Leave moderating to the moderators rule is ridiculous and lame and stupid

[Kardan]

Technically all the rules can inter-link anyway and pointless posting is the glue that sticks them together. Posting inappropriately could be stretched to be considered pointless, avoiding the filter if it is for no real reason, accusing a member of scamming, illegal activities and so forth. The rule about leaving moderation to the moderators gives a specific definition so members know not to do it, as the connection to it being pointless may not even be in their contemplation when telling a member off.

Then why on earth didn't the super mods say this rather than saying 'Because it's pointless posting'?

[dIrTyBuDdHiSt]

Then why on earth didn't the super mods say this rather than saying 'Because it's pointless posting'?

*REMOVED*

Edited by lawrawrrr (AGM Content): Don't abuse moderator features

[Kardan]

*REMOVED*

*REMOVED*

I can't tell you you're breaking the rules, so instead, I'll just say 'lol'.

Now, we have 2 AGMs and a GM online, who is going to act first. I'm going with Wispur.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, ok - I totally see why this rule is in place now, I totally though dirtybuddhist was being a moderator because he used the modwarn.

[dIrTyBuDdHiSt]

I can't tell you you're breaking the rules, so instead, I'll just say 'lol'.

Now, we have 2 AGMs and a GM online, who is going to act first. I'm going with Wispur.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, ok - I totally see why this rule is in place now, I totally though dirtybuddhist was being a moderator because he used the modwarn.

I'm allowed to because I used to be a moderator.

[Inseriousity.]

Then why on earth didn't the super mods say this rather than saying 'Because it's pointless posting'?

Just because not everyone is eloquent at explaining a rule or they go with their own interpretation of why the rule is in place rather than what the person who actually put it in place intended doesn't mean the rule itself is stupid. I think nvr has clearly demonstrated perfect clarity as to why the rule should stay in place and it's up to management to clarify that.

[Kardan]

Just because not everyone is eloquent at explaining a rule or they go with their own interpretation of why the rule is in place rather than what the person who actually put it in place intended doesn't mean the rule itself is stupid. I think nvr has clearly demonstrated perfect clarity as to why the rule should stay in place and it's up to management to clarify that.

I agree that nvr had a very good argument, I still think a 'This half of the rule doesn't apply in spam' wouldn't do any harm.

[Lewis]

If this rule is only because of pointless posting, why not get rid of the 'leave moderating to moderators' rule and just giving a pointless posting mod warn thing for not taking part in the actual discussion? Makes more sense to me.

[Mr-Trainor]

I also, to be honest, don't see such a huge problem with the rule that it needs to be taken away, other than some people got dinged for it and are unhappy about it

So are you saying that it was right for them to be told off for it? E.g. http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...23#post8165823 Keeping in mind that it happened in the Spam forum .

*REMOVED*

*REMOVED*

Why is this still here?

[GoldenMerc]

*REMOVED*

*REMOVED*

Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan; within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?

[MKR&*42]

Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan; within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?

Mods clearly slacking. I made a report;

Yesterday 12:27 AM

Still not been dealt with...?
--
Oh well wd laura.