WHY WAS MY THREAD DELETED.

[nvrspk4]

With a link and warning i dont really think it was anything that shouldnt be posted. True it was basically one large inuendo, but i've seen worse the hoobs, rainbow, teletubbys and animanicac's all of which are aimed at an audience younger than the forums "/
Inuendo is only graphic to those who's minds are dirty enough to read between the lines, its only there if your looking for it. If someone didnt understand the comcepts and would be scared, offended or worried by it, in all likely hood they would not have noticed the jokes at all "/

I'm not really sure on what guidelines are used by the mod's these days, but in some areas such as this i do think there should be some revisions. It would be interested to see the guidelines publicly published to so the community can provide some feedback

- posted in wrong thread first time around-

I think that this went beyond innuendo, especially because of the direct use of the word cockerel, it went beyond innuendo into glaring sexual comments.

The actual ad itself wasn't bad, I think the comments went beyond the line that is acceptable (if you read them I think you'll see what I mean.)

I think that establishing a set of guidelines to judge all innuendo would be counterproductive, because in an effort to use common sense and rationale a set of guidelines strictly directing moderators would have a negative effect where their judgement would be phased out in favor of the (impossible to construct) guidelines that were brought about.

Reading the reply i would like to backup my claims on kids programs including worse innuendo's. I'm gonna do so in spoiler just to be on the safe side, despite em being on a number of kids tv programs - the innuendo is pretty obvious in all.

Show Hide

Playing with each others twangers - rainbow, playing with lala(i think's) hole - teletubbies and "fingering Prince" from animanics

So i'm pro allowing light inundo on the main forum, and with a link warning, the more obvious/dirty stuff :p
Although teletubbys i think may have outdone the rooster in a box one anyway :p

Not that it takes away that much but I know exactly what you're talking about with the "playing with our twangers thing" - that was never directly aired.

I think that those innuendos were much less direct and also they were geared to an audience SO young, that it didn't matter if they did.

It's not the joke ebay one is it? Where a man is selling a cockerel in a box? That shouldn't of been removed, simply because it broke no forum rules.

The actual listing, no. The Q+A verged on the edge of the adult listing rule. I can see the argument either way, however I think that there is no fault to the moderators' action. This is something borderline that in the end came down.

There were two images posted, I think the first was ok (borderline but much further from the line.)

EVERYONE REVOLT HABBOXFORUM IS CORRUPT SACK NVRSPK AND FAT GO TO OPINIONSFTW THEY WONT DELETE UR THREADS

I'M WITH YA!

[GommeInc]

I think that this went beyond innuendo, especially because of the direct use of the word cockerel, it went beyond innuendo into glaring sexual comments.

When was using the direct use of cockerel against the rules? :S The word cockerel is acceptable, and the whole argument boils down to innuendos, which are not against any sort of rule that exists, or ever existed, on this forum?

The actual ad itself wasn't bad, I think the comments went beyond the line that is acceptable (if you read them I think you'll see what I mean.)

Hardly, they were playing the innuendo game :/ Boxes have flaps!!

The actual listing, no. The Q+A verged on the edge of the adult listing rule. I can see the argument either way, however I think that there is no fault to the moderators' action. This is something borderline that in the end came down.

There were two images posted, I think the first was ok (borderline but much further from the line.)

Whatever happened to hiding images in a spoiler, or just as a link, to hide over-exaggerated use of innuendo?

And the line was never crossed? You kinda said that yourself... The first image was "further away" from the line, which suggests the other one was close to the line, but never crossed it (and didn't, common sense that it was innuendo and not gross-use of language kinda suggests that )

I'M WITH YA!

British Jobs for British People

[Catzsy]

When was using the direct use of cockerel against the rules? :S The word cockerel is acceptable, and the whole argument boils down to innuendos, which are not against any sort of rule that exists, or ever existed, on this forum?


Hardly, they were playing the innuendo game :/ Boxes have flaps!!


Whatever happened to hiding images in a spoiler, or just as a link, to hide over-exaggerated use of innuendo?

And the line was never crossed? You kinda said that yourself... The first image was "further away" from the line, which suggests the other one was close to the line, but never crossed it (and didn't, common sense that it was innuendo and not gross-use of language kinda suggests that )


British Jobs for British People

All I have to say to this because it seems to be dragging on and on is that the word used was not cockeral and some of the comments posted if posted individually on the forum would be removed straight away.
I used my judgment on this which could have been upheld or not. On this occasion it was. If it happened again I would do the same thing with this particular matter because of the graphic comments in the Q&A which didn't use the word 'Cockerel'.

[Pyroka]

Wow amazed I missed this. It just sounds like someone was trying to be funny and it backfired and now they're whinging about how it wasn't rude when it blates was meant to be rude... Why else post it otherwise?

Common sense prevails, even though it'll soon be called "TOO TOUGH MODERATION FIRE ALL MODZ 33" :rolleyes:

[Mentor]

I can see why it would not be wanted directly on the forum, but with appropite warning and a link offsite, i really don't think it's doing any harm. Anyone who see's it knows exactly what there looking at and from a purely common sence view it was pretty tame as inuendo's go.

Currenlty the whole offsite linking concept is based on hearsay as far as i'm aware, with no specific rules governing it. So clairification of exactly what sort of content is to be allowed in an offsite link my be somthing to think about. Currenlty i think the restrictions of linked content with a warning are probably more than they really need to be. The warning's there, its down to the user whether or not they want to listen to it or not "/

[GommeInc]

Wow amazed I missed this. It just sounds like someone was trying to be funny and it backfired and now they're whinging about how it wasn't rude when it blates was meant to be rude... Why else post it otherwise?

Common sense prevails, even though it'll soon be called "TOO TOUGH MODERATION FIRE ALL MODZ 33" :rolleyes:

Someone didn't see the thread or the article It was sexual innuendo on the word cockerel and it's short-hand version. It's kinda common sense, perhaps common sense's half-brother "obvious sense". The comments were tongue in cheek, but broke no rules other than for a word which is filtered (****?) which suggests a link in the thread, rather than a full removal. But as Mentor says, a link rather than an image isn't actually in the rules, even though it acts as an unwritten rule based on what some older, experienced members do to avoid tricky situations

[nvrspk4]

When was using the direct use of cockerel against the rules? :S The word cockerel is acceptable, and the whole argument boils down to innuendos, which are not against any sort of rule that exists, or ever existed, on this forum?

It was the shorthand form which was beyond the line of an innuendo and went too far into the lovely land of "discussing adult subjects" (I can't remember the exact name, two late nights and its late now, forgive me). At the end of the day its a borderline issue which ought not to have been posted, or at least checked, especially given the situation of the user.

Hardly, they were playing the innuendo game :/ Boxes have flaps!!

At some points yes, at other points no.

Whatever happened to hiding images in a spoiler, or just as a link, to hide over-exaggerated use of innuendo?

Still alive and well, I just think this one went way too far

And the line was never crossed? You kinda said that yourself... The first image was "further away" from the line, which suggests the other one was close to the line, but never crossed it (and didn't, common sense that it was innuendo and not gross-use of language kinda suggests that )

Sorry perhaps I didn't convery my meaning, the first was further from the line, and the second was just over the line / on the line / we can argue this for 100 days and honestly never come out 100% with a winner. My point is that the moderator was not incorrect to take the specified actions and given the forum member's situation a little more caution would have been appropriate. Had it been a normal member with a good record making an innocent mistake it probably would have been a PM warning.

That said I'm not sure exactly what the action taken in the Wootzeh situation was but its not discussable anyway because of privacy and all that (though I'm pretty sure he posted it anyway so meh.)

British Jobs for British People

-Shrug- Can't beat slave labor.

I can see why it would not be wanted directly on the forum, but with appropite warning and a link offsite, i really don't think it's doing any harm. Anyone who see's it knows exactly what there looking at and from a purely common sence view it was pretty tame as inuendo's go.

For the record, the image was posted directly on the forum with no warning but I guess as we're arguing that it shouldn't be on the forums at all, its not relevant to the overall discussion of the rule however it does validate the actions in this specific case.

Currenlty the whole offsite linking concept is based on hearsay as far as i'm aware, with no specific rules governing it. So clairification of exactly what sort of content is to be allowed in an offsite link my be somthing to think about. Currenlty i think the restrictions of linked content with a warning are probably more than they really need to be. The warning's there, its down to the user whether or not they want to listen to it or not "/

Yes it is, we're working to change that from hearsay to actual writing.




EDIT: Upon further reflection, having been involved in moderation since the beginning of time, I realize that there never WAS a rule that you could link to swearing content etc. with a warning. Someone made that up and its become accepted. But looks like we're making it a rule wot!

[Catzsy]

It was the shorthand form which was beyond the line of an innuendo and went too far into the lovely land of "discussing adult subjects" (I can't remember the exact name, two late nights and its late now, forgive me). At the end of the day its a borderline issue which ought not to have been posted, or at least checked, especially given the situation of the user.




At some points yes, at other points no.




Still alive and well, I just think this one went way too far



Sorry perhaps I didn't convery my meaning, the first was further from the line, and the second was just over the line / on the line / we can argue this for 100 days and honestly never come out 100% with a winner. My point is that the moderator was not incorrect to take the specified actions and given the forum member's situation a little more caution would have been appropriate. Had it been a normal member with a good record making an innocent mistake it probably would have been a PM warning.

That said I'm not sure exactly what the action taken in the Wootzeh situation was but its not discussable anyway because of privacy and all that (though I'm pretty sure he posted it anyway so meh.)



-Shrug- Can't beat slave labor.



For the record, the image was posted directly on the forum with no warning but I guess as we're arguing that it shouldn't be on the forums at all, its not relevant to the overall discussion of the rule however it does validate the actions in this specific case.



Yes it is, we're working to change that from hearsay to actual writing.




EDIT: Upon further reflection, having been involved in moderation since the beginning of time, I realize that there never WAS a rule that you could link to swearing content etc. with a warning. Someone made that up and its become accepted. But looks like we're making it a rule wot!

There actually was but it doesn't appear to have been included when the rules were condensed last time.

This is the link:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...nk#post2757097

[Lost]

Lol. GordonBanks it seems every thread you make an argument starts up, why don't you just take the message? This thread alone tells you why it was removed, it's full of arguments and no doubt the thread you're talking about was also full of arguments. The funny thing is since you're complaining about arguments being against the rules no one has actually closed this thread yet...

[lick]

Lol. GordonBanks it seems every thread you make an argument starts up, why don't you just take the message? This thread alone tells you why it was removed, it's full of arguments and no doubt the thread you're talking about was also full of arguments. The funny thing is since you're complaining about arguments being against the rules no one has actually closed this thread yet...

Maybe if you read the thread or saw it you could comment about it. There was only his post in it and it was a link to ebay and a picture