Posting private info

[The Don]

I thought the application was a joke? Surely it's not that big of a deal unless it was a genuine application/pm
edit: ok can see jen acutally didn't want it
if the person however doesn't want it on the forum, then the person who posted it should remove it

[Catzsy]

I thought the application was a joke? Surely it's not that big of a deal unless it was a genuine application/pm
edit: ok can see jen acutally didn't want it
if the person however doesn't want it on the forum, then the person who posted it should remove it

I can see this point of view. It was a spoof pm it was not a serious one. Had it been then yes it would have been totally wrong. 'Rules' were being broken all over the place in the 'name' of the 'truth or dare' thread yesterday and that was considered 'fun' but this wasn't. Not sure I understand why tbh. In normal circumstances, though, I do not agree they should be published without the agreement of both parties.

[AgnesIO]

Because obviously some people aren't going to want to make all their messages public, but on occasion, like today, I don't see the issue, it's not exactly damaging.

It isn't, however my view was if the rule is there it should be applied. I had nothing against the PM as it was amusing, however if you are allowed to break the rules in one thread, you have to allow the breaking of rules elsewhere.

I didn't initially have a problem with the PM, however I did have an issue when my PM was removed, but Dave put his back after it was removed (again, no problem with Dave - I just didn't think that was very fair on the 'smaller guy'!)

I can see this point of view. It was a spoof pm it was not a serious one. Had it been then yes it would have been totally wrong. 'Rules' were being broken all over the place in the 'name' of the 'truth or dare' thread yesterday and that was considered 'fun' but this wasn't. Not sure I understand why tbh.

They were but eventually rules were pulled down on the thread (such as encouraging others to break the rules by posting pointlessly..)

[Catzsy]

It isn't, however my view was if the rule is there it should be applied. I had nothing against the PM as it was amusing, however if you are allowed to break the rules in one thread, you have to allow the breaking of rules elsewhere.

I didn't initially have a problem with the PM, however I did have an issue when my PM was removed, but Dave put his back after it was removed (again, no problem with Dave - I just didn't think that was very fair on the 'smaller guy'!)



They were but eventually rules were pulled down on the thread (such as encouraging others to break the rules by posting pointlessly..)

So does that mean we should go back and edit those threads seriously as 'normal' rule breaks? We accepted and the members accepted that it was part of the 'fun' so I see no reason that this thread wasn't accepted in the same spirit as those. This is my personal opinion.

[AgnesIO]

So does that mean we should go back and edit those threads seriously as 'normal' rule breaks? We accepted and the members accepted that it was part of the 'fun' so I see no reason that this thread wasn't accepted in the same spirit as those. This is my personal opinion.

Gonna have to be a spoil sport and say...Stop daring people to post threads in the incorrect forums because I've been told the posts have to be edited as encouraging members to break the forum rules....

If that is applied, then so does the PM and any other rule break relating to the thread.

[Catzsy]

If that is applied, then so does the PM and any other rule break relating to the thread.

Where is that post quoted from?

[AgnesIO]

Where is that post quoted from?

Truth or Dare thread. Scott was told by an AGM or Matt I imagine.

[Catzsy]

Where is that post quoted from?

I don't think it was suggested that it should be applied retrospectively so my point still stands.

Scott posted at 8.16 pm
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...22#post7163622


The thread was posted at 5.56 when 'breaking the rules for fun' was still being considered okay.
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=706759

In these circumstances still harsh in my opinion.

[AgnesIO]

I don't think it was suggested that it should be applied retrospectively so my point still stands.

Scott posted at 8.16 pm
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...22#post7163622


The thread was posted at 5.56 when 'breaking the rules for fun' was still being considered okay.
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=706759

In these circumstances still harsh in my opinion.

The difference is, obviously the PM thread was still there and had nothing done to it. Whereas the threads posted in the wrong places had already been dealt with. I don't see what is harsh in your opinion? It isn't like Dave got warned/usernoted/infracted or whatever. How since that particular thread had not been dealt with at all, the stricter rule has to be applied.

[Catzsy]

The difference is, obviously the PM thread was still there and had nothing done to it. Whereas the threads posted in the wrong places had already been dealt with. I don't see what is harsh in your opinion? It isn't like Dave got warned/usernoted/infracted or whatever. How since that particular thread had not been dealt with at all, the stricter rule has to be applied.

Only dealt with i.e. moved back to spam as if they were left there they would have been considered as pointless/spamming. No pms and not regarded as rule breaks. The pm was a 'spoof' only sent as part of a dare. Hardly a private affair. That thread was already already in spam so what needed to be dealt with? How do you know what action was taken against David, anyway? I don't I see it as harsh as everybody else was allowed to 'break the rules' without impunity except for one. Harsh.