I don't think anyone has said they can't say it in spam hm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grig
Printable View
I don't think anyone has said they can't say it in spam hm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grig
Then add that to the rule. Seeing as we are being so precise now ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
That's a specific forum rule so can be added to the rules in that specific area and not the main rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grig
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.
She wasn't always right but she was a great staff member.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grig
well we all have small margins for error. Some people more than others ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Samanfa
I was simply stating the above because it's pretty embarrassing when a super mod defends a ridiculous position.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulk
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samanfa
That post does not break the rules under the modified rule and would not have done under the old one either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samanfa
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
---------- 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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 lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Samanfa
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
---------- 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comity
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Samanfa
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 lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Samanfa
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...31#post7716131 but ill use this lol there was an image posted with the price yet you still asked what the prices where....
I'm not saying he was acting like one dw, I know where you're coming from though lmao.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
---------- Post added 03-10-2012 at 09:50 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comity
My post was at 04:28 before he posted the images.Quote:
Last edited by Ellz; Today at 04:30 PM.
If the images were on at first, @xxMATTGxx; wouldn't have replied with the prices either.
The images weren't in the post at the time of her post and mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comity
Oh also, I do have some intent of buying, but I won't pay too much. Thanks for clarifying matt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comity
Im on your side..Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie
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
"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.).
This post probably made the most sense in this thread. Spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
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?
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 :PQuote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
I have no problems with:Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
"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 ----------
I thought the rule update allowed it?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
from now on moderators should just leave richie alone or he'll kick up a fuss in feedback, instead of using the support tool.
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
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?
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Andii
people use say infraction when they mean warning nearly all the time lol, he probably meant thatQuote:
Originally Posted by GoldenMerc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Comity
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 :)
It's fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andii
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 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
I was going to say it surprises me who are moderators these days but it really doesn't.
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
Can you fail someone for not being able to spell? That's as far as I'm going with my opinions on this one. :)