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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I think that'd just be unnecessarily restricting things even more tbh.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drewar

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 - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

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.

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.