Linking to another forum with photos of somebody else on?

[flatface]

Josh, it's posting an image of another member and you posted the link with the intention of sharing the image, this has been against the rules for a very long time as most members know.

Well xxMATTGxx didn't seem to know before he got the chance to speak to you about my punishment (sorry to pick you out Matt).

I have included a few replies from a selection of members that didn't seem to be 100% clear on the previous rule, I say a few because you were fast enough to close both threads.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...11#post6612211
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...20#post6612220
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...41#post6612241
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...55#post6612655

[Hecktix]

Well xxMATTGxx didn't seem to know before he got the chance to speak to you about my punishment (sorry to pick you out Matt).

I have included a few replies from a selection of members that didn't seem to be 100% clear on the previous rule, I say a few because you were fast enough to close both threads.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...11#post6612211
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...20#post6612220
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...41#post6612241
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...55#post6612655

Yes Josh, and following those replies the rule was clarified, and MattGarner did know about the rule because he highlighted it to me without me even saying anything.

And to be honest, although Saurav disagreed with the rule his post states he was aware of it, graham stated the rules are unclear too - as I've said, the rule has been clarified.

[flatface]

Yes Josh, and following those replies the rule was clarified, and MattGarner did know about the rule because he highlighted it to me without me even saying anything.

Well I have evidence to suggest otherwise. Your definition of clarified must be totally different to mine, and quite a few others.

[Hecktix]

Well I have evidence to suggest otherwise. Your definition of clarified must be totally different to mine, and quite a few others.

Well myself and the people I have spoken to regarding this (General Management and Super Moderation) happen to agree this has been against the rules for some time, and the definition of clarified is to clear up and avoid any misunderstanding, to highlight something more clearly - which is what we have done. It was always against the rules, following your request we clarified the rule to make it more clear that posting links to locations where there are pictures of other forum members is forbidden, but it always has been.

[flatface]

Well myself and the people I have spoken to regarding this (General Management and Super Moderation) happen to agree this has been against the rules for some time, and the definition of clarified is to clear up and avoid any misunderstanding, to highlight something more clearly - which is what we have done. It was always against the rules, following your request we clarified the rule to make it more clear that posting links to locations where there are pictures of other forum members is forbidden, but it always has been.

Thanks for that patronising response, anyway obviously we disagree on this. I have made it clear what I think and you have made it clear what you think. As far as i'm concerned this situation has been dealt with - not in the most professional manor, may I add. I think we should leave it at that, no further reply is needed on your behalf.

[Blinger$]

This is correct, if someone posts a picture on a forum that is not this one, they may not want it posting on this one, when posting pictures of users permission must always be requested.

Okay then, why can't we link to posts THAT USER made on THIS FORUM containing pictures of themselves ;l?

[Nixt]

At the end of the day, almost 90% of the time I have seen users post links, be it from a different forum or their social networking site, the purpose in doing this is to ridicule or bully the user. I don't see any other pressing reason for posting a picture of someone else? Other than to target the person and discuss them, which is something they probably do not want and in the event they did, they would post it themselves or grant you permission to post it.

[Blinger$]

Why bother posting it on THIS forum then? It's stupid.

At the end of the day, almost 90% of the time I have seen users post links, be it from a different forum or their social networking site, the purpose in doing this is to ridicule or bully the user. I don't see any other pressing reason for posting a picture of someone else? Other than to target the person and discuss them, which is something they probably do not want and in the event they did, they would post it themselves or grant you permission to post it.

[Nixt]

Why bother posting it on THIS forum then? It's stupid.

They post it on the forum because they choose to do so. They choose to do so at a given time, in a given thread, having a relatively good idea on who uses and browses the forum and who, therefore, may reply.

Any individual later posting the image, wherever they have procured their image, will generally do so without permission and with malicious intent. When an individual submits an image to any website, I doubt they expect that the image they posted will later be brought up, posted on a forum and discussed amongst members who they have not expressly given permission to do so.

[flatface]

Another member wasn't clear who this user was, so I shown her the link to the image. We hardly bullied him... He was in the same thread and judging from his replies you can tell that we all were joking around with each other, including the member whos picture it was.