap. The other day someone posted in a thread 'I think you have the wrong section' and they got a mod edit 'please leave moderating to moderators' they're clearly just trying to be nice by letting the user know they posted in the wrong section, stop getting all defensive they aren't trying to take your job. I just posted in a SPAM thread messing around 'omg that image just avoided the filter!!'. First of all I want to say it's such a ridiculous rule and secondly it should only be used if a user is actually trying to impersonate a moderator, if the moderator in question actually read my post properly I just stated the obvious, 'the image just avoided the filter' I didn't tell the user it wasn't allowed or warn them in anyway. Can you please sort out the rules because things like this is what makes the department look horrible.

Im on your side..

[GommeInc]

The "Leave the moderation to the moderators" rule needs tweaking. If someone is being helpful, they are simply being helpful. Pretending to be a moderator or doing the duties of a moderator should only be a rule violation if they are asserting any sort of power upon a person. Saying "This might be the wrong forum" isn't authoritative and is simply being helpful. If certain moderators can't get over their ego trips then more fool them, they should be sacked as I'm fairly certain new and old members would rather be part of a helpful community than one that's a being controlled as if it was a police state.

As for posts saying "OMG that video/image/post has an unfiltered word", they are also not a rule violation, as it's more a statement of fact than anything. If a post actually has an uncensored word, then they are simply posting fact and edit, if anything, should be on the person's post who actually violated a real rule. You wouldn't even do it for posts which don't have filtered words, you would do what is expected and speak directly using an @ tag or quote saying "No it isn't" like any other member would, as moderators are simply just members. If moderators don't know how to speak to people like they would a member - sack 'em.

Red mod warnings are not meant to be seen as moderators doing their duties or to show that the forum has any sort of moderation - they're incredibly ugly and say more about the behaviour of the forum staff and community spirit than the member in question i.e. not very good when viewing the forum as a guest or a new member. Less warnings are a must. If you want to have a rage at someone, PM them in private rather than put a blight on the forum. Use them when needs must e.g. swearing or posts that warrant an edit to the content. If the content is untouched, leave the entire post untouched - especially when people are not breaking the rules.

/rant - someone mentioned me so my 2 pence :P

[Chippiewill]

"Leave the moderation to the moderators" isn't really what the rules themselves are getting at (You don't exactly need a rule just for this, I think a moderator will not think twice if someone goes around pretending to be help desk staff on the forum so Moderators hardly need an exception to the fairly obvious discretion), I think the issue that arise from the posts which the rules are trying to prevent are:
- Accusing someone of breaking the rules (Even though they may not have)
- Giving people false information by accident
- Making pointless posts

Now, when you think about it, telling someone they've posted in the wrong forum isn't actually in itself helpful, since at best they'll make another thread in the right forum where maybe they'll get more replies, although I doubt it. Whereas if you just reported the post a moderator would have been able to move it fairly quickly anyway so the forum isn't being spammed and you haven't made a pointless post that doesn't help them all that much.

Now an obviously joking context spam doesn't actually do any of the above and should really be allowed as long as it's really obvious and they haven't actually broken the rule in question (Since that brings ambiguity about the nature of the post).

The only case where I believe that telling someone they've actually broken the rules really makes sense is if they've made another thread on a topic and you're telling them the location and adding information that makes sense merged into the thread which is the only one which under clarification is now being allowed. Which makes sense.

-

Really you could actually scrap the "leave moderating to moderators" rule and enforce all of it's constituent parts as parts of the other rules (Pointless posting, rude to other users etc.).

[Grig]

The "Leave the moderation to the moderators" rule needs tweaking. If someone is being helpful, they are simply being helpful. Pretending to be a moderator or doing the duties of a moderator should only be a rule violation if they are asserting any sort of power upon a person. Saying "This might be the wrong forum" isn't authoritative and is simply being helpful. If certain moderators can't get over their ego trips then more fool them, they should be sacked as I'm fairly certain new and old members would rather be part of a helpful community than one that's a being controlled as if it was a police state.

As for posts saying "OMG that video/image/post has an unfiltered word", they are also not a rule violation, as it's more a statement of fact than anything. If a post actually has an uncensored word, then they are simply posting fact and edit, if anything, should be on the person's post who actually violated a real rule. You wouldn't even do it for posts which don't have filtered words, you would do what is expected and speak directly using an @ tag or quote saying "No it isn't" like any other member would, as moderators are simply just members. If moderators don't know how to speak to people like they would a member - sack 'em.

Red mod warnings are not meant to be seen as moderators doing their duties or to show that the forum has any sort of moderation - they're incredibly ugly and say more about the behaviour of the forum staff and community spirit than the member in question i.e. not very good when viewing the forum as a guest or a new member. Less warnings are a must. If you want to have a rage at someone, PM them in private rather than put a blight on the forum. Use them when needs must e.g. swearing or posts that warrant an edit to the content. If the content is untouched, leave the entire post untouched - especially when people are not breaking the rules.

/rant - someone mentioned me so my 2 pence :P

This post probably made the most sense in this thread. Spot on.

As I mentioned before, it's silly that there are rules like the wrong section rule, when a person was just suggesting it was the wrong section. It's a forum for free flowing discussion. Obviously with logical rules, but now with rules it seems a bit too controlled. Moderation does not and should not equate to this police state mentality.

Sadly, I've not seen someone for a while who was truly wanting to reform the forum. More threads about moderation errors have been popping up recently and this too needs to be addressed as it doesn't look good.


Although sadly, none of this will happen.

[xxMATTGxx]

I don't mind if users want to tell others that they have posted in the wrong section or suggesting it. But what I do want is for them to also contribute to the actual thread. What does that mean? Well it means just don't post "You've posted in the wrong section" then say nothing else at all.

Otherwise I may as well post in every thread I see that is in the wrong section and could be moved with: "You've posted in the wrong section." then don't say anything else at all.

Which is what I have been stating in most replies to this thread and others. Now what you could say if users did just say: "You've posted in the wrong section" then that could be considered pointless or covered by one of the other rules.

[GommeInc]

Which is what I have been stating in most replies to this thread and others. Now what you could say if users did just say: "You've posted in the wrong section" then that could be considered pointless or covered by one of the other rules.
Depends if you're using the Habbox Forum definition of "pointless". Saying "This is in the wrong forum" isn't pointless as the point they are conveying is that the thread is in the wrong forum. It's off-topic, but not pointless. It clearly violates a posting rule to just say that, and therefore you rely on the relevant rule (it's why the foreign languages rule was demolished). However, it definitely doesn't break the wannabe forum moderator rule, as helpfulness - no matter the strength - should be encouraged.

So in a thread saying "Where's the best place to get car insurance?" in the Discuss Anything forum, and there is a reply saying:

"This is in the wrong forum. But, I'd go check out GoCompare or Confused.com"

The post should be left alone, as it's a statement of fact that the real forum should be "Tourism / Pets / Vehicles", and by saying that they are stating a minutely helpful statement AND posting something on-topic - advice.

If they didn't say anything useful, PM them. Don't bother editing the post as mod edits are incredibly ugly on forums and a bit too discouraging. Why flog an idiot in front of a crowd?

[FlyingJesus]

I don't mind if users want to tell others that they have posted in the wrong section or suggesting it. But what I do want is for them to also contribute to the actual thread. What does that mean? Well it means just don't post "You've posted in the wrong section" then say nothing else at all.

Might want to tell Chris then, since for some reason he's updated the rule to explicitly include any time that someone mentions a rule break regardless of other content :P

[xxMATTGxx]

Depends if you're using the Habbox Forum definition of "pointless". Saying "This is in the wrong forum" isn't pointless as the point they are conveying is that the thread is in the wrong forum. It's off-topic, but not pointless. It clearly violates a posting rule to just say that, and therefore you rely on the relevant rule (it's why the foreign languages rule was demolished). However, it definitely doesn't break the wannabe forum moderator rule, as helpfulness - no matter the strength - should be encouraged.

So in a thread saying "Where's the best place to get car insurance?" in the Discuss Anything forum, and there is a reply saying:

"This is in the wrong forum. But, I'd go check out GoCompare or Confused.com"

The post should be left alone, as it's a statement of fact that the real forum should be "Tourism / Pets / Vehicles", and by saying that they are stating a minutely helpful statement AND posting something on-topic - advice.

If they didn't say anything useful, PM them. Don't bother editing the post as mod edits are incredibly ugly on forums and a bit too discouraging. Why flog an idiot in front of a crowd?

I have no problems with:

"This is in the wrong forum. But, I'd go check out GoCompare or Confused.com"

In terms of mod edits and being ugly and stuff: I don't really see an argument for it and they don't really cause any issues.

---------- Post added 04-10-2012 at 05:47 PM ----------


Might want to tell Chris then, since for some reason he's updated the rule to explicitly include any time that someone mentions a rule break regardless of other content :P

I thought the rule update allowed it?

[mrwoooooooo]

from now on moderators should just leave richie alone or he'll kick up a fuss in feedback, instead of using the support tool.

[FlyingJesus]

The bit added was "You must not post a reply to tell another member that they have broken the rule, however if you find a thread which has already been posted then you MAY reply with a link to that thread however your post must also contain something which is relevant and on topic to the threads subject."

Which is essentially the complete opposite of what everyone agreed on, but with the clause that ought to be there existing only in reference to duplicate threads. Definitely could do with a fresh re-write

[Gibs960]

Personally I feel like the rules have been written so vaguely that they can be interpreted in many different ways.

Here's an example of what the Leave moderating to the moderators could be interpreted as: I gameplay and put it on YouTube, am I doing Syndicates job for him?

[Andii]

Well I got a infraction for editing my signature lol. A mod delete the image because it was 'too large' when I had it for like ever haha. So I changed the words to Andrew rocks didn't realise it wasn't allowed and got an infraction lol :(

[GoldenMerc]

Well I got a infraction for editing my signature lol. A mod delete the image because it was 'too large' when I had it for like ever haha. So I changed the words to Andrew rocks didn't realise it wasn't allowed and got an infraction lol :(

Thats funny, as you have 0 infractions...

[sex]

Thats funny, as you have 0 infractions...
people use say infraction when they mean warning nearly all the time lol, he probably meant that

[the.games]

people use say infraction when they mean warning nearly all the time lol, he probably meant that


Yup its a formal warning.

Informal Warning (PM)- Usernote - Is not shown
Formal Warning - Appears on profile and appears as a yellow card
Infraction- Adds to infraction total.

Hope this helped :)

[xxMATTGxx]

Well I got a infraction for editing my signature lol. A mod delete the image because it was 'too large' when I had it for like ever haha. So I changed the words to Andrew rocks didn't realise it wasn't allowed and got an infraction lol :(

It's fair.

[Andii]

It's fair.

ino lol =] last comment didnt make much of a point lol. what i meant was that yea there are some rules that are pointless but yet they have to be followed even if they are crap like that one i got lol :)

[Adam]

I was going to say it surprises me who are moderators these days but it really doesn't.

[Stephen]

Can anyone tell me how GoldenMerc passed his trial? My last pm I got from him looks like it was typed by a 5 year old

[lawrawrrr]

Can you fail someone for not being able to spell? That's as far as I'm going with my opinions on this one. :)

[Casanova]

Don't think you can dispute that edit really, there's a rule, your broke it. End of really no need for a feedback thread everytime someone doesn't like an edit we give them.


No, that's not true. Maybe if you're going to be concise you should at least back it up with real evidence?

When we have a discussion with someone we engage in several ways, not just verbal. So, I'll use tone, speed, facial expression and body language to CONVEY what I mean.
If I say "you're a complete cow!" but say it with a smirk, open arms, eyebrow raised and follow it by a laugh then I'm jesting. Whereas if I say "You're a complete cow!" and it's said with closed arms, feet pointed awkwardly, a closed smile and lowered eyebrows in a deep tone then I'm clearly being offensive and attempting to start an arguement.

Online it's common knowledge we can't use any of this, we can only go by context and what's intended.
If I'm joking around and comment after Richie just called me stupid "shut it you sl..ag!" it would be meant in a joke, now normally I could be open to infraction/warning ONLY due to it being an offensive word to read NOT because it's actually offensive TO say?

Whereas if I use "you're a complete ****!" in a discussion without any provocation or anything it's led on from I'm clearly targetting a member.




I think it's ludicrious that people wouldn't use context and leads to understand someone's intention and the outcome desired. If you can't read this, can't interpret then moderation isn't for you - if you want to dispute this or understand where I'd find evidence look for Redtiz; she clearly states (old) Habbo Moderators would look for inclination, smileys and sarcasm/context. Ie if I say "Oh noez I'm gonna hax you :p" it's clearly a joke. If i say "I'm going to hack you!" it's not so much....


People need to grow up, grow a set and stop being complete jobsworth. Chris of all people knows this so I don't understand Moderators wouldn't?

[dbgtz]

Depends how bad it is laura;

[Chippiewill]

Can anyone tell me how GoldenMerc passed his trial? My last pm I got from him looks like it was typed by a 5 year old
Maybe it was?

--

I hardly think that typing ability is a real criteria for a forum moderator. This is the most pointless complaint about a moderator I've ever heard.

[Casanova]

Ross has always had an issue with grammar and punctuality. It's not exactly a downfall considering it's quite common. Tad petty Richie.

[Samantha]

laura; I think it depends what department, News for example would need spelling and punctuation more whereas Events wouldn't. In this case I don't think moderation does (need it as) much.

[lawrawrrr]

@laura (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=61966); I think it depends what department, News for example would need spelling and punctuation more whereas Events wouldn't. In this case I don't think moderation does (need it as) much.

well obviously

but

this is a thread about moderation and Stephen! mentioned Ross' passing and grammar, so I was commenting on that...


--

It doesn't make him a bad moderator - maybe there should be PM layouts (precise ones). Or copy from previous usernotes, that's what I tended to do before I got into the swing of it!!

[David]

its not nice receiving a generic, ready made reply.

[Chris]

I haven't notice anything wrong with Ross' grammar really. If it was a serious issue then it may cause some problems but in this case it isn't.

[Casanova]

If his grammar was misunderstood such as "please dont insult others" turns into "plastic donut inside Orla". cos that's just graphic :(.

[lawrawrrr]

its not nice receiving a generic, ready made reply.
Can't win either way then... don't want generic, don't want misspellings...


I haven't notice anything wrong with Ross' grammar really. If it was a serious issue then it may cause some problems but in this case it isn't.
He knows that his spag isn't great but it's not his fault - like I said before it doesn't make him a bad moderator.


If his grammar was misunderstood such as "please dont insult others" turns into "plastic donut inside Orla". cos that's just graphic :(.
It's not that bad, just little misspellings (your/you're is the main one that bugs me).

[David]

"defiantly" :( GoldenMerc;

[Chris]

Can't win either way then... don't want generic, don't want misspellings...


He knows that his spag isn't great but it's not his fault - like I said before it doesn't make him a bad moderator.


It's not that bad, just little misspellings (your/you're is the main one that bugs me).

Exactly! He's doing a good job and thats what matters.

[Casanova]

I heard that he gave Chris favours in return for grammar lessons. Bless him!

No seriously, I think moderation does need to look more to the context and not to the sentence. that lead's to problems.

[lawrawrrr]

Exactly! He's doing a good job and thats what matters.

That's exactly what I thought. Little bit of coaching when it comes to the PMs and he'll be fab!


I heard that he gave Chris favours in return for grammar lessons. Bless him!

No seriously, I think moderation does need to look more to the context and not to the sentence. that lead's to problems.

LOL wouldn't surprise me ;) and yeah I totally agree, not 2 months ago people were complaining there weren't enough moderators, now there are and they're complaining about them!

[sex]

That's exactly what I thought. Little bit of coaching when it comes to the PMs and he'll be fab!



LOL wouldn't surprise me ;) and yeah I totally agree, not 2 months ago people were complaining there weren't enough moderators, now there are and they're complaining about them!

only one person has said anything lol

[Casanova]

only one person has said anything lol

You mustn't have noticed the 22 pages of this thread then eh? Clearly there's more than one person discussing moderation. As for the sarcasm I doubt it's needed. Sure there's somewhere you could be crawling up?

[lawrawrrr]

only one person has said anything lol

yes i never said otherwise

i said people were complaining about before (true) now people (person - same person?? idk wasnt there for that debarcle really) are complaining now.

[sex]

You mustn't have noticed the 22 pages of this thread then eh? Clearly there's more than one person discussing moderation. As for the sarcasm I doubt it's needed. Sure there's somewhere you could be crawling up?

I wasn't on about that, i was on about one person complaining about ross :)!
Yeah probably cause that's all people do on this forum according to you lol.... btw i still dunno who you are :S
laura; people makes it sounds like loads, i just meant its only Stephen and when has anyone taken him seriously lol

[GommeInc]

Have the rules been updated to reflect the flaws of the moderation text? It seems HxF moderation needs to remember what context means, a flaw they've had since records began. Go by the intentions of a post rather than what is in a post and go on a whim to try and find a rule break. Moderators need to learn to read into a discussion rather than quickly shoot off when they see a potential rule break which is just mild banter. Splashing the eye-sore red warning signs everywhere is crude and makes a forum page look somewhat revolting - HxF is the only forum I know that gives out mod warnings in posts like leaflets in the street, quite a few do things privately or add warnings which blend into posts (e.g. same colour scheme) rather than stick out like a sore thumb.

If we're starting the big grammar debate, Chris is guilty of bad sentence structure too, not that it matters :P

"Nick and GoldenMerc have passed their 2 week trials and are will be staying on as Forum Moderators. Well done!"

[Casanova]

Yeah if she/he goes theres a fly in my room f off then.. Personally I wouldn't want to see f off since its soo obvious. I'd class that as avoiding the filter.

Matt changed the rules about a year back to allow all abbreviations that didn't offend/target people to be allowed.
such as fs, fml, fo (in context).

maybe you should double check these rules!?
ps check one of my manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyy threads and you'll find it.

[Chris]

Matt changed the rules about a year back to allow all abbreviations that didn't offend/target people to be allowed.
such as fs, fml, fo (in context).

maybe you should double check these rules!?
ps check one of my manyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyy threads and you'll find it.

No he didn't :P The only abbreviations that are allowed are in the faqs!!

[GommeInc]

No he didn't :P The only abbreviations that are allowed are in the faqs!!
I really hope they're not. You should be focusing on context and allow for flexibility. Would you really ban/warn someone for using a new, harmless abbreviation? I hope not, blindly following a system shows ignorance rather than intelligence.

EDIT: As far as the FAQ goes, all abbreviations are fine. It is not okay to use them to insult others. Surely the Forum Manager of all people should know the rules and the FAQs as it's their department :/

[Zak]

who cares

Edited by Matts (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly!

[Chris]

I really hope they're not. You should be focusing on context and allow for flexibility. Would you really ban/warn someone for using a new, harmless abbreviation? I hope not, blindly following a system shows ignorance rather than intelligence.

EDIT: As far as the FAQ goes, all abbreviations are fine. It is not okay to use them to insult others. Surely the Forum Manager of all people should know the rules and the FAQs as it's their department :/

I do. - http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item2#faq_new_faq_item_swearin gandfilter

[sex]

I do. - http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item2#faq_new_faq_item_swearin gandfilter

"etc" would imply that others are also allowed to be used rather than the ones just listed there.....


It is allowed to use abbreviated phrases, phrases such as; LMFAO, FML, WTF, FFS, OMFG and IDGAF etc are all acceptable.
However, it is not allowed to use abbreviated phrases to insult others.

That rule obviously makes out that all abbreviated phrases are allowed..... just not too insult people :S

[Chris]

"etc" would imply that others are also allowed to be used rather than the ones just listed there.....



That rule obviously makes out that all abbreviated phrases are allowed..... just not too insult people :S

Well thats a change that was not known to me or the moderators by the looks of things.

[sex]

Well thats a change that was not known to me or the moderators by the looks of things.

I searched for when it was changed and that section was last changed in January? Maybe people should brush up on the rules again every time they return to the mod department if they don't already have to do that? IDK if that date is right for when it was last changed though, its what the forum says anyways...

[Chris]

I searched for when it was changed and that section was last changed in January? Maybe people should brush up on the rules again every time they return to the mod department if they don't already have to do that? IDK if that date is right for when it was last changed though, its what the forum says anyways...

I don't remember it ever being discussed with the department or even being mentioned to us at the time, but I could be wrong.

[GommeInc]

Thank you Comity for putting it so succinctly ;) Had etc not been there, the rule in itself would make no sense as there are loads of harmless abbreviations out there not already listed, hence moderators should act when an abbreviation is used to offend rather than used to make a statement.

If you weren't told about any changes Chris, blame upper-management who yet again are doing the job of the Forum Manager (which I've always argued is an incredibly pointless position as they lack any real power and seem to be a sub-division of Community Manager).

Also, when are the "What are your" threads going to be moved back to their respective forums? The two members who argued for the change seemed to of disappeared when their arguments broke down and it was revealed that the change was to spite new members (a terrible idea) and the change came about because of made up rule or a poorly interpreted account of a rule that currently exists.

[xxMATTGxx]

Thanks for the blame on upper-management but I do believe the change was put into place when Scott or Brandon was in the Forum Manager role.


Yes I think that's the way we're going to have to go otherwise it's far too confusing still :(, I've tweaked it slightly again. So to clarify, you can use all of these abbreviated phrases now including FU but if they are deemed to be used offensively they'll be removed under rule A1 - correct.

Isn't this is what we are talking about? If not then I'm not quite sure when it is changed but it wasn't personally changed by me. It was done by one of the Forum Managers for sure.

[The Don]

I think that change happened during the period when both Chris and Martin rage quit so it's not really anyone's fault, and if we are blaming someone, shouldn't Chris have looked at the rules again/any updates when he got forum manager?

[Chris]

Thank you Comity for putting it so succinctly ;) Had etc not been there, the rule in itself would make no sense as there are loads of harmless abbreviations out there not already listed, hence moderators should act when an abbreviation is used to offend rather than used to make a statement.

If you weren't told about any changes Chris, blame upper-management who yet again are doing the job of the Forum Manager (which I've always argued is an incredibly pointless position as they lack any real power and seem to be a sub-division of Community Manager).

Also, when are the "What are your" threads going to be moved back to their respective forums? The two members who argued for the change seemed to of disappeared when their arguments broke down and it was revealed that the change was to spite new members (a terrible idea) and the change came about because of made up rule or a poorly interpreted account of a rule that currently exists.

The role isn't a pointless one, but you're welcome to think what you like.

As for the "What are you" threads, they aren't being moved back.


Thanks for the blame on upper-management but I do believe the change was put into place when Scott or Brandon was in the Forum Manager role.



Isn't this is what we are talking about? If not then I'm not quite sure when it is changed but it wasn't personally changed by me. It was done by one of the Forum Managers for sure.

Thanks for finding that :P If that wasn't announced in the development section then no one was to know of the change officially.


I think that change happened during the period when both Chris and Martin rage quit so it's not really anyone's fault, and if we are blaming someone, shouldn't Chris have looked at the rules again/any updates when he got forum manager?

No because any major changes should have been announced, besides which I was never gone for long anyway so I was always kept in the loop on things.

[The Don]

The role isn't a pointless one, but you're welcome to think what you like.

As for the "What are you" threads, they aren't being moved back.



Thanks for finding that :P If that wasn't announced in the development section then no one was to know of the change officially.


No because any major changes should have been announced, besides which I was never gone for long anyway so I was always kept in the loop on things.

changing a rule slightly isn't a major change and if you kept in the loop we wouldn't be having this discussion

[GommeInc]

As for the "What are you" threads, they aren't being moved back.
So you listened to the two members whose reasons didn't make sense? The matter has actually been discussed for once and the change is now regarded as pointless. Seems a bit unfair :/


changing a rule slightly isn't a major change and if you kept in the loop we wouldn't be having this discussion
He's become political and put a spin on things :P He clearly isn't in the loop but he will claim he is. It's very Cameron-esque!

That said, knowing where the rule change came in doesn't really matter. The rule clearly reflects brandon's change, and that's all that really matters :/

[Chris]

changing a rule slightly isn't a major change and if you kept in the loop we wouldn't be having this discussion

If any rule is changed then its announced and the moderators are informed. If it's not then how do you expect anyone to know about it? I was kept in the loop on things which were actually announced, since this was not then no one was to know.


So you listened to the two members whose reasons didn't make sense? The matter has actually been discussed for once and the change is now regarded as pointless. Seems a bit unfair :/

We're not changing it back because theres no need to. It isn't having an effect on the forum activity and no one except you seems to care anyway.

[GommeInc]

We're not changing it back because theres no need to. It isn't having an effect on the forum activity and no one except you seems to care anyway.
There was no need to move the threads in the first place, so why make the change? As for having no effect on the forum activity, before it wasn't causing any problems hence it's change for the sake of change. You've sort of admitted you made the change for the sake of it, by suggesting it hasn't had an effect on forum activity... It really makes no sense :P


If any rule is changed then its announced and the moderators are informed. If it's not then how do you expect anyone to know about it? I was kept in the loop on things which were actually announced, since this was not then no one was to know.
So you weren't in the loop then? You're in the loop whether it's announced or not. It's sort of the definition and usage of the phrase...

[Chris]

There was no need to move the threads in the first place, so why make the change? As for having no effect on the forum activity, before it wasn't causing any problems hence it's change for the sake of change. You've sort of admitted you made the change for the sake of it, by suggesting it hasn't had an effect on forum activity... It really makes no sense :P


So you weren't in the loop then? You're in the loop whether it's announced or not. It's sort of the definition and usage of the phrase...

It was created because the threads generate no discussion and people didn't like the fact that you got post count from them. This wouldn't have been an issue if it wasn't habbox and its silly ways but to be honest I couldn't have cared less whether they were moved or not. At the end of the day the argument was that a forum is for discussion and those threads weren't creating any.

I was in the loop as to what was happening in the department...if moderators at the time would have been told about it then I'm sure I would have known, but it wasn't and nobody was aware of the change except for the people who read the feedback thread. Does it really matter anyway?

[GommeInc]

It was created because the threads generate no discussion and people didn't like the fact that you got post count from them. This wouldn't have been an issue if it wasn't habbox and its silly ways but to be honest I couldn't have cared less whether they were moved or not. At the end of the day the argument was that a forum is for discussion and those threads weren't creating any.
You should probably read the other thread about this by -:Undertaker:- as that's where the discussion lies. In short, the people who wanted the change said:

1. These threads are against the rules
2. People brag about post counts.
3. Post counts are important.
4. New users were abusing these threads.

However, these claims are incredibly weak.

Firstlly, they're not against the rules as the rule states that posts are pointless if they contain fewer than two words. There was an average of 5 in the "What are you listening to..." thread.
Secondly, no one brags about post counts.
Thirdly, the ranking system shows that post counts aren't that important. A bit of math in some of these threads and you would discover the average number of posts was about 938 posts per person a year, which isn't a lot.
Lastly, if new users are keeping active on the forum because of these threads then they should be praised as member count is incredibly important and to make change for the sake of change without considering member actively is completely ridiculous.

Also, the argument for "a forum is a place of discussion" is silly. A forum is actually a place to share ideas, tastes, hobbies, interests etc. etc. Whether discussion comes out of it is up to the users, and quite a few threads do not really make for a discussion - quite a few users as far as I can tell just make one post in a thread and that's it. Are you going to attack members in the Tech forum who reply to "help" threads once and never come back? That's hardly a discussion, more a contribution. Besides, if people are putting the effort into posting then surely these threads have a point?

[Chris]

As far as I'm concerned, if it hasn't dented forum activity then it really doesn't matter where the threads are.

[lawrawrrr]

Firstlly, they're not against the rules as the rule states that posts are pointless if they contain fewer than two words. There was an average of 5 in the "What are you listening to..." thread.
So a post can't be pointless if it has over 2 words? You're just being pedantic now.


Secondly, no one brags about post counts.
Yes they do.


Thirdly, the ranking system shows that post counts aren't that important. A bit of math in some of these threads and you would discover the average number of posts was about 938 posts per person a year, which isn't a lot.
Don't really get what your point here is. They are superfluous, yes I agree, but they should still reflect a user's actual activity, not the amount one person can spam a thread pointlessly.


Lastly, if new users are keeping active on the forum because of these threads then they should be praised as member count is incredibly important and to make change for the sake of change without considering member actively is completely ridiculous.
So you're suggesting rewarding and congratulating members for spamming with pointless posts? They can still post in them - like you said, post counts aren't important so why would a new member care if their post count went up or not? Your argument is full of loopholes.


Also, the argument for "a forum is a place of discussion" is silly. A forum is actually a place to share ideas, tastes, hobbies, interests etc. etc. Whether discussion comes out of it is up to the users, and quite a few threads do not really make for a discussion - quite a few users as far as I can tell just make one post in a thread and that's it. Are you going to attack members in the Tech forum who reply to "help" threads once and never come back? That's hardly a discussion, more a contribution. Besides, if people are putting the effort into posting then surely these threads have a point?
If a thread doesn't promote discussion at all, then it is a spam thread, at the end of the day. Threads such as - 'Who is you favourite artist?' would promote discussion (probably) as members could compare and suggest similar artists to people who share a similar music taste.

As for members who make 1 post then never return to the thread - the change wasn't made because of that; it was made because of the people that post thousands of times in it, boosting their post count so they can get extra privileges, and boast about it to other people. Contributing is fine; spamming is not.

Think about it - what's the POINT of a 'Post what you're listening to' thread? All other threads have a point - to let people know about the latest Habbo updates; to get help fixing a technology problem; whereas the threads in the Assorted/Misc forum literally have no point to them (aka pointless which is what we class as spam) as the majority of users couldn't give a flying rat's ass what everyone else is listening to.

[GommeInc]

As far as I'm concerned, if it hasn't dented forum activity then it really doesn't matter where the threads are.
It didn't cause any problem before hand, other than annoy a few people who seemed ignorant of the fact that posts aren't worth much, and that the threads weren't doing any damage to the forum. They could of kept where they were, but for some reason they were removed without any actual discussion. That's why it seems a change for the sake of it.

[Chris]

It didn't cause any problem before hand, other than annoy a few people who seemed ignorant of the fact that posts aren't worth much, and that the threads weren't doing any damage to the forum. They could of kept where they were, but for some reason they were removed without any actual discussion. That's why it seems a change for the sake of it.

Well if its not having any negative effects on the forum now then wouldn't we be changing it back for the sake of it?

[GommeInc]

Well if its not having any negative effects on the forum now then wouldn't we be changing it back for the sake of it?
Not all, not when you're reverting a change for the sake of it.


So a post can't be pointless if it has over 2 words? You're just being pedantic now.
Tell the people who were labelling them pointless under the forum definition. Under the real world definition, they're also not pointless.


Yes they do.
Proof? There's no point discussin g this if you're just going to speculate :/ If they do brag, why does it matter when the ranking system makes posts worthless? It's their time they're wasting.


Don't really get what your point here is. They are superfluous, yes I agree, but they should still reflect a user's actual activity, not the amount one person can spam a thread pointlessly.
Clearly you do get my point if you agree posts are worthless. Posting in these threads is forum activity. Trying to divide forum activity into two categories is just stupid, making a new definition of a word when activity means any activity, whether it serves a purpose or not. Also, these threads weren't spammed in. If they were, they weren't doing a very good job at it if the number of posts in these threads are anything to go by, and don't forget Top Posters!


So you're suggesting rewarding and congratulating members for spamming with pointless posts? They can still post in them - like you said, post counts aren't important so why would a new member care if their post count went up or not? Your argument is full of loopholes.
They're not pointless... A quick test: What is the point of the "What are you listening to?" thread? Answer: To post what are you listening to. If post counts are keeping people active then they are important to the individual, but in the grand scheme of things, post counts are worthless when put alongside the ranking system. Your argument is full of loopholes as you simply have no evidence to back your claims up, other than what seems to be a hatred towards new members and poor diction.


If a thread doesn't promote discussion at all, then it is a spam thread, at the end of the day. Threads such as - 'Who is you favourite artist?' would promote discussion (probably) as members could compare and suggest similar artists to people who share a similar music taste.
I'd like to know where this idea that threads are only there for discussion and that they must promote it comes from. Looking at many of the threads, they all promote discussion simply by existing - reading their titles gives a sense of what the thread is about, you can't write "Let us discuss" in every thread. Also, if the forum is only forum discussion - explain the "Post when Habbo is Down" thread. it doesn't promote discussion under your definition. But of course, you make changes to suit you, as you will no doubt reply to this with "Well it serves a purpose". A huge loophole :P

It's down to the users to create discussion. However, forums aren't only for discussion. Look over the forum and you will see many users make just one post in a thread and leave it at that. They are not engaging in a discussion, but they are sharing ideas, thoughts, interests and hobbies which is what a forum is all about. They are still contributing to the forum by saying what they are listening to, and if they are doing that then the threads clearly have a point to them.


As for members who make 1 post then never return to the thread - the change wasn't made because of that; it was made because of the people that post thousands of times in it, boosting their post count so they can get extra privileges, and boast about it to other people. Contributing is fine; spamming is not.
I never said it was. Again, no one boasts about their post count and no-one really spams. There are no actual privileges until you get to around Gold status. If the Top Posters list is anything to go by, most big time posters are posting in other forums than these threads and contributing throughout the forum. Focusing on actual discussion seems pedantic for a forum whose demographic is teenagers - this isn't a specialist forum on a topic, it's a general use forum. Also, are you not just speculating that people are trying to gain extra privileges? Can you provide actual evidence where people are saying they are only doing it for this reason? I suspect you can't.


Think about it - what's the POINT of a 'Post what you're listening to' thread? All other threads have a point - to let people know about the latest Habbo updates; to get help fixing a technology problem; whereas the threads in the Assorted/Misc forum literally have no point to them (aka pointless which is what we class as spam) as the majority of users couldn't give a flying rat's ass what everyone else is listening to.
What's the point? Easy, the point of the "post what you are listening to" thread is to "post what you are listening to". The clue is in the title. You seem to be mistaking the word or phrase of having a "point" for some draconian word and meaning. Making up definitions shows a flaw in an argument.

[Jordan]

We did a trial run and found it has no effects. So now we know and I think it should just go back to normal because the General section of the forum looks silly with that extra sub forum.

[sex]

We did a trial run and found it has no effects. So now we know and I think it should just go back to normal because the General section of the forum looks silly with that extra sub forum.

finally someone in the mod department who has an opinion of their own lol

[The Don]

Not all, not when you're reverting a change for the sake of it.


Tell the people who were labelling them pointless under the forum definition. Under the real world definition, they're also not pointless.


Proof? There's no point discussin g this if you're just going to speculate :/ If they do brag, why does it matter when the ranking system makes posts worthless? It's their time they're wasting.


Clearly you do get my point if you agree posts are worthless. Posting in these threads is forum activity. Trying to divide forum activity into two categories is just stupid, making a new definition of a word when activity means any activity, whether it serves a purpose or not. Also, these threads weren't spammed in. If they were, they weren't doing a very good job at it if the number of posts in these threads are anything to go by, and don't forget Top Posters!


They're not pointless... A quick test: What is the point of the "What are you listening to?" thread? Answer: To post what are you listening to. If post counts are keeping people active then they are important to the individual, but in the grand scheme of things, post counts are worthless when put alongside the ranking system. Your argument is full of loopholes as you simply have no evidence to back your claims up, other than what seems to be a hatred towards new members and poor diction.


I'd like to know where this idea that threads are only there for discussion and that they must promote it comes from. Looking at many of the threads, they all promote discussion simply by existing - reading their titles gives a sense of what the thread is about, you can't write "Let us discuss" in every thread. Also, if the forum is only forum discussion - explain the "Post when Habbo is Down" thread. it doesn't promote discussion under your definition. But of course, you make changes to suit you, as you will no doubt reply to this with "Well it serves a purpose". A huge loophole :P

It's down to the users to create discussion. However, forums aren't only for discussion. Look over the forum and you will see many users make just one post in a thread and leave it at that. They are not engaging in a discussion, but they are sharing ideas, thoughts, interests and hobbies which is what a forum is all about. They are still contributing to the forum by saying what they are listening to, and if they are doing that then the threads clearly have a point to them.


I never said it was. Again, no one boasts about their post count and no-one really spams. There are no actual privileges until you get to around Gold status. If the Top Posters list is anything to go by, most big time posters are posting in other forums than these threads and contributing throughout the forum. Focusing on actual discussion seems pedantic for a forum whose demographic is teenagers - this isn't a specialist forum on a topic, it's a general use forum. Also, are you not just speculating that people are trying to gain extra privileges? Can you provide actual evidence where people are saying they are only doing it for this reason? I suspect you can't.


What's the point? Easy, the point of the "post what you are listening to" thread is to "post what you are listening to". The clue is in the title. You seem to be mistaking the word or phrase of having a "point" for some draconian word and meaning. Making up definitions shows a flaw in an argument.

I took part in this same discussion not long ago and this is my last post on the matter...
Chris; There were no benefits whatsoever to justify moving those threads, the only possible outcome is that there will be less activity in those threads and therefore on the forum. Seems like a rather pointless decision since you yourself have mentioned that you only moved it for the sake of it. When the older members start dropping off you'll be left with hardly any regular users (this is going to happen regardless of these threads being moved but moving them can only act as a catalyst towards this), there is no possible way moving these threads promote forum activity (which is what you should be focussing on) rather than trying to cater for a couple of members who are annoyed by people 'pointlessly' posting in these threads as apparently there is a large amount of people boosting on here :rolleyes: We can't be picky over quality any more when the userbase is a shadow of its former self.

There's not really much point debating this GommeInc; as there's an excuse for every logical point.

There was a poll which favoured keeping the threads where they were

Response A Well they only voted for it to stay so they didn't lose their post count!!! (although there's no evidence to back this statement up whatsoever and even so, the reason doesn't matter considering a poll is to find out the majorities opinion, not the reason behind it)

Response B Well they didn't post in the thread so therefore their opinion is void (it's perfectly acceptable to ignore the silent majority and listen to the few outspoken members)

Response C .#%~ MANAGEMENT HAS FINAL SAY~%#. (we just made a poll for fun :rolleyes: )

[GommeInc]

We did a trial run and found it has no effects. So now we know and I think it should just go back to normal because the General section of the forum looks silly with that extra sub forum.
That's one thing that is a bit off-putting, it's quite an ugly forum with so few threads :P I've noticed a few people creating threads that could go in there, but they're on-topic in the forums they're posted in.

[Kyle]

Move them back, activity in them has decreased and those who posted them regularly aren't actually bothering to post in other sections like a few of them were previously.

[Chippiewill]

Move them back, activity in them has decreased and those who posted them regularly aren't actually bothering to post in other sections like a few of them were previously.
Forum statistics show that post amounts dropped negligibly (In fact it was the first week to not continue falling after the summer holiday boost), as in by 60 posts only, following the creation of the misc forum.

[GommeInc]

There seems to be a lot of support to have the threads moved back to their right place now. So much for their being no support for keeping them where they were :P The arguments seem far stronger than the odd few who wanted them moved in the first place.