If you were GM and could make one change

[scottish]

Make it Able to Buy VIP.
And More Colours on Donator , What Happened to Green on it O.o
Also another thing, instead of having to Upload to Imageshack or something, when you want to add a Picture
Be able just to click Add Attachment, and Then you browse your computer. Instead of having to go through websites
Then Copying Links. especially when u have alot of pics to put on

It's not habbox's option to stop VIP

Green is now used as staff colour, you can upload attachments. Under a post it has



Attach Files
Valid file extensions: gif jpe jpeg jpg png psd

[GommeInc]

The only exception to this is when posting an outside link such as a video or image where content is mildly sexual/offensive but suitable for 14 -16 years old. This is allowed but it must be a link or in a spoiler with a suitable warning in bold . IT MUST NOT BE POSTED DIRECTLY ONTO THE FORUM

So why does the rule state links and not posted directly onto the forum, as by your standard theres no rules about not posting directly (attachment/img tags, etc) onto the forum so if they didn't take take for granted everything would be an outside link just because it doesn't say attachment etc doesn't mean it isn't included and anyone using the forum can take for granted no porn :S


(Including Signature images linked to the websites).

Seems it does refer to sigs in A

Note the bit in bold. Figure out what linked means and you've got your answer Also, the "must be in a link or spoiler" begs the "what if" question. What if signatures and avatars can't go in spoilers or links? As it says nothing against uploading directly to the forum (which isn't linking, durh) you assume it's perfectly acceptable. Of course, moderators can use their own common sense and remove it, but they can not tell you it's against the rules - it's like when Mentor had a larger signature or avatar, and a moderator told him it was against the rules, yet no rule existed as it is purely down to the forum system, which automatically restrict avatar sizes depending on user permissions.

Besides, the suggestions I gave takes into consideration this with little text. You're forgetting the current rules just blert out drivvel assuming the person reading the rules are either stupid, or have alot of time on their hands to bother reading them

In theory, the rules can be condensed into 3 rules, with sub-rules as points in each rule to take into consideration each outcome. It looks neater and "cuts out the crap", as well as the threatening red writing which someone thought was clever - probably an angry admin or GM at the time.

[Catzsy]

Note the bit in bold. Figure out what linked means and you've got your answer Also, the "must be in a link or spoiler" begs the "what if" question. What if signatures and avatars can't go in spoilers or links? As it says nothing about uploading (which isn't linking, durh) you assume it's perfectly acceptable.

Besides, the suggestions I gave takes into consideration this with little text. You're forgetting the current rules just blert out drivvel assuming the person reading the rules are either stupid, or have alot of time on their hands to bother reading them

In theory, the rules can be condensed into 3 rules, with sub-rules as points in each rule to take into consideration each outcome. It looks neater and "cuts out the crap", as well as the threatening red writing which someone thought was clever - probably an angry admin or GM at the time.

This sounds exciting! Can't wait for the Gomme treatment!
xx

[scottish]

Note the bit in bold. Figure out what linked means and you've got your answer Also, the "must be in a link or spoiler" begs the "what if" question. What if signatures and avatars can't go in spoilers or links? As it says nothing against uploading directly to the forum (which isn't linking, durh) you assume it's perfectly acceptable. Of course, moderators can use their own common sense and remove it, but they can not tell you it's against the rules - it's like when Mentor had a larger signature or avatar, and a moderator told him it was against the rules, yet no rule existed as it is purely down to the forum system, which automatically restrict avatar sizes depending on user permissions.

Besides, the suggestions I gave takes into consideration this with little text. You're forgetting the current rules just blert out drivvel assuming the person reading the rules are either stupid, or have alot of time on their hands to bother reading them

In theory, the rules can be condensed into 3 rules, with sub-rules as points in each rule to take into consideration each outcome. It looks neater and "cuts out the crap", as well as the threatening red writing which someone thought was clever - probably an angry admin or GM at the time.

unless you're sad enough to read every single aspect of every rule (which no-one reads the rules anyways in this day and age) then you'd take for granted that on a teenager forum based on habbo hotel you wouldn't be able to upload any form or pornographic images unless you're an idiot then you may assume its perfectly acceptable.

The only time rules on any forum are read is when someone breaks them, then they read them to try and argue their point or don't read them and accept it. and i'm pretty sure under faq's it tells you each usergroups allowed sig/avatar size, obviously if it says 300x300 they're not going to allow you to have a 500x300, any normal member can understand that and accept it, and the members don't get punished for having a big sig or whatever they get a friendly warning asking to remove it......

anyways i probably won't reply to another post from you unless its based on another idea as this is basically turning into an argument and also isn't a debate thread about peoples suggestions just fo' others to suggest init.

[Eoin]

id get a virtual bookies forum on the case in the sports section.

[GommeInc]

unless you're sad enough to read every single aspect of every rule (which no-one reads the rules anyways in this day and age) then you'd take for granted that on a teenager forum based on habbo hotel you wouldn't be able to upload any form or pornographic images unless you're an idiot then you may assume its perfectly acceptable.

The only time rules on any forum are read is when someone breaks them, then they read them to try and argue their point or don't read them and accept it. and i'm pretty sure under faq's it tells you each usergroups allowed sig/avatar size, obviously if it says 300x300 they're not going to allow you to have a 500x300, any normal member can understand that and accept it, and the members don't get punished for having a big sig or whatever they get a friendly warning asking to remove it......

anyways i probably won't reply to another post from you unless its based on another idea as this is basically turning into an argument and also isn't a debate thread about peoples suggestions just fo' others to suggest init.

See, that's the point - FAQs are not rules. Rules are what you abide by, FAQs are there when you need a frequently asked question answered (pretty self-explainatory). It didn't help when he was warned and had the avatar/signature removed, despite the fact he requested VIP membership for being a member for 5 years, so it's extra effort for no reason when they removed it, and was pointless conflict at the end of it.

And it is an argument... You're arguing your points and I'm arguing mine. I sure hope you're not one of these people who think an argument is pointless and where you strangle each other, because that's technically what comes with debating

But I think moderators got that drummed into them anyway, arguments are not bad unless they break the rules And seeing as we're discussing a much needed change (the rules) it's not pointless at all

[Hecktix]

Note the bit in bold. Figure out what linked means and you've got your answer Also, the "must be in a link or spoiler" begs the "what if" question. What if signatures and avatars can't go in spoilers or links? As it says nothing against uploading directly to the forum (which isn't linking, durh) you assume it's perfectly acceptable. Of course, moderators can use their own common sense and remove it, but they can not tell you it's against the rules - it's like when Mentor had a larger signature or avatar, and a moderator told him it was against the rules, yet no rule existed as it is purely down to the forum system, which automatically restrict avatar sizes depending on user permissions.

Besides, the suggestions I gave takes into consideration this with little text. You're forgetting the current rules just blert out drivvel assuming the person reading the rules are either stupid, or have alot of time on their hands to bother reading them

In theory, the rules can be condensed into 3 rules, with sub-rules as points in each rule to take into consideration each outcome. It looks neater and "cuts out the crap", as well as the threatening red writing which someone thought was clever - probably an angry admin or GM at the time.

The only problem is with shorter rules is the fact we will get the pedantic fools who say "that's not specifically on the rules page therefore it's not against the rules", trust me we get a lot of people trying it on, and being able to link to the part where the rules describe pointless posts as "meaningless" is helpful towards a moderator.

People like you and I can link the concept of pointlessness and the concept of meaninglessness together to make the correct assumption that meaningless posts are pointless, however almost on a daily basis people argue that the rule doesn't say meaningless (even though it does).

I support your idea and Garion and I are going to change the way the rules are worded based upon your suggestions however with this the authority of moderators needs to be emphasised in terms of the subjective areas of the rules such as inappropriate and pointless posting are always at the moderators discretion. The mods decide what's pointless, what's inappropriate.

Of course there are systems in place to question a moderators decision however the extensive rules we have at the moment aid the argument on our side as we can link to certain rules, so for short rules to work not only will members need to understand that whether a post breaks a rule or not is at the moderators discretion but moderators will also need to be able to take a section of the shorter rules, and expand on it themselves.

Something I'd like to think our current moderators are more than capable of.

It's been decided anyway so god knows why I'm baffling on, shorter rules have more pros than the one con I have mentioned so shorter more easy to read rules should be on their way, thanks to GommeInc

[GommeInc]

The PM I sent Garion said something like this:

Rule A3. <mindless woffle about other sub-points)
To not pointlessly post, where the post is off-topic and doesn't follow on with the conversation.

If it doesn't follow the conversation, then it's pointless It's a bit difficult to abuse it when it's short, snappy and generalised.

The italics at the top of the list I gave also mentions moderators can use their own discretion and views, or whatever you want to call it, when dealing with broken rules without having to give examples or a mindless lecture of what counts as this and that, when it's pretty obvious and if the dumb cannot understand it, then there loss if they dare break them

[Hecktix]

The PM I sent Garion said something like this:

Rule A3. <mindless woffle about other sub-points)
To not pointlessly post, where the post is off-topic and doesn't follow on with the conversation.

If it doesn't follow the conversation, then it's pointless It's a bit difficult to abuse it when it's short, snappy and generalised.

The italics at the top of the list I gave also mentions moderators can use their own discretion and views, or whatever you want to call it, when dealing with broken rules without having to give examples or a mindless lecture of what counts as this and that, when it's pretty obvious and if the dumb cannot understand it, then there loss if they dare break them

*checks my PMs to check the list you sent Garion*
OOOH I see it, sorry for missing that you'd added the discretion part

That looks great to me as it covers discretion pefectly. However some people don't grasp the concept of a moderator's discretion therefore there will still be complaints but we're used to people moaning at us

I fully agree that the rules we have at the moment are poorly written and extremely patronising. The rules you have provided are detailed and incise and are not only a lot easier for users to understand but as they are written in a more simple way the moderators should find it a lot easier to expand.

For instance,

If a users posts X and a moderator comes along and believes X is an illegal activity and shouldnt be posted, they remove it, pm/infract 'n' all that jazz then they get a PM back saying IT DOESNT SAY X IS AGAINST THE RULES ON THE RULES.

The moderator can then quote:

Do not discuss inappropriate subjects such as; sex and illegal activities

And then say although it does not specifically mention X, it is as far as I'm concerned an illegal practice and if you read the quote above illegal practices are against the forum rules etc etc etc

So, generally I think it's a good idea and look forward to seeing this change happening.

[hah]

habbox users obviously wouldn't get the point of this thread and turn it into a debate

and ye change the staff cause at the moment you would think its a multinational company with all the staff/dept. lol example

trialst dj > first in command dj > second in command > senior dj > manager its something crazy like tht lol

and who ever said they cant do 3 comps and four events a month.... :S:S whats it probs takes like a min to write up comps and hour to host events... lol

merge comps+events and call them forum events and client events lol

dont quote me if ur do ur a loser or oli.. both the same rly LOL