i don't get it

why can we use ffs and lmfao etc but not fu? i can see how it's insulting/rude but why does this avoid the filter but the other two don't? :)

not saying we should allow swearing, i completely disagree with that but can you clarify what we can actually say? can i say idgaf (i don't give a ****) - it's not rude or insulting but it 'avoids the filter'. it's not clear in the rules at all, it says no abbreviations but there are clearly some exceptions such as the first two examples which we fought for before. :S


oh and i got told off for saying FUUUn. it doesnt avoid the filter. it says fun with an abbreviation for a swear word that isn't even offensive. it's like you just decide when to use the rule, surely it should only be used when its actually avoiding the filter or being rude..........

edit; oh yeah, i never get told off for saying jfc (jesus ******* christ)

In the FAQ it does state some of the exceptions: http://www.habboxforum.com/faq.php?f...aringandfilter

It has also recently been suggested to Forum Management that this list is updated and tweaked so that all abbreviations which are allowed are placed onto the list. So hopefully this will be done soon. This will then prevent any confusion. The abbreviation you are questioning however is clearly under the not allowed part.

Things such as omfg and idgaf. are allowed and these do need to be put onto the list.


I think the only exceptions to these should be ones which can be used as a way of insulting people.

Also I've been given an infraction (don't want to discuss that, want to keep this thread on topic so it isn't moved to complaints) for posting a filtered word even though I placed it in a spoiler and gave a clear warning...the language was apparently inappropriate, but as the rules state, if you spoiler the image/video which contains the swearing and also give a warning, it's allowed, and I assume this is also the reason stephen got banned. It makes no sense, why allow it in some cases, but not in others?

The last sentence of Martin's post basically. I imagine it was more the context of the post rather than the content (trying to find loopholes to the rule) that action was taken, using the FUUUUUUUUUnnnn example

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

The last sentence of Martin's post basically. I imagine it was more the context of the post rather than the content (trying to find loopholes to the rule) that action was taken, using the FUUUUUUUUUnnnn example

---

but the rules state that as long as a clear warning has been given and there isn't any explicit material (18+) then you are allowed to avoid the filter....

FU is directly and solely used personally - unless you're addressing an inanimate object (such as Tara in bed) then it's always an insult, whereas jfc, idgaf and all that can be used objectively about situations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttons

why can we use ffs and lmfao etc but not fu? i can see how it's insulting/rude but why does this avoid the filter but the other two don't? :)

not saying we should allow swearing, i completely disagree with that but can you clarify what we can actually say? can i say idgaf (i don't give a ****) - it's not rude or insulting but it 'avoids the filter'. it's not clear in the rules at all, it says no abbreviations but there are clearly some exceptions such as the first two examples which we fought for before. :S


oh and i got told off for saying FUUUn. it doesnt avoid the filter. it says fun with an abbreviation for a swear word that isn't even offensive. it's like you just decide when to use the rule, surely it should only be used when its actually avoiding the filter or being rude..........

edit; oh yeah, i never get told off for saying jfc (jesus ******* christ)

---

As martin said above, the faqs lists a few exceptions to this rule, however not all are listed e.g. Omfg and idgaf which are allowed too. :)

I guess the reason they were allowed in the first place is because they are used so much by so many forum members and because they don't directly avoid the filter in a way that can be used to insult someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Also I've been given an infraction (don't want to discuss that, want to keep this thread on topic so it isn't moved to complaints) for posting a filtered word even though I placed it in a spoiler and gave a clear warning...the language was apparently inappropriate, but as the rules state, if you spoiler the image/video which contains the swearing and also give a warning, it's allowed, and I assume this is also the reason stephen got banned. It makes no sense, why allow it in some cases, but not in others?

---

Surely by now you know the rules and are mature enough not to try and be clever as to come up with a reason like this? If filter avoidance was allowed like this then the whole forum would be doing it which certainly wouldn't be a good look for a forum which caters for young members and supports a online game aimed at young teenagers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

FU is directly and solely used personally - unless you're addressing an inanimate object (such as Tara in bed) then it's always an insult, whereas jfc, idgaf and all that can be used objectively about situations

---

Basically this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

FU is directly and solely used personally - unless you're addressing an inanimate object (such as Tara in bed) then it's always an insult, whereas jfc, idgaf and all that can be used objectively about situations

---

The context I used it in was "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu......" as in "fuuuuuuuuuuuuc*" as in “I can't believe that's just happened" not in an insulting way, nor as an abbreviation for the words “**** you”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infectious

Surely by now you know the rules and are mature enough not to try and be clever as to come up with a reason like this? If filter avoidance was allowed like this then the whole forum would be doing it which certainly wouldn't be a good look for a forum which caters for young members and supports a online game aimed at young teenagers.

---

In that case, the current rules need to be updated as we can't rely on "you should know by now...." which is a rather weak reason to justify issuing infractions to a post which hasn't actually broke a single rules. Or can moderators infract anyone regardless if their post breaks a rule, if they can justify it with the reason “you are mature enough to know by now…”

YEAH i know this i was trying to make a point but i can't remember what LOLOL
anyway it's a bit silly to have "avoiding filter" if you are actually allowed to avoid the filter. it would make more sense to infract for "being rude/insulting" for words such as 'fu' instead of avoiding filter if that's the case

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttons

YEAH i know this i was trying to make a point but i can't remember what LOLOL
anyway it's a bit silly to have "avoiding filter" if you are actually allowed to avoid the filter. it would make more sense to infract for "being rude/insulting" for words such as 'fu' instead of avoiding filter if that's the case

---

Yeh but the 'FU' in the spoiler wasn't directed at anyone either so it wasn't really being rude :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Yeh but the 'FU' in the spoiler wasn't directed at anyone either so it wasn't really being rude :P

---

It's the context that's important. The context of FU in terms of insulting someone isn't right. Putting something avoiding the filter in a spoiler with warningisn't against the rules (unless its directed at someone). Putting something avoiding the filter in a spoiler with warning because it's a loophole is.Your post clearly showed it was placed in a spoiler to get around the ruleandothers joined in with you hence the warnings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

In that case, the current rules need to be updated as we can't rely on "you should know by now...." which is a rather weak reason to justify issuing infractions to a post which hasn't actually broke a single rules. Or can moderators infract anyone regardless if their post breaks a rule, if they can justify it with the reason “you are mature enough to know by now…”

---

No the rules are fine, although A3 could possibly be tweaked if its going to cause this much fuss. Rule A2 is for inappropriate content which does not include filter avoidance and is purely for inappropriate comments, videos or images. As you can see there is an entirely separate rule for filter avoidance which clearly states that no filter avoidance is allowed including abbreviations (Which isn't entirely true because some abbreviations are allowed so this could be tweaked).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttons

YEAH i know this i was trying to make a point but i can't remember what LOLOL
anyway it's a bit silly to have "avoiding filter" if you are actually allowed to avoid the filter. it would make more sense to infract for "being rude/insulting" for words such as 'fu' instead of avoiding filter if that's the case

---

When in the spam forums there is a lot of banter which normally involves filtered words. As these words are filtered and the comments which are made are usually said in jest it doesn't really matter and we allow it. However, as some abbreviations are un filtered, they can be used for the same purpose in jest but actually do avoid the filter.

I really confused myself with that, so apologies if it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Yeh but the 'FU' in the spoiler wasn't directed at anyone either so it wasn't really being rude :P

---

Actually it was originally directed at someone, although in jest. The point is, the abbreviation avoided the filter and that is why it was removed, not because it was directed at anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

It's the context that's important. The context of FU in terms of insulting someone isn't right. Putting something avoiding the filter in a spoiler with warningisn't against the rules. Putting something avoiding the filter in a spoiler with warning because it's a loophole is.Your post clearly showed it was placed in a spoiler to get around the ruleandothers joined in with you hence the warnings.

---

Yes but there isn't a rule against that? One rule states that you can avoid the filter, the other states you can't (A2 and A3) so there is a rule supporting my argument as well as supporting yours. If you’re allowed to post forbidden content (in a spoiler) then it’s irrelevant whether you’ve done it to avoid the filter or not as you are allowed to post it if you give a clear warning (so it isn’t actually avoiding the filter since the rules state you can, it’s only avoiding the filter if you don’t give a clear warning and place it in a spoiler)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infectious

Actually it was originally directed at someone, although in jest. The point is, the abbreviation avoided the filter and that is why it was removed, not because it was directed at anyone.

---

I made the original comment; I know that I didn't direct it at anyone... I posted "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu......." the dots filtering the words c and k, so either way, I did avoid the filter, but I didn't post FU (meaning **** you)

No, context is relevant. By avoiding the filter by using a loophole, you are in essence avoiding the filter unless it was done legitimately which you know it wasn't cos your post clearly refered to it as avoiding rules by using loopholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

No, context is relevant. By avoiding the filter by using a loophole, you are in essence avoiding the filter unless it was done legitimately which you know it wasn't cos your post clearly refered to it as avoiding rules by using loopholes.

---

But rule a2 states that filtered content can be posted as long as you give a clear warning and place it in a spoiler. (This argument can go in circles forever) I'm not that fussed over this, just add to rule a2 something such as "*Although filtered content can be posted if a clear warning and spoilers have been used, posting said content for the sheer purpose of avoiding the filter is still against the rules, see A3" or something

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

But rule a2 states that filtered content can be posted as long as you give a clear warning and place it in a spoiler. (This argument can go in circles forever) I'm not that fussed over this, just add to rule a2 something such as "*Although filtered content can be posted if a clear warning and spoilers have been used, posting said content for the sheer purpose of avoiding the filter is still against the rules, see A3" or something

---

There is a difference between 'Midly inappropriate content' as stated in rule A2, and avoiding the filter (which is not mentioned until rule A3.) Rule A2 does not say anything about filtered content as far as I can see. Either way as the rule states its down to moderators discretion and you avoided the filter deliberately whilst knowing you were doing it to get around the rules and so obviously we are not going to allow this.

I don't know.

Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator) : Please don't make pointless posts

You're exploiting very minor flaws in the rules to try and be clever when we both know that you cant avoid the filter by putting it in the spoilers and anyone else who reads the rules will figure that out too. I'm sure sct and brandon will be happy to add these tweaks to the rules though if it puts a stop to these disputes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt660

There is a difference between 'Midly inappropriate content' as stated in rule A2, and avoiding the filter (which is not mentioned until rule A3.) Rule A2 does not say anything about filtered content as far as I can see. Either way as the rule states its down to moderators discretion and you avoided the filter deliberately whilst knowing you were doing it to get around the rules and so obviously we are not going to allow this.

---

Moderators Discretion shows the weakness in the moderator’s argument as they can't justify their reason, which for habbox, doesn't look very professional. Mildly inappropriate content, which is why songs which contain the F word are allowed to be posted (the f words filtered, isn't it?) which is why FU is allowed to be posted under this rule. The only reason you are punishing me for using it is because I clearly stated I had found a loophole, which it is. Rule a3 says you can't avoid the filter but a2 says you can post inappropriate content (a.k.a avoiding the filter) which is why the rules need to be modified.

I actualy think that as long as it's put in a spoiler with an obvious and clear warning , pretty much near anything should be allowed in it. I really don't see a reason that this cannot be the case. So with regards to the spoilers i agree with the don.

Well using loopholes to avoid any rule is wrong really. It goes without saying. Although I think it's covered here:

"The Moderators and Administrators have the right to use their discretion in regard to the rules when executing punishments as a result of rule violation."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Well using loopholes to avoid any rule is wrong really. It goes without saying. Although I think it's covered here:

"The Moderators and Administrators have the right to use their discretion in regard to the rules when executing punishments as a result of rule violation."

---

i'll direct you to this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Moderators Discretion shows the weakness in the moderator’s argument as they can't justify their reason, which for habbox, doesn't look very professional. Mildly inappropriate content, which is why songs which contain the F word are allowed to be posted (the f words filtered, isn't it?) which is why FU is allowed to be posted under this rule. The only reason you are punishing me for using it is because I clearly stated I had found a loophole, which it is. Rule a3 says you can't avoid the filter but a2 says you can post inappropriate content (a.k.a avoiding the filter) which is why the rules need to be modified.

---

Why not just change the rule like i've suggested...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Moderators Discretion shows the weakness in the moderator’s argument as they can't justify their reason, which for habbox, doesn't look very professional. Mildly inappropriate content, which is why songs which contain the F word are allowed to be posted (the f words filtered, isn't it?) which is why FU is allowed to be posted under this rule. The only reason you are punishing me for using it is because I clearly stated I had found a loophole, which it is. Rule a3 says you can't avoid the filter but a2 says you can post inappropriate content (a.k.a avoiding the filter) which is why the rules need to be modified.

---

This does not include written filter avoidance. It only applies to videos and images and this has always been the case which you very well know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infectious

This does not include written filter avoidance. It only applies to videos and images and this has always been the case which you very well know.

---

and what I posted was an image, stephen may have wrote it, but I didn't...

But we have justified our reasoning so your comment makes no sense. There is no need to add amendments every time someone finds a loophole. It is already covered in the rules that it isn't allowed via moderation discretion. It's not really a frequent occurance for it to really need to be added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

But we have justified our reasoning so your comment makes no sense. There is no need to add amendments every time someone finds a loophole. It is already covered in the rules that it isn't allowed via moderation discretion. It's not really a frequent occurance for it to really need to be added.

---

but as you've stated, this is a loophole and it seems just lazy to not edit the rule...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

and what I posted was an image, stephen may have wrote it, but I didn't...

---

But in this case you deliberately did it just to bend the rules and as mike said, find a loophole. We have justified our reasons but its up to you if you accept it or not. At the end of the day it wont make any difference what you say, you broke the rules, you tried to be smart and because you got punished for it you decided to pick out the small flaws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

but as you've stated, this is a loophole and it seems just lazy to not edit the rule...

---

No it isn't lazy at all. It just takes some common sense which I know you have.

Content that isn't produced by you, so images and videos that contain mildly inappropriate content or minor filter avoidances are absolutely fine as long as a warning is shown with a spoiler. By actually writing the word or abbreviation, you are actually doing it yourself which is against the rules. Only abbreviations that are not directed at people like omfg or wtf is fine, but the word FU is not. I wouldn't say it's a loop hole as it does make sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infectious

But in this case you deliberately did it just to bend the rules and as mike said, find a loophole. We have justified our reasons but its up to you if you accept it or not. At the end of the day it wont make any difference what you say, you broke the rules, you tried to be smart and because you got punished for it you decided to pick out the small flaws.

---

but i didn't actually break a rule ;) anyway, this debates boring, don't be lazy and change the rules, there's no reason not to...

---------- Post added 25-01-2012 at 08:52 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

Content that isn't produced by you, so images and videos that contain mildly inappropriate content or minor filter avoidances are absolutely fine as long as a warning is shown with a spoiler. By actually writing the word or abbreviation, you are actually doing it yourself which is against the rules. Only abbreviations that are not directed at people like omfg or wtf is fine, but the word FU is not. I wouldn't say it's a loop hole as it does make sense.

---

I posted this...

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant...0/fu1_450.jpeg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

but i didn't actually break a rule ;) anyway, this debates boring, don't be lazy and change the rules, there's no reason not to...

---------- Post added 25-01-2012 at 08:52 PM ----------




I posted this...

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant...0/fu1_450.jpeg

---

I don't want to go into detail with it, but the post you posted this image in has content which basically said you knew about these rules and carried on with the post. It was completely fair.

To be honest, I did have this conversation with Rosie a few weeks ago and understood thereasoningbut I do believe that the rules need to be made more clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

but i didn't actually break a rule ;) anyway, this debates boring, don't be lazy and change the rules, there's no reason not to...

---

Yes you did, and because you didn't like the consequences you came here and complained about it by pointing out flaws which make no difference to how the rules work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

I posted this...

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant...0/fu1_450.jpeg

---

Allowed in normal circumstances but I'm not sure why you post this anyway as it would obviously be aimed at someone. This was removed tonight because you deliberately tried to bend the rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

Content that isn't produced by you, so images and videos that contain mildly inappropriate content or minor filter avoidances are absolutely fine as long as a warning is shown with a spoiler. By actually writing the word or abbreviation, you are actually doing it yourself which is against the rules. Only abbreviations that are not directed at people like omfg or wtf is fine, but the word FU is not. I wouldn't say it's a loop hole as it does make sense.

---

It is a loophole if you've already posted it once, got warned for it and then posted it againin a spoiler with the clear intention to break the rules and try and get away with it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infectious

Yes you did, and because you didn't like the consequences you came here and complained about it by pointing out flaws which make no difference to how the rules work.



Allowed in normal circumstances but I'm not sure why you post this anyway as it would obviously be aimed at someone. This was removed tonight because you deliberately tried to bend the rules.

---

It wasn't aimed at anyone, it was funny because you kept getting frustrated over it, when I first posted it, I didn't post it with the intention of saying **** you to somebody, in fact that was never the context I had in mind, the same sentence can have different meaning. There isn't a rule that states you can't use a loophole, there's only one which says you can't avoid the filter, which, is allowed if you follow rule a2. I gave a clear warning stating that the image contained rude language and also placed it in a spoiler, thus making it suitable according to rule a2...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

It wasn't aimed at anyone, it was funny because you kept getting frustrated over it, when I first posted it, I didn't post it with the intention of saying **** you to somebody, in fact that was never the context I had in mind, the same sentence can have different meaning. There isn't a rule that states you can't use a loophole, there's only one which says you can't avoid the filter, which, is allowed if you follow rule a2. I gave a clear warning stating that the image contained rude language and also placed it in a spoiler, thus making it suitable according to rule a2...

---

I will repeat myself for a third time. Under the circumstances of the events, the image you posted was deliberately used to avoid the filter and to continue in breaking the rules, hence it was removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Infectious

I will repeat myself for a third time. Under the circumstances of the events, the image you posted was deliberately used to avoid the filter and to continue in breaking the rules, hence it was removed.

---

Ok, I obviously can't get through to you, again, there's a flaw in your argument as rule a2 says you can post mildly inappropriate content (regardless whether it avoids the filter) which means the two rules counteract each other. Why not just modify the rule?!

Going by your logic Akeam I could quote someone and post a picture that has someone saying all sorts of abusive things, and as long as it's in a spoiler that's fine and not aimed at anyone as long as I say it's not

"Mildly inappropriate content" does not stretch to abusing other members

I don't cry when someone says FU over the internet, directly at me or others. Only deal with an insult when it is insulting - we're not 5 and been let loose on the internet for the first time. Abbreviations aren't insulting, they do a pee poor job at doing so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Ok, I obviously can't get through to you, again, there's a flaw in your argument as rule a2 says you can post mildly inappropriate content (regardless whether it avoids the filter) which means the two rules counteract each other. Why not just modify the rule?!

---

There is also this part added onto the end which makes the decision justified. "The final decision on what is or is not inappropriate is at the Moderator's discretion."

In the circumstances you posted there was a lot of filter avoiding going on and so it was completely inappropriate and unjustified for you to post such content, there was no need for it basically. You deliberately tried to avoid the rules otherwise there would be no reason for you to post it other than trying to promote further rulebreaking within the threads. What other reason would you possibly have for posting that image lets be honest.

I fail to see where it mentions anything about the filter in rule A2 so you are adding that bit yourself in your head. To a lot of people it may be seen as offensive and not mildly inappropriate at all. In the circumstances of the way you did it it was NOT appropriate so not even rule A2 cant save you. Rule A3 is the actual rule you have broken and is the one you need to be looking at for future reference.


The rules are fine as they are really and the only one which perhaps needs tweaking would be the filter rule itself to include all of the abbreviations which are allowed which I believe was the main issue wanting to be addressed in this thread rather than you disputing something which Im sure the forum manager will clear up for you in the reported infractions thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolt660

The rules are fine as they are really and the only one which perhaps needs tweaking would be the filter rule itself to include all of the abbreviations which are allowed which I believe was the main issue wanting to be addressed in this thread rather than you disputing something which Im sure the forum manager will clear up for you in the reported infractions thread.

---

Good luck making that list, no-one has that much time to list billions of possible abbreviations that can be used. You'll be better off allowing all abbreviations and punishing in terms of context used or just listing FU as the only abbreviation you must not use, as it seems to be the only "insulting" abbreviation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

Ok, I obviously can't get through to you, again, there's a flaw in your argument as rule a2 says you can post mildly inappropriate content (regardless whether it avoids the filter) which means the two rules counteract each other. Why not just modify the rule?!

---

Because the rules aren't going to change every time someone complains. If it makes sense for them to be changed then I'm sure they would be, but Scott has told me that its unlikely that they'll be changed over something as minor as this. If the events of tonight didn't happen then the image would have been allowed so long as it wasn't aimed at another member in a serious way.

At the end of the day though, rules like this come down to the moderators discretion, so as much as you or anyone else dislike that fact, I very much doubt it's going to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

Going by your logic Akeam I could quote someone and post a picture that has someone saying all sorts of abusive things, and as long as it's in a spoiler that's fine and not aimed at anyone as long as I say it's not

"Mildly inappropriate content" does not stretch to abusing other members

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

I don't cry when someone says FU over the internet, directly at me or others. Only deal with an insult when it is insulting - we're not 5 and been let loose on the internet for the first time. Abbreviations aren't insulting, they do a pee poor job at doing so.

---

Thats not the point. It may not bother you but habbox is a habbo fansite which unfortunately for some members is aimed at young teens. This means that we have to be very careful what we allow and dont allow on the forum.