Rules need to be clear

[Chippiewill]

An accusation -To find fault with, to blame, to censure; To charge without having committed a crime or offence

That definition is incorrect, an accusation is an accusation whether it is correct or not.

[xxMATTGxx]

Meh, I don't really care about the usernote, I just want to make clear:

An accusation -To find fault with, to blame, to censure; To charge without having committed a crime or offence


maybe it could be tweaked a bit

After having a little discussion in regards of the rule towards your post, we have came out with the decision that it isn't breaking Rule A3 and that any edits/usernotes will be reversed.

[HotelUser]

It's my mistake and misjudgement which triggered this controversy. I'm sorry, Richard.

[Storking]

I've never really agreed with this rule.. I've seen posts that are supposedly breaking this rule - even though they have clear evidence that the person/site is in the wrong.

(in the case of habbo scammers/hackers) By MODs removing the details that users post, from the outsite it looks as if Habbox is covering up and possibly even protecting these people. Whereas the information should really be allowed to be said to protect and warn other users about whatever happened..

[Jamesy]

I've never really agreed with this rule.. I've seen posts that are supposedly breaking this rule - even though they have clear evidence that the person/site is in the wrong.

(in the case of habbo scammers/hackers) By MODs removing the details that users post, from the outsite it looks as if Habbox is covering up and possibly even protecting these people. Whereas the information should really be allowed to be said to protect and warn other users about whatever happened..

If you suspect someone of breaking the rules you should PM the moderator / member of management and it will be dealt with like that. Accusing people of illegal activity is not that dissimilar to telling a user they broke the rules - or acting as a moderator.

The idea of the rule is to prevent people falsifying evidence in order to shame another user, which is why we do not allow it to be posted - as well as the reasons above.

[Mr-Trainor]

I've never really agreed with this rule.. I've seen posts that are supposedly breaking this rule - even though they have clear evidence that the person/site is in the wrong.

(in the case of habbo scammers/hackers) By MODs removing the details that users post, from the outsite it looks as if Habbox is covering up and possibly even protecting these people. Whereas the information should really be allowed to be said to protect and warn other users about whatever happened..

The reason the information is removed is to prevent arguments and fake accusations.

[Storking]

The possibility of helping other users avoid the scams/unsafe sites surely outweighs the possibility of an argument that the thread may cause? :S

[Recursion]

Gunna put my hands up and say I recommended David edited the post and sent the PM, at the end of the day, there was no proof posted and I thought the rule applied as an argument could have been caused.

[Matthew]

The possibility of helping other users avoid the scams/unsafe sites surely outweighs the possibility of an argument that the thread may cause? :S

Thats what makes it so hard.
We either remove the rule and face a lot more arguments over the issue, but the possibility of less scams working, or keep the rule and stop the arguments but allow possible scams to stay out for a bit longer.

To be fair, anything that is known to be a scam tends to be removed by moderators pretty swiftly, so it isn't really much of a problem.

[Storking]

Why is it that the information is removed before any type of argument has even started :S

It seems so odd, surely if an argument does occur then a moderator can deal with it then.. that's the normal procedure right.. It's like having a user kicked as soon as they walk into HxHD because there's already someone in the room they don't like and you 'suspect' that they're going to argue - you just wouldn't be able to get away with doing that there. Same principles should apply on the forum imo.

I think the rule should really be re-thought and possibly scrapped in these circumstances, it'll do more good than harm.