Calm down a little.. :l

[Mr.OSH]

hw mch = ban enywayz cos nick is infractin n infractin ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? ?? and i reply sayin "can i get evidence please" and he is ignorez me.

The amount of infractions that you receive towards a ban can vary completely on the circumstances. Some members can be banned with only 1 or 2 infractions and others can have 11 or 12, it really depends on the situation.

[Orangeesh]

It is also strict due to the fact a moderator not following the guide could end up or in trouble or them being removed from the moderation team as some of you well know

I followed the guide like a bible,
I got involved with arguments with other people, which led to them believing I would somehow bring down habbox's reputation..
which is quite hard to believe, I still did the moderating..
but I guess Habbox Management cares more about it's 'reputation'
more than it's staff.

[jrh2002]

I followed the guide like a bible,
I got involved with arguments with other people, which led to them believing I would somehow bring down habbox's reputation..
which is quite hard to believe, I still did the moderating..
but I guess Habbox Management cares more about it's 'reputation'
more than it's staff.

Habbox staff and especially moderators are meant to set a good example to the other users :S How can you be taken seriously when you edit, warn or infract anybody if you don't follow those rules yourself?

That policeman does a job great and arrests loads of people so we will overlook the fact that he commits crimes when hes off duty. :eusa_wall

[-Xiangu-]

Lmao.
That's a perfect example on why hxf should review their rules and fix things up.

no, the rules do not need to be changed but some of the moderators do

[---MAD---]

Habbox staff and especially moderators are meant to set a good example to the other users :S How can you be taken seriously when you edit, warn or infract anybody if you don't follow those rules yourself?

That policeman does a job great and arrests loads of people so we will overlook the fact that he commits crimes when hes off duty. :eusa_wall

Precisely - very well said .

[sierk]

I think you have a good point. At this moment it is not allowed to accuse somebody of lying (or anything else), regardless if you have proof or not that the other person is lying.
Maybe this is too strict, I remember that we introduced this rule in particularly to prevent people of accusing each other of scamming. Maybe we should change the rule and only not allow that members accuse each other of serious things like hacking or scamming.

Either your rules are too harsh or opensourcehost is WAY too obsessed with giving me infractions.

Here's the situation:
Thread 1:
Earthquake: I bully on unpopular kids
Me: -insert w/e i said here-

Thread 2:
Earthquake: I'm really a nice guy. I often talk to the unpopular kids and even act as if I'm struggling with work so I can talk to them
Me: Liar. In the other thread you said that you bully on unpopular kids

Maybe it's just me, but I think that the whole "DO NOT ACCUSE ANYONE OF LYING" rule is stupid.. especially since I didn't say anything like "O YOU LIED YOU SCAMMED HIM U LIAR U HACKED".
I doubt that I would have been infracted if I left out the word "Liar"...
I don't see the big difference

HxF staff should either change the rule so that it isn't so harsh (such as in my situation.. I get infracted for something riduclous) and only infract people for SERIOUS accusations.. or just chill the hell out once in awhile.

What really cracked me up was the reasoning behind the infraction:
"Accusing/naming anyone of lying/scamming/hacking or any other bad things."

[GommeInc]

I think you have a good point. At this moment it is not allowed to accuse somebody of lying (or anything else), regardless if you have proof or not that the other person is lying.
Maybe this is too strict, I remember that we introduced this rule in particularly to prevent people of accusing each other of scamming. Maybe we should change the rule and only not allow that members accuse each other of serious things like hacking or scamming.

That would be better. Even when the person you are accusing of lying is actually lying you still get an infraction, and in some cases jokingly saying someone is lying can get you infractioned.

[le harry]

Warned for this..?

with wot
u sed you were buyin me vip
dirty LIAR.

Oh wait..

Kyle, you seem to have contradicted yourself with your statement on MSN saying you would "Buy me vip". Please quote me on this?

[jesus]

i think a more relaxed approach should be taken to this rule - if its obvious that its being done in a joking manner then theres nothing wrong with that.

moderators are just being lazy if they cant be bothered to check this

[Catzsy]

I think you have a good point. At this moment it is not allowed to accuse somebody of lying (or anything else), regardless if you have proof or not that the other person is lying.
Maybe this is too strict, I remember that we introduced this rule in particularly to prevent people of accusing each other of scamming. Maybe we should change the rule and only not allow that members accuse each other of serious things like hacking or scamming.

I think that is very sensible and if somebody is calling somebody a liar and it is obviously offensive in its tone and not in a joking way then an infraction/warning for insulting that person could be used anyway.