Leave moderating to the moderators rule is ridiculous and lame and stupid

[lemons]

What is the point of that rule? What is the harm in someone saying 'Your post breaks the rules'?


what is wrong with trying to make the community a better place!

- - - Updated - - -

answer me NOW

[Kardan]

I agree. I see no benefit from that rule being implemented in today's threads.

[lemons]

if you give people warnings for telling somebody about the rules then rule breaks are going to be more common

[Evanora]

agreed its disgusting

[GoldenMerc]

such a stupid rule

[myles]

wtf who even reads the rules lol thts long

[e5]

Because your basically pointless posting tell someone they broke a rule when you can simply just report it. It gains nothing telling someone they broke the rules

[lemons]

Because your basically pointless posting tell someone they broke a rule when you can simply just report it. It gains nothing telling someone they broke the rules

if it's a spam thread then it is fine

you're just scared that the community will become so friendly that moderation won't be required and you will be left jobless

- - - Updated - - -

if you saw a boy beating up an old lady in the street would you let him carry on? or would you intervene and tell him to back off!

[LiquidLuck.]

Instead of doing that, just report the post because by posting about breaking the rules in a thread that has nothing to do with it, you are making a pointless post.

This rule annoyed me at first, but it does make sense if you properly think about it.

[The Don]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0

Why does everybody make threads about the most pointless things?!

[Kardan]

Because your basically pointless posting tell someone they broke a rule when you can simply just report it. It gains nothing telling someone they broke the rules

Pointless posting in the spam section?

- - - Updated - - -


Instead of doing that, just report the post because by posting about breaking the rules in a thread that has nothing to do with it, you are making a pointless post.

This rule annoyed me at first, but it does make sense if you properly think about it.

Once again, being warned for a pointless post in the spam forum makes absolutely no sense.

- - - Updated - - -



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0

Why does everybody make threads about the most pointless things?!

God lemons; making pointless feedback threads!

[LiquidLuck.]

I wasn't talking about the spam forum. ^

[Kardan]

We were, since all the posts PMed for this rule break today were in the spam forum.

And if essentially the rule is about not pointless posting, why are the posts not warned for pointless posting? Seems silly to have another rule which is just equivalent to a previous rule?

[God]

Well if they are replying to something and say ___; you cant advertise scam sites, but also have something to contribute to the thread then clearly it isn't pointless.

Anyways anyone just replying to like moderate someone should get a pointless post warning or w.e.

[GoldenMerc]

Well if they are replying to something and say ___; you cant advertise scam sites, but also have something to contribute to the thread then clearly it isn't pointless.

Anyways anyone just replying to like moderate someone should get a pointless post warning or w.e.

So now dragga is talking about a rule here, Am I allowed to comment to say no you cant advertise scam sites (pretty much confirming what he's said) or is that a warning too?

[myles]

i hate the pontless posting rule its ridic
i saw zitrone post a reply in kardans thread yday, it was a quote from the video which kardan posted and he got a pointless posting warning??? wtf???????

i dont even care about that pointless posting rule, i dont even know what they associate as pointless anymore. i just ignore the rule and post how i lyk its not like they edit the post or anything

[Mr-Trainor]

We were, since all the posts PMed for this rule break today were in the spam forum.

And if essentially the rule is about not pointless posting, why are the posts not warned for pointless posting? Seems silly to have another rule which is just equivalent to a previous rule?
This.

If it's such a pointless post then surely the pointless posting rule will deal with it :P. I can understand if someone decided to start PMing people pretending to be a mod, and telling them off for their posts and giving warnings etc, then yeah you'd deal with that. But just saying 'btw you're thread is in the wrong forum' or something is hardly a bad thing :P. And getting rid of the rule won't suddenly turn everyone in to a mod.

[Kardan]

This.

If it's such a pointless post then surely the pointless posting rule will deal with it :P. I can understand if someone decided to start PMing people pretending to be a mod, and telling them off for their posts and giving warnings etc, then yeah you'd deal with that. But just saying 'btw you're thread is in the wrong forum' or something is hardly a bad thing :P. And getting rid of the rule won't suddenly turn everyone in to a mod.

And someone pretending to be a mod is covered by not impersonating Habbox Staff/abusing modwarn features rule.

Essentially what's happened is that 5/6 people have been warned over pointless posting in the spam forum.

[LiquidLuck.]

''Spam Forum Specific Rules

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

~ You must follow the normal Forum Rules in this Forum, other than you are allowed to double posts and you can post pointlessly and off topic (excluding posts such as "aisgfhsuifh")''

So as long as the posts were not aergerg, they should be allowed. S:

[scottish]

What is the point of that rule? What is the harm in someone saying 'Your post breaks the rules'?


what is wrong with trying to make the community a better place!

- - - Updated - - -

answer me NOW

It's essentially pointless posting, if someones broke the rules use report you don't need to post saying YOU BROKE DA RULEZ PLIS NO

[lemons]

It's essentially pointless posting, if someones broke the rules use report you don't need to post saying YOU BROKE DA RULEZ PLIS NO

not if it is in spam forum

[MKR&*42]

Saying someone broke the rules and why they have (which is relevant to the thread at hand because obviously the rule break happened in said thread) shouldnt be pointless or a punishment.

[xxMATTGxx]

In spam forum = Not a problem

Outside of spam forum = If you are only going to reply with "You have broken a rule" - That when it's normally forced. If you say that plus also contribute to the actual thread then that's fine.

In my eyes anyway.

[GoldenMerc]

In spam forum = Not a problem

Outside of spam forum = If you are only going to reply with "You have broken a rule" - That when it's normally forced. If you say that plus also contribute to the actual thread then that's fine.

In my eyes anyway.
Does that mean il have my usernote removed, As calum had a pre-****** and gave me and aiden warnings

[Kardan]

In spam forum = Not a problem

Outside of spam forum = If you are only going to reply with "You have broken a rule" - That when it's normally forced. If you say that plus also contribute to the actual thread then that's fine.

In my eyes anyway.

Well, the moderators think it is an issue in spam, hence the thread. Hopefully this gets reversed then :)

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165819#post8165819
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165823#post8165823
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165824#post8165824
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165829#post8165829
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165834#post8165834

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031

And can my thread get reopened because all these 'rule breaks' have been dealt with?

[xxMATTGxx]

Does that mean il have my usernote removed, As calum had a pre-****** and gave me and aiden warnings


Well, the moderators think it is an issue in spam, hence the thread. Hopefully this gets reversed then :)

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165819#post8165819
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165823#post8165823
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165824#post8165824
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165829#post8165829
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165834#post8165834

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031

And can my thread get reopened because all these 'rule breaks' have been dealt with?

This is where Forum Management and the Forum Department start hating me ;)

[GoldenMerc]

This is where Forum Management and the Forum Department start hating me ;)

haters make you famous

[FlyingJesus]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT ban Kardan fire Warden (is he even staff) make e5 the AGM for community

4real though never understood this rule, surely it's helpful to let people know that their behaviour cannot continue, especially since a lot of users are a lot faster to the scene than the moderators

[Calum0812]

Does that mean il have my usernote removed

Hopefully this gets reversed then :)
We moderate to the current rules, and the current rules state:

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.
If the rule gets changed, we won't got and remove all of the usernotes that we've given out for it because when the usernote was given, the rule was active.


And can my thread get reopened because all these 'rule breaks' have been dealt with?
Done.

I think it's also worth noting that you don't get warnings or infractions for breaks of this rule but I agree it is a slightly pointless rule

[Kardan]

We moderate to the current rules, and the current rules state:

If the rule gets changed, we won't got and remove all of the usernotes that we've given out for it because when the usernote was given, the rule was active.


Done.

I think it's also worth noting that you don't get warnings or infractions for breaks of this rule

Then what is the point of the rule existing?

[GoldenMerc]

We moderate to the current rules, and the current rules state:

If the rule gets changed, we won't got and remove all of the usernotes that we've given out for it because when the usernote was given, the rule was active.


Done.

I think it's also worth noting that you don't get warnings or infractions for breaks of this rule but I agree it is a slightly pointless rule
You know when I quote someone else, Doesn't mean you answer. Its a question to Matt, I didn't quote you :s


This is where Forum Management and the Forum Department start hating me

[Calum0812]

Then what is the point of the rule existing?
Same for pointless posts, unless you pointless post like 6 times in one week, you ain't going to get anything more than a PM

[Kardan]

Also Calum0812; if you take the forum rules correctly, does that mean you'll actually warn people for discussing about meeting up/going on Skype since it breaks:

A6. Do not use this forum for any illegal practices, including but not limited to:
•Being involved in hacking or encouraging hacking.
•Breaking of the Habbo Way or encouraging T&C violation.
•Posting warez or other illegal downloads.

Whenever I try and get e5 to do it, he just ignores me :(

[Mr-Trainor]

We moderate to the current rules, and the current rules state:

If the rule gets changed, we won't got and remove all of the usernotes that we've given out for it because when the usernote was given, the rule was active.


Done.

I think it's also worth noting that you don't get warnings or infractions for breaks of this rule but I agree it is a slightly pointless rule
That's fair enough, but what's your opinion on the rule itself? Did you feel it was a pointless rulebreak to be dealing with?

EDIT
Oh wait sorry just read the last part of your post (A).

--


Also @Calum0812 (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=112488); if you take the forum rules correctly, does that mean you'll actually warn people for discussing about meeting up/going on Skype since it breaks:

A6. Do not use this forum for any illegal practices, including but not limited to:
•Being involved in hacking or encouraging hacking.
•Breaking of the Habbo Way or encouraging T&C violation.
•Posting warez or other illegal downloads.

Whenever I try and get e5 to do it, he just ignores me :(
I noticed that too :P

[Calum0812]

Also @Calum0812 (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=112488); if you take the forum rules correctly, does that mean you'll actually warn people for discussing about meeting up/going on Skype since it breaks:

A6. Do not use this forum for any illegal practices, including but not limited to:
•Being involved in hacking or encouraging hacking.
•Breaking of the Habbo Way or encouraging T&C violation.
•Posting warez or other illegal downloads.
Valid point, should be looked at. To add, the rule below where it says about warez and other illegal download links is very sketchy, as discussed in another feedback thread. I'll have a look now.


Whenever I try and get e5 to do it, he just ignores me :(
I'm not going to agree or disagree with what you're saying. All I will say is if your post reports are being ignored or dismissed then raise it in the Support Forum

[MKR&*42]

SHUTUP TOM I HAVENT BEEN STAFF FOR AGES FlyingJesus;
--
Oh this isnt spam is it

OT; i still disagree with this rule.

[Kardan]

Valid point, should be looked at. To add, the rule below where it says about warez and other illegal download links is very sketchy, as discussed in another feedback thread. I'll have a look now.


I'm not going to agree or disagree with what you're saying. All I will say is if your post reports are being ignored or dismissed then raise it in the Support Forum

I've not actually gone round and reported people for breaking the Habbo way, because I'd be here all day.

[Calum0812]

I've not actually gone round and reported people for breaking the Habbo way, because I'd be here all day.
So when you say Elliott is ignoring you, what is he ignoring if you're not reporting the posts??

[Kardan]

So when you say Elliott is ignoring you, what is he ignoring if you're not reporting the posts??

I tag him whenever I quote someone breaking the Habbo Way :P But I'll spam post report with them all if it makes you guys feel better :)

[Calum0812]

I tag him whenever I quote someone breaking the Habbo Way :P But I'll spam post report with them all if it makes you guys feel better :)
Doesn't bother me, I don't see post reports :P

Oh and RE: the warez rule, here is the extract from our handbook, which is available in places on the forum (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=6163256#post6163256) before I get told I'm leaking info lol

Hi, I need a serial/crack for photoshop.

Hey you can use this serial 83jDim-33nde-3j3ne - Not allowed

Hey look at this www.serial.co.uk/photoshop-serial.html (http://www.serial.co.uk/photoshop-serial.html) - Not allowed

Download it from my site, www.mysite.com/photoshop.zip (http://www.mysite.com/photoshop.zip) - Not allowed

Why don't you go search for "photoshop crack" on isohunt/piratebay/rapidshare/surfthechannel/google/limewire. - Allowed

myserials.net is a site i use, try over there. - Allowed

[GommeInc]

Nothing wrong with a friendly reminder by members. I guess it depends on the rule that the member has broken? Telling a member they have pointlessly posted is arguably pointless under the rule as it's off-topic, but if a member posts a link to a retro then maybe it should be allowed? Especially if the member who posted the retro made a genuine mistake thinking it was fine to do so. Context will make it understandable.

How you would edit the rule to make sense of what is doing the moderator's job is another problem altogether :P

[e5]

if it's a spam thread then it is fine

you're just scared that the community will become so friendly that moderation won't be required and you will be left jobless

- - - Updated - - -

if you saw a boy beating up an old lady in the street would you let him carry on? or would you intervene and tell him to back off!
Telling someone they broke a rule ain't really gonna help. And whatever is spam idk they're not my rules lol. It might aswel just be one rule for all

[FlyingJesus]

Nor does it do any harm, and no they're not your rules but you're supposed to know them and enforce them properly

[Yawn]

wat if it was a post which said something else so it wasnt pointless as well as saying that a person was rule breaking

[Drewar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0

Why does everybody make threads about the most pointless things?!

Yes. This response made my day.

I can't help but laugh at the same old crew who consistently break the same rules and then make threads complaining about the rules and arguing with / teaming up against the mods instead of just following the damn rules. If you don't like the way the forum is run, then leave. Seriously. It's not that difficult.

It's always the same people moaning and groaning about every single aspect of Habbox. Not just about the rules, either.

Phil put a lot of time and effort in to a forum activity recently (the Jungle one) and instead of a "thank you for all of your hard work" thread he was greeted with a huge feedback thread moaning about how he could have done it better.

The people who volunteer to run this website are just that, volunteers. They are not paid for their efforts, they are here because Habbox is a community that they care about and want to be a part of and have fun while doing it.

People who consistently break the rules, post negativity, criticize admin and management, complain about radio, events, etc. need to realize that the workers here are real people who have their own lives and commitments outside of Habbox. If you think you can do a better job, then apply for the entry-level volunteer position. Once you're hired, you can spend countless hours working away for thankless complainers, and perhaps if you last long enough you'll move up to a senior role, and perhaps management. Then, once you're management, you can be involved with the decision making process in terms of rules.

The people who are in management have already proved their dedication and love for the site, or else they would not have been promoted. They have Habbox's best interest in mind. They don't make rules just to annoy you or make you angry. They have good reason for the rules that are in place. Enough with the constant moaning.

tl;dr - If you think you can do a better job running the site, apply for a job and start working your way up like the current and previous management who made the rules did. If you're too lazy to do that and you still hate everything about the site and feel the constant need to complain about it, do us all a favor and leave.

[xxMATTGxx]

wat if it was a post which said something else so it wasnt pointless as well as saying that a person was rule breaking

I think I said that was fine to do so in my post.

[Jordan]

I'd rather have one person contacting a user about a rule break rather than all the members telling them as well as a moderator coming along and editing the post and telling the user the same thing.

Nothing wrong with the rule at the moment. Just report the rule break and let one person sort out the problem. Keep it consistent.

However the thing that happened in spam was ridiculous. They were clearly just messing about and didn't need all those edits and pms imo.


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[Kardan]

Yes. This response made my day.

I can't help but laugh at the same old crew who consistently break the same rules and then make threads complaining about the rules and arguing with / teaming up against the mods instead of just following the damn rules. If you don't like the way the forum is run, then leave. Seriously. It's not that difficult.

It's always the same people moaning and groaning about every single aspect of Habbox. Not just about the rules, either.

Phil put a lot of time and effort in to a forum activity recently (the Jungle one) and instead of a "thank you for all of your hard work" thread he was greeted with a huge feedback thread moaning about how he could have done it better.

The people who volunteer to run this website are just that, volunteers. They are not paid for their efforts, they are here because Habbox is a community that they care about and want to be a part of and have fun while doing it.

People who consistently break the rules, post negativity, criticize admin and management, complain about radio, events, etc. need to realize that the workers here are real people who have their own lives and commitments outside of Habbox. If you think you can do a better job, then apply for the entry-level volunteer position. Once you're hired, you can spend countless hours working away for thankless complainers, and perhaps if you last long enough you'll move up to a senior role, and perhaps management. Then, once you're management, you can be involved with the decision making process in terms of rules.

The people who are in management have already proved their dedication and love for the site, or else they would not have been promoted. They have Habbox's best interest in mind. They don't make rules just to annoy you or make you angry. They have good reason for the rules that are in place. Enough with the constant moaning.

tl;dr - If you think you can do a better job running the site, apply for a job and start working your way up like the current and previous management who made the rules did. If you're too lazy to do that and you still hate everything about the site and feel the constant need to complain about it, do us all a favor and leave.

So basically, all staff and management are always right, and there's no need for feedback ever?

[Nick]

I do think the rule is fine. I agree with it not being used in spam as most of the spam threads are jokey although I think the rule itself needs clarification rather than saying 'if you see someone break a rule use the report button' maybe it could include some examples of what you can do/say and what you can't say.

[Kardan]

I'd rather have one person contacting a user about a rule break rather than all the members telling them as well as a moderator coming along and editing the post and telling the user the same thing.

Nothing wrong with the rule at the moment. Just report the rule break and let one person sort out the problem. Keep it consistent.

However the thing that happened in spam was ridiculous. They were clearly just messing about and didn't need all those edits and pms imo.


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

Well, the rule in itself is okay, you don't want people pointlessly posting (assuming we're outside of spam) something like 'YOU BROKE THE RULES!!!', but surely, it should be part of the pointless posting rule?

I mean, we don't have a rule saying: 'You may not ask someone how they are unless you add something to your post which is relevant to the thread topic', that's because it would fall under pointless posting :P

The 'Leave moderating' rule has nothing to do with people trying to be like moderators, it's simply to stop pointless posting, so seems strange that there's a rule which allows moderators to punish pointless posting in spam and seems strange that we need that rule, when the pointless posting rule would already cover people just saying 'YOU BROKE THE RULES!!!'

- - - Updated - - -


I do think the rule is fine. I agree with it not being used in spam as most of the spam threads are jokey although I think the rule itself needs clarification rather than saying 'if you see someone break a rule use the report button' maybe it could include some examples of what you can do/say and what you can't say.

From a SMOD position then, can you tell me why the rule is fine? Like, what is the rule setting out to accomplish? Because I'm struggling to see it from any other way than my point of view here :P

[Mr-Trainor]

I do think the rule is fine. I agree with it not being used in spam as most of the spam threads are jokey although I think the rule itself needs clarification rather than saying 'if you see someone break a rule use the report button' maybe it could include some examples of what you can do/say and what you can't say.
I think that'd just be unnecessarily restricting things even more tbh.

[Jordan]

Not sure if this was posted already but I'm sure when I was a moderator we allowed people to tell people that they broke the rules if they were also contributing to the thread.

I understand what you're saying but there is a report system to use. Instead of typing it out just let a moderator know, or you have multiple people telling them they broke the rules. Can get annoying if you are that person getting told.


Sent from my iPhone 5s using Tapatalk

[Mr-Trainor]

Yes. This response made my day.

I can't help but laugh at the same old crew who consistently break the same rules and then make threads complaining about the rules and arguing with / teaming up against the mods instead of just following the damn rules. If you don't like the way the forum is run, then leave. Seriously. It's not that difficult.

It's always the same people moaning and groaning about every single aspect of Habbox. Not just about the rules, either.

Phil put a lot of time and effort in to a forum activity recently (the Jungle one) and instead of a "thank you for all of your hard work" thread he was greeted with a huge feedback thread moaning about how he could have done it better.

The people who volunteer to run this website are just that, volunteers. They are not paid for their efforts, they are here because Habbox is a community that they care about and want to be a part of and have fun while doing it.

People who consistently break the rules, post negativity, criticize admin and management, complain about radio, events, etc. need to realize that the workers here are real people who have their own lives and commitments outside of Habbox. If you think you can do a better job, then apply for the entry-level volunteer position. Once you're hired, you can spend countless hours working away for thankless complainers, and perhaps if you last long enough you'll move up to a senior role, and perhaps management. Then, once you're management, you can be involved with the decision making process in terms of rules.

The people who are in management have already proved their dedication and love for the site, or else they would not have been promoted. They have Habbox's best interest in mind. They don't make rules just to annoy you or make you angry. They have good reason for the rules that are in place. Enough with the constant moaning.

tl;dr - If you think you can do a better job running the site, apply for a job and start working your way up like the current and previous management who made the rules did. If you're too lazy to do that and you still hate everything about the site and feel the constant need to complain about it, do us all a favor and leave.
I agree to an extent, but constructive feedback is actually extremely valuable and you'd be wrong to dismiss it imo. You shouldn't have to become staff in order to give feedback.

- - - Updated - - -


I'd rather have one person contacting a user about a rule break rather than all the members telling them as well as a moderator coming along and editing the post and telling the user the same thing.
I doubt that everyone will suddenly start telling everyone else off every time they break a rule :P. If they do so without contributing to the thread, it's a pointless/off topic post. If they take things further they could be impersonating staff. I actually can't see the purpose of the rule :P.

[Nick]

From a SMOD position then, can you tell me why the rule is fine? Like, what is the rule setting out to accomplish? Because I'm struggling to see it from any other way than my point of view here :P

As Jordan had said you are allowed to post in a thread like 'this would be better in this section' and post a link only if you are relevant to the topic (Which is posted somewhere in the habbo section). Rule breaks i would deal with would be if some one said 'don't avoid the forum filter' 'don't post pointlessly' 'don't be rude to others' even if it was on topic.

[Kardan]

As Jordan had said you are allowed to post in a thread like 'this would be better in this section' and post a link only if you are relevant to the topic (Which is posted somewhere in the habbo section). Rule breaks i would deal with would be if some one said 'don't avoid the forum filter' 'don't post pointlessly' 'don't be rude to others' even if it was on topic.

But they would all be classified as pointless posting, because they wouldn't be adding anything to the topic or discussions happening in the thread?

[Nick]

But they would all be classified as pointless posting, because they wouldn't be adding anything to the topic or discussions happening in the thread?

If they so happened to be relevant to the topic I would only edit the bit where the rule break is and leave the rest so it would still be ontopic.

I do see your point of it being related to pointless posting.

[GommeInc]

Do moderators have some sort of document telling them how to operate that further explains the rules? You could just take down the opinions in this thread (edits to posts in Spam being one) and add it to whatever guides the moderators. Seeing as Spam isn't meant to be serious editing posts telling people they're breaking the rules when they say that another member is breaking the rules seems a bit counter-productive in that area.

Also, you could break up that rule to further explain what rules are more serious than others e.g. telling a member they're pointless posting is just subjective and ironically pointless in itself, so that should deserve a warning from a moderator. But, if a member tells someone posting personal details they're breaking the rules then maybe this shouldn't have a warning as that's more serious?

[Kardan]

If they so happened to be relevant to the topic I would only edit the bit where the rule break is and leave the rest so it would still be ontopic.

I do see your point of it being related to pointless posting.

Oh, so if the thread was 'Post what you watched on TV'

And I said: 'I watched Bargain hunt, oh FlyingJesus, you just avoided the filter'

I would get warned for that? Even though xxMATTGxx just said that was fine? :P

The way I see the rule is, we have two rules. The pointless posting rule, let's say that's equivalent to 'Don't post a number higher than 4'. And the 'Leave moderating rule': 'Don't post a number higher than 6'.

What's the point of 'Don't post a number higher than 6' rule if we have a 'Don't post a number higher than 4' rule? Doesn't really serve a purpose.

[Nick]

Oh, so if the thread was 'Post what you watched on TV'

And I said: 'I watched Bargain hunt, oh FlyingJesus, you just avoided the filter'

I would get warned for that? Even though xxMATTGxx just said that was fine? :P

The way I see the rule is, we have two rules. The pointless posting rule, let's say that's equivalent to 'Don't post a number higher than 4'. And the 'Leave moderating rule': 'Don't post a number higher than 6'.

What's the point of 'Don't post a number higher than 6' rule if we have a 'Don't post a number higher than 4' rule? Doesn't really serve a purpose.

I disagree with xxMATTGxx then.

[Mr-Trainor]

Oh btw just thought I'd mention that the second part of the rule is definitely important;

"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."



So when I said I can't see the purpose of the rule, I'm referring to the first part :P.

[Kardan]

Seems strange then that because of:

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.

Then it means this post is fine: "Hey, this is already posted here: *link* - Yes, I also love tacos" is fine.
But this post: "Hey, you've avoided the filter - Yes I also love tacos" is not fine.

And yes, Mr-Trainor; - I didn't realise that the abuse of mod features was in the same rule - clearly that is needed. I think everyone is luckily talking about the 1st part :)

[lemons]

Why does everybody make threads about the most pointless things?!

oh please you replied 58 times to the "Get rid of post your... junk threads"

now that is SAD

[Nick]

Seems strange then that because of:


Then it means this post is fine: "Hey, this is already posted here: *link* - Yes, I also love tacos" is fine.
But this post: "Hey, you've avoided the filter - Yes I also love tacos" is not fine.

And yes, Mr-Trainor; - I didn't realise that the abuse of mod features was in the same rule - clearly that is needed. I think everyone is luckily talking about the 1st part :)

Posting a thread in the wrong section isn't breaking the rules. There isn't a rule in the rules section where it says 'Don't post in the wrong section otherwise you will receive a usernote' which is why you are allowed to say that. Where as avoiding the filter is breaking the rules.

[Kardan]

Posting a thread in the wrong section isn't breaking the rules. There isn't a rule in the rules section where it says 'Don't post in the wrong section otherwise you will receive a usernote' which is why you are allowed to say that. Where as avoiding the filter is breaking the rules.

I'm not talking about posting in the wrong section, I'm talking about someone creating a thread that has already been created.

[Nick]

I'm not talking about posting in the wrong section, I'm talking about someone creating a thread that has already been created.

Thats not breaking a rule either?

[Kardan]

So people can create duplicate threads and not get into trouble? News to me.

Then why does that part have to be specified in the rules? If posting a duplicate thread isn't breaking a rule, why is it included in the section about 'Telling people not to break the rules' - surely that's a void example? I mean, surely everyone would be free to post 'This has already been posted here:' - since that's not telling someone they've broke a rule?

[Nick]

I hate it when people refer to breaking a rule to getting in trouble. I hate it when people take it the wrong way from a friendly PM and get defensive. I'd say it would fall under the roof of posting threads in the wrong section.. you don't get a usernote for it so i really don't consider it as breaking the rules.

[Drewar]

So basically, all staff and management are always right, and there's no need for feedback ever?


I agree to an extent, but constructive feedback is actually extremely valuable and you'd be wrong to dismiss it imo. You shouldn't have to become staff in order to give feedback.
- - - Updated - - -
I doubt that everyone will suddenly start telling everyone else off every time they break a rule :P. If they do so without contributing to the thread, it's a pointless/off topic post. If they take things further they could be impersonating staff. I actually can't see the purpose of the rule :P.

Of course not (to answer Kardan). I have no problem with people bringing up topics for serious, constructive discussion about a topic.

However, constructive criticism or feedback is extremely rare around here. It is the same people who are constantly creating threads moaning about every little detail that bothers me. You’ll see an entire thread made for something like: “OMG MY ONE WORD POST WAS MARKED AS POINTLESS OMG I DEMAND CLARIFICATION RIGHT NOW THE RULES SHOULD BE CHANGED OMG @MATTG THIS IS REDICULOUS”… Really? Your spam post being marked as spam is ridiculous? You don’t get any sort of negative consequence for pointless posting (no infractions or warnings or anything) as long as you don’t excessively do it over and over again, so why does it even matter to you? Yeah, one could argue that the rule is pointless. But it is there for a reason. It is there for the person who takes rule breaking to the extreme or continuously posts pointlessly. If you complain about "always" getting your posts marked as spam... then here's an idea... try creating a post that isn't spam and actually has some thought in it and promotes discussion.

That's the same reason the "Leave the moderating to the moderators" rule is in place. Sure, a lot of times the rule probably doesn't need to be strictly enforced, but it is there for the people who take it to the extreme.

Some people are too quick to want to change the rules around here simply because they constantly break them and are too lazy and stubborn/argumentative to change their habits. They think the rules should change and be tailored for them.

When you go for a hike on a mountain and the terrain doesn't suit your needs (it is too hard for you to hike), you don't go home and write a letter to the committee in charge of taking care of the mountain asking them to change the shape of the mountain for you, do you? Actually I shouldn't even ask that question, because some members on here probably would do that because they are so self-absorbed and stubborn.

[Kardan]

However, constructive criticism or feedback is extremely rare around here.

I'd like to disagree, I think the majority of feedback threads these day have constructive criticism/feedback, rarely do you see a thread say: 'CHANGE THIS BECAUSE IT SUCKS'.

[The Don]

oh please you replied 58 times to the "Get rid of post your... junk threads"

now that is SAD

Replied telling them to leave it as it is, I wasn't trying to get ridiculously trivial things changed :S

And if you want to talk about posts, you've got over half my post count when you've had your account 2 years and i've have mine for 9 :rolleyes:

[wordofwisdom]

i see no issue with it i mean sometimes people question what they have done wrong i can see the positive and negative side form this but i think you should at least inform them about the rule break

[Drewar]

I'd like to disagree, I think the majority of feedback threads these day have constructive criticism/feedback, rarely do you see a thread say: 'CHANGE THIS BECAUSE IT SUCKS'.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but mine is different from yours. I suppose we are at an impasse.

As I see it, there is a distinct group of people who consistently make demands and negative comments. Even if a thread starts off as constructive by talking about general suggestions for a department or specific issue that needs to be addressed within a department, it almost always takes a turn for the personal/negative and ends up attacking a specific staff member or group of staff members, which I think is completely unnecessary.

People around here are entitled, and I think that they should realize that Habbox is run by hardworking volunteers who don't "owe" anything to the people who are constantly bringing in negative energy and breaking the rules. They should appreciate the efforts of staff more, and if they feel really passionate about changing something, they should express themselves in a clear and constructive way that does not lead to specific staff members or group of staff members being insulted.

[Kardan]

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but mine is different from yours. I suppose we are at an impasse.

As I see it, there is a distinct group of people who consistently make demands and negative comments. Even if a thread starts off as constructive by talking about general suggestions for a department or specific issue that needs to be addressed within a department, it almost always takes a turn for the personal/negative and ends up attacking a specific staff member or group of staff members, which I think is completely unnecessary.

People around here are entitled, and I think that they should realize that Habbox is run by hardworking volunteers who don't "owe" anything to the people who are constantly bringing in negative energy and breaking the rules. They should appreciate the efforts of staff more, and if they feel really passionate about changing something, they should express themselves in a clear and constructive way that does not lead to specific staff members or group of staff members being insulted.

Well, threads not having constructive feedback is an entirely different thing to users dragging in certain members of staff. But that also depends on the situation, for example there's a difference between saying "Phil, when you do the next I'm a Habbo you need to do this and this differently" to "calum0812 is an awful moderator". The first sentence is acceptable in a feedback thread, the 2nd sentence, not so much.

[Drewar]

Well, threads not having constructive feedback is an entirely different thing to users dragging in certain members of staff. But that also depends on the situation, for example there's a difference between saying "Phil, when you do the next I'm a Habbo you need to do this and this differently" to "calum0812 is an awful moderator". The first sentence is acceptable in a feedback thread, the 2nd sentence, not so much.

I disagree. Phil doesn't need to do anything. He isn't a slave to the forum members. He's putting on the event because he wants to. Not because he needs to. And even if it was necessary for him to put on an event, it isn't necessary for him to do it your way. I'm sure Phil (just using him as an example) designed the event with the intent of it being fair and fun for all participants, even if something inadvertently wasn't fair or fun. I'm sure if someone politely pointed it out to him (rather than "demand" something be changed) that he would incorporate it in to the next one.

An acceptable way of putting it would be "Phil, I liked the I'm a Habbo event because of reasons a,b and c, but I think it could be even better if next time you tried incorporating suggestions x,y,z".

[Kardan]

I disagree. Phil doesn't need to do anything. He isn't a slave to the forum members. He's putting on the event because he wants to. Not because he needs to. And even if it was necessary for him to put on an event, it isn't necessary for him to do it your way. I'm sure Phil (just using him as an example) designed the event with the intent of it being fair and fun for all participants, even if something inadvertently wasn't fair or fun. I'm sure if someone politely pointed it out to him (rather than "demand" something be changed) that he would incorporate it in to the next one.

An acceptable way of putting it would be "Phil, I liked the I'm a Habbo event because of reasons a,b and c, but I think it could be even better if next time you tried incorporating suggestions x,y,z".

Did you read the I'm a Habbo feedback thread? Because that's how it looked like to me? I don't recall anyone demanding anything.

[karter]

Because your basically pointless posting tell someone they broke a rule when you can simply just report it. It gains nothing telling someone they broke the rules

not worth a warning either

- - -

When I made a thread about this like 1-2 years ago the reason given was that "some users pretend to be moderators"

now the reason changed

GET REAL

[Drewar]

Did you read the I'm a Habbo feedback thread? Because that's how it looked like to me? I don't recall anyone demanding anything.

Did I say that people demanded things in that thread? No.

The only reason I mentioned that event at all was because you brought it up as an example. A hypothetical situation. And your example highlighted the general entitlement attitude of many people of the forum.

Anyways, I don't have the time or energy to engage in such a trivial argument on the internet any longer.

I've stated my opinion. If you don't agree with it, that's your prerogative :)

[Kardan]

Did I say that people demanded things in that thread? No.

Well, you did say:


"I'm sure if someone politely pointed it out to him (rather than "demand" something be changed) that he would incorporate it in to the next one."

So I took that as you saying people demanded things in that thread.

And I'm not sure I'd call this an argument either, but ah well :P

[Inseriousity.]

Which is exactly what people said in that feedback thread. They said what they liked, they said what they'd do next time. He didn't have to host the event but if he wants to host another one then there's feedback there to make the next one better. I think using that example people appreciated that actually he went out of his way to do something extra, shake things up a little and naturally that also meant that things didn't always go to plan or could've been planned better. Where it's mostly negative is when there's little effort or no sign of progress. The achievements system is going to be released soon, I am sure there is going to be feedback about that but there will be feedback precisely because it's different and new and we will also respect that they put the effort and work in to achieve that. I think generally this forum is tough, there can be a lot of sarcasm and people entrenched in a certain viewpoint but generally it's also fair and appreciates hard work and creativity.

As for the rule, I personally think it's nicer to have threads that don't have a couple of people telling someone that their post is breaking the rules when there's a report system there already that would take care of that.

[e5]

not worth a warning either

- - -

When I made a thread about this like 1-2 years ago the reason given was that "some users pretend to be moderators"

now the reason changed

GET REAL


:S I wasn't a mod 1-2 years ago lmao. It is additional because people try to impersonate

[Kardan]

:S I wasn't a mod 1-2 years ago lmao. It is additional because people try to impersonate

Who on earth has try to impersonate a moderator?

[MKR&*42]

Who on earth has try to impersonate a moderator?

I have seen people attempt it with the [modwarn] things (that bring up the red bar with the warning message in a thread), but this was a very long time ago.

[Kardan]

I have seen people attempt it with the [modwarn] things (that bring up the red bar with the warning message in a thread), but this was a very long time ago.

And there's the rule for that. But to suggest that the first bit 'Don't tell people they've broke the rules' is so people can impersonate moderators seems crazy :P

[MKR&*42]

And there's the rule for that. But to suggest that the first bit 'Don't tell people they've broke the rules' is so people can impersonate moderators seems crazy :P

Edited by Kardan (General Manager): Don't impersonate moderators using the old style of mod editing that is no longer used.

You actually tricked me with that red font I legit thought you'd been warned till i read thrice LOL.
--
And yeah it is crazy :P

[nvrspk4]

From what I remember the rule was implemented because many people would post and tell off others for their rulebreaks rather than contributing to the thread. Additionally, threads might be derailed by debates on the rule itself (ie: is the thread in the wrong forum, why there was a double post, etc.) Furthermore, users might misinterpret or misapply a rule, meaning a moderator might be better suited to handle it. Those to me seem like valid benefits to the rule, and reasons why the rule encourages a more productive dialogue on the forum, which is what the Forum Rules should seek to do.

So those are the benefits (and perhaps there are more). Are there negatives that outweigh it? In what way does this rule impede constructive dialogue, or take away from a discussion going on in a thread? If the positives outweigh the benefits it'd be fair to say the rule isn't so stupid :)

[Kardan]

From what I remember the rule was implemented because many people would post and tell off others for their rulebreaks rather than contributing to the thread. Additionally, threads might be derailed by debates on the rule itself (ie: is the thread in the wrong forum, why there was a double post, etc.) Furthermore, users might misinterpret or misapply a rule, meaning a moderator might be better suited to handle it. Those to me seem like valid benefits to the rule, and reasons why the rule encourages a more productive dialogue on the forum, which is what the Forum Rules should seek to do.

So those are the benefits (and perhaps there are more). Are there negatives that outweigh it? In what way does this rule impede constructive dialogue, or take away from a discussion going on in a thread? If the positives outweigh the benefits it'd be fair to say the rule isn't so stupid :)

As you said the positives are certainly there, but all the situations it solves are covered by the 'pointless posting' rule. If people aren't contributing to the thread, that's pointless posting. Now, because the rule is in place, it means people are getting warned in spam for what is essentially pointless posting. The first part of the rule (Don't tell people they've broke a rule) doesn't add anything that the pointless posting rule doesn't already cover.

[nvrspk4]

As you said the positives are certainly there, but all the situations it solves are covered by the 'pointless posting' rule. If people aren't contributing to the thread, that's pointless posting. Now, because the rule is in place, it means people are getting warned in spam for what is essentially pointless posting. The first part of the rule (Don't tell people they've broke a rule) doesn't add anything that the pointless posting rule doesn't already cover.

But if someone has posted that the thread is in the wrong forum, and someone else replies that yes it is in the right forum, can you truly say that it's a pointless post? I feel like that's a pretty stretched interpretation of the rules. Plus, technically saying that someone has posted in the wrong forum is contributing something to the thread as you're pointing out an issue with the subject matter. I understand where you're coming from re: it being a pointless post, I was considering it as well, but it seems like it's a bit convoluted defining it as a pointless post. Which makes me feel like for the sake of clarity and straightforward rules, it's better to just have the rule separately, since I don't see a huge downside to it being enforced.

Also another thing, though I'm not really sure where I fall on this since self-policing can be a good thing, but a thought to throw out there. Inter-user discipline can lead to bad feelings and unnecessary criticism. For example, a moderator can see a user's rule-break history and react appropriately, and can also be trained to be gentler with newer members, and thus might be a better figure to handle a post in the wrong forum, rather than the new user being jumped on by other members of the community.

I also, to be honest, don't see such a huge problem with the rule that it needs to be taken away, other than some people got dinged for it and are unhappy about it :P

[lemons]

I have seen people attempt it with the [modwarn] things (that bring up the red bar with the warning message in a thread), but this was a very long time ago.

once i used as a joke and i got infraction straight away i was crying i didnt know the consequences

[Kardan]

But if someone has posted that the thread is in the wrong forum, and someone else replies that yes it is in the right forum, can you truly say that it's a pointless post? I feel like that's a pretty stretched interpretation of the rules. Plus, technically saying that someone has posted in the wrong forum is contributing something to the thread as you're pointing out an issue with the subject matter. I understand where you're coming from re: it being a pointless post, I was considering it as well, but it seems like it's a bit convoluted defining it as a pointless post. Which makes me feel like for the sake of clarity and straightforward rules, it's better to just have the rule separately, since I don't see a huge downside to it being enforced.

Also another thing, though I'm not really sure where I fall on this since self-policing can be a good thing, but a thought to throw out there. Inter-user discipline can lead to bad feelings and unnecessary criticism. For example, a moderator can see a user's rule-break history and react appropriately, and can also be trained to be gentler with newer members, and thus might be a better figure to handle a post in the wrong forum, rather than the new user being jumped on by other members of the community.

I also, to be honest, don't see such a huge problem with the rule that it needs to be taken away, other than some people got dinged for it and are unhappy about it :P

Well, the super moderators in this thread have been saying that 'This post is in the wrong forum' or 'You've avoided the filter' is a pointless post as it's not contributing to the thread topic.

I understand where you're coming from and I can see that people wouldn't want to be hounded by forum members if they did break a rule (although I'm not sure if people would hound someone if the rule was absolished) - I just find it crazy that you can be warned in spam for what moderators themselves have defined as pointless posting :P We still want to keep the 2nd part of the rule which is not impersonating a moderator, just the 1st part is crazy.

And with the current rules, this is allowed: "You posted in the wrong forum, but I agree I love apples!"

But this gets you a warning: "You avoided the filter, but I agree I love apples!"

Just seems illogical to me :P

[GommeInc]

Technically all the rules can inter-link anyway and pointless posting is the glue that sticks them together. Posting inappropriately could be stretched to be considered pointless, avoiding the filter if it is for no real reason, accusing a member of scamming, illegal activities and so forth. The rule about leaving moderation to the moderators gives a specific definition so members know not to do it, as the connection to it being pointless may not even be in their contemplation when telling a member off.

[Kardan]

Technically all the rules can inter-link anyway and pointless posting is the glue that sticks them together. Posting inappropriately could be stretched to be considered pointless, avoiding the filter if it is for no real reason, accusing a member of scamming, illegal activities and so forth. The rule about leaving moderation to the moderators gives a specific definition so members know not to do it, as the connection to it being pointless may not even be in their contemplation when telling a member off.

Then why on earth didn't the super mods say this rather than saying 'Because it's pointless posting'? :P

[dIrTyBuDdHiSt]

Then why on earth didn't the super mods say this rather than saying 'Because it's pointless posting'? :P

*REMOVED*

Edited by lawrawrrr (AGM Content): Don't abuse moderator features

[Kardan]

*REMOVED*

*REMOVED*

I can't tell you you're breaking the rules, so instead, I'll just say 'lol'.

Now, we have 2 AGMs and a GM online, who is going to act first. I'm going with Wispur.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, ok - I totally see why this rule is in place now, I totally though dirtybuddhist was being a moderator because he used the modwarn.

[dIrTyBuDdHiSt]

I can't tell you you're breaking the rules, so instead, I'll just say 'lol'.

Now, we have 2 AGMs and a GM online, who is going to act first. I'm going with Wispur.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, ok - I totally see why this rule is in place now, I totally though dirtybuddhist was being a moderator because he used the modwarn.

I'm allowed to because I used to be a moderator.

[Inseriousity.]

Then why on earth didn't the super mods say this rather than saying 'Because it's pointless posting'? :P

Just because not everyone is eloquent at explaining a rule or they go with their own interpretation of why the rule is in place rather than what the person who actually put it in place intended doesn't mean the rule itself is stupid. I think nvr has clearly demonstrated perfect clarity as to why the rule should stay in place and it's up to management to clarify that.

[Kardan]

Just because not everyone is eloquent at explaining a rule or they go with their own interpretation of why the rule is in place rather than what the person who actually put it in place intended doesn't mean the rule itself is stupid. I think nvr has clearly demonstrated perfect clarity as to why the rule should stay in place and it's up to management to clarify that.

I agree that nvr had a very good argument, I still think a 'This half of the rule doesn't apply in spam' wouldn't do any harm.

[Lewis]

If this rule is only because of pointless posting, why not get rid of the 'leave moderating to moderators' rule and just giving a pointless posting mod warn thing for not taking part in the actual discussion? Makes more sense to me.

[Mr-Trainor]

I also, to be honest, don't see such a huge problem with the rule that it needs to be taken away, other than some people got dinged for it and are unhappy about it :P
So are you saying that it was right for them to be told off for it? E.g. http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801031&p=8165823#post8165823 Keeping in mind that it happened in the Spam forum :P.


*REMOVED*

*REMOVED*
Why is this still here?

[GoldenMerc]

*REMOVED*

*REMOVED*

Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3428); within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?

[MKR&*42]

Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3428); within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?

Mods clearly slacking. I made a report;

Yesterday 12:27 AM

Still not been dealt with...?
--
Oh well wd laura.

[lawrawrrr]

Sorry guys, hadn't noticed tht one. Removed now!

[scottish]

It was 2 hours not 24 hours? :P

[lawrawrrr]

Mods clearly slacking. I made a report;

Yesterday 12:27 AM

Still not been dealt with...?
--
Oh well wd laura.
you made a report before the post was posted?

[GoldenMerc]

It was 2 hours not 24 hours? :P

my bad your right

[Mr-Trainor]

Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3428); within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?
I thought mods are supposed to wait until the 15 min editing time is up in case you edit your post e.g. add on something so that it's not pointless any more? Unless ofc it's something that requires immediate attention.

Mods clearly slacking. I made a report;

Yesterday 12:27 AM

Still not been dealt with...?
--
Oh well wd laura.
I have reports from 25th still waiting for a response :P.

[MKR&*42]

you made a report before the post was posted?

No this is about a different post haha :P

[GoldenMerc]

I thought mods are supposed to wait until the 15 min editing time is up in case you edit your post e.g. add on something so that it's not pointless any more? Unless ofc it's something that requires immediate attention.

I have reports from 25th still waiting for a response :P.

We got warned for telling each other its against the rules to post in spam lol.

[MKR&*42]

I thought mods are supposed to wait until the 15 min editing time is up in case you edit your post e.g. add on something so that it's not pointless any more? Unless ofc it's something that requires immediate attention.

I have reports from 25th still waiting for a response :P.

Wow wth. Aren't there a good 6/7 mods or so? It shouldn't take this long :P

[Mr-Trainor]

Wow wth. Aren't there a good 6/7 mods or so? It shouldn't take this long :P
Just checked and the two from 25th have been dealt with (one by a mod and one by an smod) but both are still 'open' so idk :P.

[lawrawrrr]

Only SMods+ can see the post reports forum. I've had a quick look through just now, seems the mods are all on holiday this weekend though :L

[MKR&*42]

Just checked and the two from 25th have been dealt with (one by a mod and one by an smod) but both are still 'open' so idk :P.

Oh I checked the thread I reported and the issue wasn't solved (the thread should have been closed as it's a duplicate) :P
--
Oh nvm nick dealt with it 10am this morning LOL.

[Kardan]

Just checked and the two from 25th have been dealt with (one by a mod and one by an smod) but both are still 'open' so idk :P.

I have one from the 22nd still outstanding.

[e5]

Who on earth has try to impersonate a moderator?
Using mod warns and people just generally wanting to be me

[islamicindian]

*REMOVED*

[FlyingJesus]

I have a report from like the 6th that still hasn't been sorted out because e5 hid it and VMd me telling me not to report him rather than admit that he'd misdealt with the problem

[Calum0812]

Mods clearly slacking. I made a report;

Yesterday 12:27 AM

Still not been dealt with...?
Only two people to deal with all the reports, on top of all the reports that we give to them as normal moderators so I think the process is a little slower at the moment.


Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3428); within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?
I was out today, and besides I don't moderate feedback


I thought mods are supposed to wait until the 15 min editing time is up in case you edit your post e.g. add on something so that it's not pointless any more? Unless ofc it's something that requires immediate attention.

I have reports from 25th still waiting for a response :P.
I've never heard of the first point but I guess it seems logical. There is no such rule though I don't think
I have reports waiting too ;)


Wow wth. Aren't there a good 6/7 mods or so? It shouldn't take this long :P
There are but the only ones with powers in feedback are James (Despect), Elliott (e5), Nick and Phil.
Phil is on limited activity and Nick was probably sleeping.

[Phil]

Hey guys! Sorry, I've been on Limited Activity! Pretty crazy week for me and I've just gotten the chance to read through this now.

Okay, I don't think there's necessarily any problem with this rule and I'm not sure if it needs to be changed. I agree with what Nick is saying about informing someone that the topic already exists but while still discussing the matter of the thread is fine. This is because posting in the wrong area, posting a duplicate thread etc. isn't really breaking any rules. This is why we VM for this and it doesn't get a usernote.

I would much prefer people used the report feature if someone breaks a rule instead of doing it publicly in a thread and for that reason I'm going to keep the rule in place and make no immediate changes. I agree that it should be more lax in Spam but only when it's banter between friends. In saying that, I'm not going to make any changes to the PM's that have already been given because as far as I remember, you were being immature and targeting the mods or a member of the moderation team (forgive me if I'm wrong - it would make a change if you weren't)

Sorry again for the long awaited reply.

[Kardan]

Hey guys! Sorry, I've been on Limited Activity! Pretty crazy week for me and I've just gotten the chance to read through this now.

Okay, I don't think there's necessarily any problem with this rule and I'm not sure if it needs to be changed. I agree with what Nick is saying about informing someone that the topic already exists but while still discussing the matter of the thread is fine. This is because posting in the wrong area, posting a duplicate thread etc. isn't really breaking any rules. This is why we VM for this and it doesn't get a usernote.

I would much prefer people used the report feature if someone breaks a rule instead of doing it publicly in a thread and for that reason I'm going to keep the rule in place and make no immediate changes. I agree that it should be more lax in Spam but only when it's banter between friends. In saying that, I'm not going to make any changes to the PM's that have already been given because as far as I remember, you were being immature and targeting the mods or a member of the moderation team (forgive me if I'm wrong - it would make a change if you weren't)

Sorry again for the long awaited reply.

When were we targeting mods?

And I'm never listening to xxMATTGxx; again :(

[xxMATTGxx]

When were we targeting mods?

And I'm never listening to xxMATTGxx; again :(

But Kardan we are like best friends :'(

[Phil]

When were we targeting mods?

And I'm never listening to xxMATTGxx; again :(

When are you not giving e5 a hard time

[Kardan]

When are you not giving e5 a hard time

So saying that someone -repped me is giving someone a hard time? :P

[FlyingJesus]

Talking about someone else's poor decisions is your fault Kardan

[Matthew]

I haven't read through the thread so apologies if I'm repeating someone else

The rules there as there's just no need to post "you're breaking the rules"- that's what the report button is for. There's no need for you to pointlessly post when you can just report it.

iirc the rules were relaxed a year or two ago? Now you can say something like "already posted here ______" can't you?


edit: why do i always revive these threads lol sorry!

[scottish]

I haven't read through the thread so apologies if I'm repeating someone else

The rules there as there's just no need to post "you're breaking the rules"- that's what the report button is for. There's no need for you to pointlessly post when you can just report it.

iirc the rules were relaxed a year or two ago? Now you can say something like "already posted here ______" can't you?


edit: why do i always revive these threads lol sorry!

Saying already posted here isn't breaking the rules and afaik never has

It's informing the user that the subject is already being talked about elsewhere, it's not saying you've broke the rules close this thread etc.

[Kardan]

I haven't read through the thread so apologies if I'm repeating someone else

The rules there as there's just no need to post "you're breaking the rules"- that's what the report button is for. There's no need for you to pointlessly post when you can just report it.

iirc the rules were relaxed a year or two ago? Now you can say something like "already posted here ______" can't you?


edit: why do i always revive these threads lol sorry!

You can only say 'Already posted here' if you add to the discussion to remain on topic.

But, you can't say 'You've avoided the filter' even if you add to the discussion to remain on topic.

And, if you're in spam, you'll still get warned, even though, as you said, it's essentially pointless posting.

[Matthew]

Saying already posted here isn't breaking the rules and afaik never has

It's informing the user that the subject is already being talked about elsewhere, it's not saying you've broke the rules close this thread etc.

Hmm

I swear it was? Or at least there was a period where mods were editing posts which said "already posted here _____" and so it was just clarified that it was okay. Maybe I'm going mad but I swear there was a massive feedback thread about it maybe a year or two ago?

[Kardan]

Hmm

I swear it was? Or at least there was a period where mods were editing posts which said "already posted here _____" and so it was just clarified that it was okay. Maybe I'm going mad but I swear there was a massive feedback thread about it maybe a year or two ago?

I remember it being against the rules maybe a few months back, so 'It's okay if you add something to remain on topic' was added to the rules.

[Matthew]

You can only say 'Already posted here' if you add to the discussion to remain on topic.

But, you can't say 'You've avoided the filter' even if you add to the discussion to remain on topic.

And, if you're in spam, you'll still get warned, even though, as you said, it's essentially pointless posting.

IMO it should be allowed. I don't see the issue with a little nudge AS LONG AS you also post on topic with the remainder of your post. In spam it should be okay.

It becomes a problem when people go around and try to take things into their own hands etc but as long as it remains a friendly reminder of the rules then I see no problem personally.

[Kardan]

IMO it should be allowed. I don't see the issue with a little nudge AS LONG AS you also post on topic with the remainder of your post. In spam it should be okay.

It becomes a problem when people go around and try to take things into their own hands etc but as long as it remains a friendly reminder of the rules then I see no problem personally.

Well, that's what the majority think, except Phil, and he's the one with the decision, so it's going to stay the way it is :P

[Matthew]

Well, that's what the majority think, except Phil, and he's the one with the decision, so it's going to stay the way it is :P

meh well either way I don't think its a massive issue!

[Kardan]

meh well either way I don't think its a massive issue!

Well, it turns out you can never get a warning or infraction for breaking the rule (which makes me think, why is it even a rule in the first place?) so it doesn't really matter if people break it, it's just more work for the moderators.

[Matthew]

Well, it turns out you can never get a warning or infraction for breaking the rule (which makes me think, why is it even a rule in the first place?) so it doesn't really matter if people break it, it's just more work for the moderators.

Well its the same for pointless posts, you can't get warned/infracted for it (but you can face bans and stuff I think)

[Kardan]

Well its the same for pointless posts, you can't get warned/infracted for it (but you can face bans and stuff I think)

How can you face bans if you don't get warned/infracted?

[Matthew]

How can you face bans if you don't get warned/infracted?

Its just the way its always worked I guess :P

Obviously normally its usernote > warning > infraction but if we used warnings and infractions for pointless posts there'd be no-one left on the forum :P. Basically if someone pointlessly posts a LOT in a short space of time then they can be cautioned/temp banned from certain forums/the whole forum etc

[Kardan]

Its just the way its always worked I guess :P

Obviously normally its usernote > warning > infraction but if we used warnings and infractions for pointless posts there'd be no-one left on the forum :P. Basically if someone pointlessly posts a LOT in a short space of time then they can be cautioned/temp banned from certain forums/the whole forum etc

Well, forum management might want to consider writing that within the rules somewhere then :P

[RyRy]

It saves having to deal with people who jump on the high horse and think they're moderators.

I'd much rather have the rule in place cuz I couldn't bare with idiots doing that.

[Phil]

Kardan; is there something about my reply you're unhappy with and would like me to clarify or have another look at?

[Kardan]

Kardan; is there something about my reply you're unhappy with and would like me to clarify or have another look at?

I think the only bit that needs adding is a 'This part of the rule does not apply in the spam forum.'

[Phil]

I think the only bit that needs adding is a 'This part of the rule does not apply in the spam forum.'

I don't think it needs to be added. This is because the rule should still stand while in Spam. I don't think other forum users need to go telling other people when they have broken a rule.

Although, I will make sure that Moderators know that the rule should be relaxed in the Spam forums and should not be edited when it is clear you are just having some banter/being annoying and should only be edited when you're genuinely telling someone they're breaking the rules

[GoldenMerc]

I don't think it needs to be added. This is because the rule should still stand while in Spam. I don't think other forum users need to go telling other people when they have broken a rule.

Although, I will make sure that Moderators know that the rule should be relaxed in the Spam forums and should not be edited when it is clear you are just having some banter/being annoying and should only be edited when you're genuinely telling someone they're breaking the rules
So what comes out of this in terms of me and Aiden's mod warnings?

[Kardan]

So what comes out of this in terms of me and Aiden's mod warnings?

Doesn't really matter because we can't get warned/infracted for it, so we could do it another 500 times and we'd still be fine.

[GoldenMerc]

So its a pointless rule in theory?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Kardan]

Pretty much, so is pointless posting as well, apparently you never get banned for that either.

[e5]

This (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=562597&p=8171397#post8171397) type of post is the exact reason why the rule is in place. It is pointless to post it and you can simply just report it as others did. There was no need for the reply here.


Doesn't really matter because we can't get warned/infracted for it, so we could do it another 500 times and we'd still be fine.

Not true. Excessive rule breaking of the pointless post rule would result in a ban or infraction :P

[Kardan]

This (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=562597&p=8171397#post8171397) type of post is the exact reason why the rule is in place. It is pointless to post it and you can simply just report it as others did. There was no need for the reply here.



Not true. Excessive rule breaking of the pointless post rule would result in a ban or infraction :P

And the bolded part is why I think the rule seems a bit silly, the rule really isn't about people pretending to be moderators, it's about pointless posting.

So what would the infraction say for pointless posting, since I was told there isn't an infraction for pointless posting?

[e5]

And the bolded part is why I think the rule seems a bit silly, the rule really isn't about people pretending to be moderators, it's about pointless posting.

So what would the infraction say for pointless posting, since I was told there isn't an infraction for pointless posting?

I don't think I said it was trying to be a moderator, but some people do take it to that extent, mainly trolls.

Well you can create custom infractions (Admin and above I think) for it or just a (temp) ban for persistent rule breaking, I think in most cases people get banned for this when they sign up just to troll and post pointlessly.

[Kardan]

I don't think I said it was trying to be a moderator, but some people do take it to that extent, mainly trolls.

Well you can create custom infractions (Admin and above I think) for it or just a (temp) ban for persistent rule breaking, I think in most cases people get banned for this when they sign up just to troll and post pointlessly.

My point is, Zak's post, it's really more of a pointless post than anything, so seems strange that it's not warned for that - but in the end it doesn't matter, because neither of the rule breaks carry infractions.

And has anyone actually had a temp ban over pointless posting? And I mean a regular user, not a new account that comes on and spams loads of new threads everywhere like that idiot a few days back.

[e5]

My point is, Zak's post, it's really more of a pointless post than anything, so seems strange that it's not warned for that - but in the end it doesn't matter, because neither of the rule breaks carry infractions.

And has anyone actually had a temp ban over pointless posting? And I mean a regular user, not a new account that comes on and spams loads of new threads everywhere like that idiot a few days back.

I don't know tbh.

A more fitting punishment, which is something I've always wanted it to be able to edit a pointless post and check a box so it take off the post count, but apparently it is not available :(

[Chippiewill]

A more fitting punishment, which is something I've always wanted it to be able to edit a pointless post and check a box so it take off the post count, but apparently it is not available :(

It's doable, just not worth the effort.

[e5]

It's doable, just not worth the effort.
How much effort does it take?

[Chippiewill]

How much effort does it take?

Have to add a button to the editor, add a permissions check. Add a column to the posts table to record it. Add a query to remove the post count. Lots of effort for very minimal functionality.