Why does habbox have rules o.0

[Tristan]

the rule "A27. It is not allowed to talk about adult subjects like making love / sleeping with somebody or sexual details in anyway - Because this forum is meant for people of all ages, and teenagers in particular, it is NOT allowed to talk about subjects that could be not suitable for younger members."

Can be abit stupid, if you have an age limit on the forum from aged 13+ then teenagers are already learnt about this information and such anyway so how is "talking about love" going to be bad? Ect.

Talking about love isn't bad. Talking about making love, is. :rolleyes:

[Mentor]

Hiya!
I'd like to bring your attention to those two threads. Basically, that post is a innuendo and is therefore innapropriate. Also, on a technicality, the boy's bottom flap is also undone However you see the half naked man so it is implied and the child is saying something of an innapropriate nature. However, its borderline in terms of infraction/warning, the mod could go either way and apparently they chose infraction.

Sorry, but it is rather justified

Rule A27 - no talking was involved it was an image. The image made no direct mention of any sexual content, you only inferred this because of a perverted bias (as do most people) any innocent of these facts, say the people its inappropriate for, wouldn't get it.

Rule C5 - Again there is no "obscene" imagery at all. only the implication, which cannot be covered by the rule.

A33. - Nothing "obscene" was linked to. Only a vaige implication

Theres a great deal of images there directly depicting genitals, i would have though you would class that as more "obscene" than a viagly implication made by a drawn character o.0

[nvrspk4]

Rule A27 - no talking was involved it was an image. The image made no direct mention of any sexual content, you only inferred this because of a perverted bias (as do most people) any innocent of these facts, say the people its inappropriate for, wouldn't get it.

Rule C5 - Again there is no "obscene" imagery at all. only the implication, which cannot be covered by the rule.

A33. - Nothing "obscene" was linked to. Only a vaige implication

Theres a great deal of images there directly depicting genitals, i would have though you would class that as more "obscene" than a viagly implication made by a drawn character o.0

The implication was there, and it was the reason for the image. The posture of the man makes it quite obvious. If you point me to the innapropriate posts with bad imagery (through PM preferrably) I would gladly warn the members.

[Mentor]

The implication was there, and it was the reason for the image. The posture of the man makes it quite obvious. If you point me to the innapropriate posts with genitals (through PM preferrably) I would gladly deal with them

So everyone thats ever sat like that, be it just relaxing in park, must have been getting head at the same time? o.0 Im guessing your the type who scores highly on blogthings pervertion tests o.0

And that aside, that doesnt change the fact, the rule still doesnt exist. There is "NO RULE AGAINST IMPLICATIONS"

[OMGitsaROSS]

You may learn about the reproductive cycle yes, but i don't think they teach you to go around sharing your personal sex experiences with other people, present or past.

Yea but we all do

[ReviewDude]

So everyone thats ever sat like that, be it just relaxing in park, must have been getting head at the same time? o.0 Im guessing your the type who scores highly on blogthings pervertion tests o.0

And that aside, that doesnt change the fact, the rule still doesnt exist. There is "NO RULE AGAINST IMPLICATIONS"

No matter how hard you try to catch the Mods out on technicalities, it goes down to their judgement - which, I think you'll find, is why they have the job - and if they say it's inappropriate, it usually is

[Mentor]

No matter how hard you try to catch the Mods out on technicalities, it goes down to their judgement - which, I think you'll find, is why they have the job - and if they say it's inappropriate, it usually is

if a mod is of a strong faith and deems the use of "oh my god" as inappropriate, it would still not be right for them to inforce it, since it goes beyond the scope of any rules placed down. You cannot expect members to abide by a rule that does not exist. Hence you should not enforce a rule beyond its applicable scope. Wheather someone thinks something is inappropriate or not has no bearing on wheather or not it breaks a rule on this forum or not, as that is completely deepened on what rules are listed.
At present there are no rules deeming implications of any nature inappropriate, hence inforceing such a rule in itself is inappropriate.

Take real life example, the law clearly states what is allowed and what isnt. Just becuse a member of the police force sees something as objectionable, if it does not break any law, it would be an abuse of there powers to arrest an individual for it. In the same way just becuse a mod disagrees with somthing doesnt given them the right to place an infraction on someone, unless it is actualy breaking one of the rules set down?

If these rules that are set down, are not what the rules are based on? what the hell is the point in haveing them at all?

[sierk1]

Maybe we should add the word "inappropriate" to rule A33, so that inappropriate images are also not allowed. That should also cover images that imply unacceptable things.

[Fonejacker]

Maybe we should add the word "inappropriate" to rule A33, so that inappropriate images are also not allowed. That should also cover images that imply unacceptable things.

But if u add the rule u will have to take away the infraction... As he wouldn't of posted the pictureif he had known

[GommeInc]

Habbox seem to think posting about the obvious is against the rules. Most my infractions go on about being rude about a member calling them socially retarded and they clearly are. The member in question wasn't even offended :s Habbox Moderators/staff seem to think a post is directed at them, or a message is directed to them, not a member.