Posting private information

[Stephen]

A5. 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.

Why does this rule count infraction/warning/usernote pms?

Say I posted this in spam

Hi Stephen,

I am contacting you about your post HERE where you posted the content of a private message from another moderator.

This is the rule:

What the hell is wrong with posting that? I can understand if it's a reputation comment or a pm that actually has something that the other person might not want people to see which im sure is the reason why that rule is THERE but SERIOUSLY WHY FOR THESE PMS? The fact is someone only has to look at a post that has an edit to know that that person got a pm for it which basically just says the exact same thing as the edit.

Isn't it abit... strict? Like I even got a warning once for posting a picture of my inbox that only contained warning/infraction pms with the standard YOU HAVE RECEIVED A WARNING title <- oh **** i just posted details of a warning pm i got

Also I'm pretty sure no one is gonna get told off for posting any valentines messages they get or do they have to ask habbox cupid for permission?

Oh yeah and if im gonna get 100 people (lol 100 people dont even come on in a year) giving me reasons why then can you atleast edit the rule to say "this includes moderation pms" or whatever because the rule just looks like it's for ACTUAL PRIVATE PERSONAL THINGS or something

k im done thx for listening
*bows as curtains close*
next show is tomorrow at 8pm
no refunds on tickets unless you die

tl;dr

im butthurt

[Chris]

This was explained to you the last time, so I don't get whats confusing you. You had no permission to post the private message from that moderator, so it was removed.

[Stephen]

"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:"

WHERE IN A USERNOTE/INFRACTION/WARNING PM DOES IT CONTAIN SOME SECRET INFORMATION ABOUT THAT MODERATOR

[Chippiewill]

There's no inherent need to post the contents of rule-break PM therefore to prevent abuse discretion shouldn't be awarded over this kind of situation otherwise you end up with confusion and arguments over what counts as private information and what does not.

[GommeInc]

Is it that big of an offense? The PMs are usually generic or self-explanatory. Posting what you did doesn't give anything away, because it doesn't tell you what you did wrong or enclose any specific, private information. It doesn't even name the moderator, it's literally a generic PM everyone on the forum has probably received

[Catzsy]

Is it that big of an offense? The PMs are usually generic or self-explanatory. Posting what you did doesn't give anything away, because it doesn't tell you what you did wrong or enclose any specific, private information. It doesn't even name the moderator, it's literally a generic PM everyone on the forum has probably received

So where do we draw the line? Pms are personal messages which are private content and so need consent of the sender to publish them whether in full or in part. It is not a huge offense on this occasion I agree but it would need a redraft of the rules not to make it one and it would be interesting to see suggestions on this imo. I feel that Stephen has been on the forum long enough to know this and may be better off sending a pm to Scott and Brandon rather than posting this thread. Stephen - this is the part that counts for you:

A5. 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

[GommeInc]

So where do we draw the line? Pms are personal messages which are private content and so need consent of the sender to publish them whether in full or in part. It is not a huge offense on this occasion I agree but it would need a redraft of the rules not to make it one and it would be interesting to see suggestions on this imo. I feel that Stephen has been on the forum long enough to know this and may be better off sending a pm to Scott and Brandon rather than posting this thread. Stephen - this is the part that counts for you:

For starters:

Disclosing any information about another forum user without their consent is also not allowed

He wasn't disclosing any information about another forum user so consent is not a requirement. Drawing the line is pretty obvious and only requires common sense. If the PM included any private, personal information then it is bad - but these PMs are very generic as they go and the post the link goes to is makes it obvious to anyone that he must of broken a rule of sorts to get a modwarn under his text. It's all publically available information.

[Mr-Trainor]

Also I'm pretty sure no one is gonna get told off for posting any valentines messages they get or do they have to ask habbox cupid for permission?

Thats an interesting point, and I do think that a Cupid message isn't much different from a reputation comment really, so I do see why they would count as posting private information.

[Catzsy]

For starters:

Disclosing any information about another forum user without their consent is also not allowed

He wasn't disclosing any information about another forum user so consent is not a requirement. Drawing the line is pretty obvious and only requires common sense. If the PM included any private, personal information then it is bad - but these PMs are very generic as they go and the post the link goes to is makes it obvious to anyone that he must of broken a rule of sorts to get a modwarn under his text. It's all publically available information.

The main gist of the rule, as I explained to Stephen above, does not allow private messages to be disclosed - what you quoted is an addition to this. I see your point though as there is nothing in a partial disclosure to identify who sent it but on the other hand is there are any need to post it? Problems can be sorted by forwarding the pm to have it reviewed if it is felt to be harsh. I am sure discretion could be used depending on the circumstances.