Linking to another forum with photos of somebody else on?

[Catzsy]

This is correct Rosie, we thought that it would be obvious that linking to a page which contains an image would be the same rule which forbids people from posting images without permission, perhaps not - it has been clarified now anyway.

Yes I totally agree but as I said at the time sometimes the obvious has to be put into 'black and white'.

[flatface]

This is correct Rosie, we thought that it would be obvious that linking to a page which contains an image would be the same rule which forbids people from posting images without permission, perhaps not - it has been clarified now anyway.

Thanks again for the patronising comment.

Before:

A4. Do not post private details or information ~ We do not allow you to post private information about yourself due to security concerns. Disclosing any information about another forum user without their consent is also not allowed. This includes:

• Private messages
• Reputation comments
• Private conversations (MSN, Habbo, etc.)
• Images / videos of the user or social networking profiles (Bebo, Facebook, etc.)
• Trying to organize real life meet-ups
• It is also not allowed to give out the personal details (specific address, phone number etc) of anyone, forum user or otherwise.

After:

A4. Do not post private details or information ~ We do not allow you to post private information about yourself due to security concerns. Disclosing any information about another forum user without their consent is also not allowed. This includes:

•Private messages
•Reputation comments
•Private conversations (MSN, Habbo, etc.)
•Images / videos of the user or links to a page where an image/video of another user is located (this includes social networking sites, facebook, myspace etc))
•Trying to organize real life meet-ups
•It is also not allowed to give out the personal details (specific address, phone number etc) of anyone, forum user or otherwise.

You are, however, allowed to post pictures of yourself although they are not allowed in your avatar or signature. You may also share your email address and social networking profiles on the forum.

Unless that sentence magically appeared, I think it was added. No where in the previous A4 rule did it state anything about linking to another thread on a publicly viewable forum - so in response to your statement Oli, it wasn't made clearer, it was added.

[Catzsy]

Thanks again for the patronising comment.

Before:

After:


Unless that sentence magically appeared, I think it was added. No where in the previous A4 rule did it state anything about linking to another thread on a publicly viewable forum - so in response to your statement Oli, it wasn't made clearer, it was added.

Tbf Josh he said it had been added. It always used to be like that until the recent trim which was done at the request of members for simpler wording if I remember correctly.

[Hecktix]

Thanks again for the patronising comment.

Before:
[/LIST]
After:


Unless that sentence magically appeared, I think it was added. No where in the previous A4 rule did it state anything about linking to another thread on a publicly viewable forum - so in response to your statement Oli, it wasn't made clearer, it was added.

As Catzsy and myself pointed out, the rules are blanket rules which include multiple things, as you very well know we cannot highlight absolutely everything that is against the rules, therefore we highlight blanket rules which cover many things, posting an image of another forum member whether it be by embedding, direct link to the image or a link to the page where the image is, is still posting an image of another forum member - and as Rosie quite rightly pointed out, this has been the case since pictures have been allowed at Habbox Forum.

[flatface]

As Catzsy and myself pointed out, the rules are blanket rules which include multiple things, as you very well know we cannot highlight absolutely everything that is against the rules, therefore we highlight blanket rules which cover many things, posting an image of another forum member whether it be by embedding, direct link to the image or a link to the page where the image is, is still posting an image of another forum member - and as Rosie quite rightly pointed out, this has been the case since pictures have been allowed at Habbox Forum.

I'm not going to argue with you. Many other members have said before that you are so stubborn which i'm going to have to agree with, not sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. As far as i'm concerned thats it, I know what I mean and a few other members agree with me. Sometimes what you consider to be "obvious" other people may not consider to be, I think you need to realise that... I'm not stupid and I don't need you to imply that I am, so please don't.

[Hecktix]

I'm not going to argue with you. Many other members have said before that you are so stubborn which i'm going to have to agree with, not sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. As far as i'm concerned thats it, I know what I mean and a few other members agree with me. Sometimes what you consider to be "obvious" other people may not consider to be, I think you need to realise that... I'm not stupid and I don't need you to imply that I am, so please don't.

Yes, Josh I understand that perhaps the rule was not clear enough which is why I added that part on your suggestion, if I was completely stubborn I would have insisted that it would remain how it was and users should understand - no, I saw your point and added a few extra words to the rule - whether or not it covered it in the first place in our eyes it did - Garion and I wrote the rules however we do not account for the majority of HabboxForum members and these rules are still relatively new and I suppose it's these kind of misunderstandings that will help these rules develop. Catzsy, the longest-running Super Moderator to ever work at HabboxForum has confirmed it was always against the rules and was highlighted in the rules beforehand, perhaps Garion and myself were wrong to assume that users would understand that "do not post images of other members" was a blanket for any method of posting images.

We are both going round in circles here and there is no need for it, I have said it's always been against the rules, Garion has, Matt has and Catzsy has, why we are still both here discussing it I do not know Perhaps we are both stubborn.

[flatface]

Nice to know that General Management and a previous super moderator know every aspect of the rules even though half of the detail seems to be missing from the rules page itself, shame about the rest of the users, especially the newer ones . Anyone that actually knows me will agree I am definitely not stubborn, I am actually quite an easy going person.

[Nixt]

When writing the rules we aimed for a simple but direct approach that did not mean you were inundated with loads of text but a small amount with clear points that tell you what is or is not against the rules. This was changed because members were constantly moaning about how the rules were just getting bigger and bigger and were far too confusing for the new members you have cited. At the end of the day the rules stated that posting a picture of another member was a violation of the rules, and this means in whatever context you have posted this picture.

The rules are not able to cover every possible form of rule break. As I said at the time, I can certainly write up a piece of legislation that will cover page after page and prevent any "loophole" as it were, but this is undesirable. The rules are designed to prevent rule breaking and therefore, they are sometimes interpreted and applied in a more liberal sense so as to prevent undesirable behaviour on the forum that may not be explicitly stated in the rules.