Rule Change Feedback

[lawrawrrr]

"Accusing others of breaking national law is not allowed: defamation and libel will not be tolerated on Habbox, and any serious claims of a member breaking the law of their country or that of Habbox's base (the United Kingdom) should be forwarded immediately to the General Manager, lawrawrrr who will assess claims and take it forward with the relevant authorities if necessary. Posting "evidence" of claims without first speaking to the General Manager may result in an infraction or warning, or further (if your post is defamatory or libellous). Such laws include (but are not limited to):"

makes me think the forums a bit of a joke tbh

I can bet almost everyone on HxL is breaking copyright/piracy laws, please forward this to the relevant authorities.

hell habbox used to host the illegal executable for SAM Broadcaster until an incident many years ago.

Well if we're seen to be encouraging, allowing or facilitating illegal activity then we could potentially be in a lot of trouble with the law and face huge fines or being shut down so yeah, gonna keep this in. We've had incidents in the past where we've had to escalate cases to the police which is why that line is in there.

Obviously I'm not going to be reporting DJs for downloading files off YouTube but neither am I going to allow people to post links to torrent/warez sites (because Sulake can see these and remove us from official, we have to enforce the Habbo Way for the most part) or convince and accuse members of being paedophiles.

If a member was continually posted about in that context and then went on to, say, run for MP, the press would probably find that and that's not OK. It's libel, and it's not legal. Yeah, most of the time it's a joke and I'm not exactly Hitler here but I would like to deal with these cases really because I have legal training in this stuff thanks to my IRL job, so I thought that made sense.

It doesn't really affect you, or most other people, and the rule hasn't really changed much, I've just written up what I've been enforcing and the way we've dealt with things over the last few years.

Isn't this the point of debates, I can see "you're completely wrong" turning into a A1 warning/infraction

Obviously not, it says "any comments or insults that directly offend a user on a personal level will be removed". This isn't really a chance but more of a rewording of A1 which was there before. Except I'm pushing much more for a user-reported system, so if someone is offended by something then they can report it and we'd look into it, rather than moderators deciding if someone is offended by something.

The rule states that but summary of changes states you need badspoiler for anything 18+, so what is it, 18+ with badspoiler or never anything 18+?

Looks like a bit of miscommunication between the two posts, referring you to the swearing the the filter rule here:

It is allowed to post images/videos that contain mild swearing in badspoiler tags.However if the swearing within the badspoiler is deemed to be too strong it shall be removed by a Forum Moderator.
It is not allowed to post any images/videos that breach the filter without using badspoiler tags.

As the default setting for the profanity filter is "on", we'll still be enforcing badfilter rules throughout the forum when it comes to swearing in images & videos. Pornography is not allowed.

So we can post annoying as hell spam popups and rick rolls again?

You can technically but if it's pointless or you're clearly and consistently trolling, you'll be warned for that :]

You shouldn't include instructions in the rule, you should have a 'Click here' similar to the Click here to see what is/isn't acceptable.

It's fine.

Already said this rule seems stupid..

Other members asked me to add the bit about libel and it means we're safer legally than we were before. As you may be able to imagine, we have to deal with accusations of paedophilia fairly often so having something in the rules means that it's much easier to have a clear procedure in place, as that's something we've been criticised of in the not-too-distant past with a case such as this.

The thing that's changed here is that before, you couldn't accuse ANYONE of ANY illegal activity, but now because we're allowing you to post names of Habbo scammers, I felt a clearer distinction had to be made between real-life law accusations (libel) and Habbo (not so much).

has this rule ever been enforced? the amount of times I've posted private convos without permission

Generally we don't remove private conversations the second we see them, but if someone asks for something to be removed then it's taken down. I've asked for the rule to be enforced 3 or 4 times for myself since I've been at Habbox and I know it's been enforced at least twice during the last month. Generally though, it's up to the user that didn't give permission to whether the content is removed or not.

[MKR&*42]

Soz if already brought up but I can't see the option to remove the filter in UserCP?

So for now if b_rst_rd (will edit my post if this filters) is filtered, can you unfilter as Habbo don't have it filtered either.

[scottish]

It's not filtered

In UserCP go to Edit Profile then bottom of page

[Matt]

Soz if already brought up but I can't see the option to remove the filter in UserCP?

So for now if b_rst_rd (will edit my post if this filters) is filtered, can you unfilter as Habbo don't have it filtered either.

**** is unfiltered, just turn off the filter by going to UserCP > My Settings (in the sidebar) > Edit Profile > Scroll right to the bottom. The thread here explains more.


I know Laura's already replied to you Scott, but i'll give you an answer too.

Isn't this the point of debates, I can see "you're completely wrong" turning into a A1 warning/infraction

You can have debates and respect the people you're debating with, can you not? There's been cases in the past were people have turned to personal insults such as "Well you're just a dumb **** for thinking that" when the user is often only sharing their opinion. That is what the rule is referring to when it says personal insults, you're calling them a dumb **** for not agreeing with you. "You're completely wrong" is most certainly not warning/infraction worthy and in my opinion is not even a rule break as long as the user justifies why they've said it.

The rule states that but summary of changes states you need badspoiler for anything 18+, so what is it, 18+ with badspoiler or never anything 18+?

Mildly inappropriate content is allowed so long as it is nothing rated 18+. This would refer to things like lots of bad language in a video for example, or an image that might be considered offensive as it is joking about a serious matter - but the actual picture would be nothing rated 18+.

So we can post annoying as hell spam popups and rick rolls again?

I assumed most people had grown up since the days of rick rolling as we very rarely see it on the forum nowadays. By all means go for it but if it's not in Spam then you'll be contacted about it. If it's used in post after post after post then users will be contacted about it.

You shouldn't include instructions in the rule, you should have a 'Click here' similar to the Click here to see what is/isn't acceptable.

I see nothing wrong with this. It's giving users directions on how to go about turning off the filter as it's a big part of that particular rule. It could be included in the 'Click Here' link but I personally think it's fine in the rule itself.

has this rule ever been enforced? the amount of times I've posted private convos without permission

It has been enforced a number of times. It depends on the content disclosed in the conversation, the types of language used and the people in the conversation.

[Bloop]

ME: circumcision is sexual

FORUM MANAGER: You need to stay in school if you think a debate on circumcision is sexual

does this count? hmmmmmmmmmm

[scottish]

You can have debates and respect the people you're debating with, can you not? There's been cases in the past were people have turned to personal insults such as "Well you're just a dumb **** for thinking that" when the user is often only sharing their opinion. That is what the rule is referring to when it says personal insults, you're calling them a dumb **** for not agreeing with you. "You're completely wrong" is most certainly not warning/infraction worthy and in my opinion is not even a rule break as long as the user justifies why they've said it.

Of course you can, but soon as you say something like "No you're wrong" some kids are going to report this as a violation of rule A1 or anything that's essentially saying they're wrong although it may not be an insult at them they'll use the rule to their advantage as the rule includes "any comments OR INSULTS", so I think the rule should of been left alone because essentially now if I think anything offends me I can report you whether it's a comment or I see that as an insult.

e.g. if you call me ginger I find that offensive can I get you warned for A1?

The rule dealt with all of this before and I see the change as a backwards step as it's just going to allow it to be abused more, and when people don't get their way they'll complain about the rule and how you're not enforcing it

Mildly inappropriate content is allowed so long as it is nothing rated 18+. This would refer to things like lots of bad language in a video for example, or an image that might be considered offensive as it is joking about a serious matter - but the actual picture would be nothing rated 18+.

Okay so fix the summary of changes as it mentioned you can post 18+

I assumed most people had grown up since the days of rick rolling as we very rarely see it on the forum nowadays. By all means go for it but if it's not in Spam then you'll be contacted about it. If it's used in post after post after post then users will be contacted about it.

Because it was banned so people typically didn't do it

I see nothing wrong with this. It's giving users directions on how to go about turning off the filter as it's a big part of that particular rule. It could be included in the 'Click Here' link but I personally think it's fine in the rule itself.

I just think rules should be straight to the point, not including useless information within it (e.g. you don't explain how to use badspoilers, etc, or how to report posts to mods, etc so why include this).

*REMOVED* ~ lawrawrrr

[lawrawrrr]

Of course you can, but soon as you say something like "No you're wrong" some kids are going to report this as a violation of rule A1 or anything that's essentially saying they're wrong although it may not be an insult at them they'll use the rule to their advantage as the rule includes "any comments OR INSULTS", so I think the rule should of been left alone because essentially now if I think anything offends me I can report you whether it's a comment or I see that as an insult.
e.g. if you call me ginger I find that offensive can I get you warned for A1?

The rule dealt with all of this before and I see the change as a backwards step as it's just going to allow it to be abused more, and when people don't get their way they'll complain about the rule and how you're not enforcing it

Just because you can report it it doesn't mean it's going to be removed straight away, a report just triggers an investigation into whether something could be considered genuinely offensive. Obviously if someone reports "no you're wrong" then we're going to say this is not a violation of rule A1 because it's not a "comment or insult that directly offends a user on a personal level".

That's the biggest change to this rule, a lot of people have said to me recently that they didn't know they could report something like that. It's barely a change to the rule, just clarifies the emphasis on user-reported comments that we're aiming for.

For example, if someone replies to me in, say, a thread about intelligence saying "no you're such a blonde" then I may wish to report that as it's used in an offensive manner - to disregard any intelligence I may have claimed to have. That's not something that moderators would have necessarily picked up on, and honestly some users may not wish to report a comment like that, which is why we're emphasising user-reported offense rather than moderators making a decision on whether someone should be offended by something or not. It's much clearer IMO and, once again, isn't really that much of a change in general.

[scottish]

Why did you remove the bit regarding Matt offending Krush?

Seems a bit wrong thread regarding rule changing and the FM's breaking the rules within that lol.

The rule was pretty obvious before "Respect other forum members", but the wording now just seems if you say something and I don't like it I can report you, which to me seems as if it'll be abused.

[Inseriousity.]

I wonder why Matt removed his post.
I think bloop was asking where the line was drawn.

[lawrawrrr]

Why did you remove the bit regarding Matt offending Krush?

Seems a bit wrong thread regarding rule changing and the FM's breaking the rules within that lol.

The rule was pretty obvious before "Respect other forum members", but the wording now just seems if you say something and I don't like it I can report you, which to me seems as if it'll be abused.

If it's abused then we'll look at rewording it again. Respect other forum members is way too broad IMO which is why it's been reworded. Before, if you felt you weren't being respected then you were at liberty to report it, but many people didn't know they could do this, which is why we reworded the rule, but it's pretty much the exact same thing.

A few posts have been removed from this thread actually, for the same reason, but I can't discuss why sorry