Rules need to be clear

[Recursion]

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.

In the majority of cases this rule is fairly applied and it is better to avoid the argument all together rather than having to clean the thread up and dish out more warnings/infractions than is necessary.

[Richie]

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.

I disagree that's completely different. If someone in the desk was provoking an argument they would be warned.

[Mr-Trainor]

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

If you read my post, I stated that the information is removed to prevent further arguments and not to stop ongoing arguments

[Storking]

If you read my post, I stated that the information is removed to prevent further arguments and not to stop ongoing arguments

But why prevent further arguments if an argument hasn't even started and no one knows if it will actually create an argument in the first place.

If a user is simply warning other users on here about a known scammer and has solid evidence, then why would there be a need to remove their post? lol.. the scammer doesn't deserve any type of help by having the information removed and have numerous more users falling for the scam or hack.

That's what should happen if you were considering the best interests of Habbox/Habbo users imo.

[flatface]

But why prevent further arguments if an argument hasn't even started and no one knows if it will actually create an argument in the first place.

If a user is simply warning other users on here about a known scammer and has solid evidence, then why would there be a need to remove their post? lol.. the scammer doesn't deserve any type of help by having the information removed and have numerous more users falling for the scam or hack.

That's what should happen if you were considering the best interests of Habbox/Habbo users imo.

What one person classes as "solid evidence" might not be classed as that by another person. It's also very hard for a moderator to distinguish between what's fact and what's not, which I think definitely needs to be taken into account regarding this situation.

[FlyingJesus]

http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1086

Full of accusations

[Chippiewill]

http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1086

Full of accusations

It doesn't take a genius to work out that's different, also that's not what the rule's about.

[FlyingJesus]

In what way are Dan's unfounded rumours of oppressive powers destroying us all and tabloid rumours about celebs less accusatory and potentially damaging to the target than someone correctly stating that a certain website is illegal?

[Mr-Trainor]

But why prevent further arguments if an argument hasn't even started and no one knows if it will actually create an argument in the first place.

If you allow the argument to begin in the first place, then it could cause people to making enemies on the forum. If his happened to half the forum for example, then there would be a noticably negative atmosphere which could potentially lose forum activity.

If a user is simply warning other users on here about a known scammer and has solid evidence, then why would there be a need to remove their post? lol.. the scammer doesn't deserve any type of help by having the information removed and have numerous more users falling for the scam or hack.

Well I'll be honest, when I was a new member to this forum I was 'quicktraded' a throne and being unaware of the rule, I did accuse this user of scamming in my signature/thread. However, since then I have realised that what you may class as solid evidence could be classed as complete rubbish to someone else. Let's be honest, it isn't that hard to fake a habbo screenshot for someone that really wanted to.

That's what should happen if you were considering the best interests of Habbox/Habbo users imo.

In my opinion, considering the best interests of the users would be to prevent the arguments from beginning. An argument could make one or many users unhappy/upset and preventing them ensures that this does not happen.

[Chippiewill]

In what way are Dan's unfounded rumours of oppressive powers destroying us all and tabloid rumours about celebs less accusatory and potentially damaging to the target than someone correctly stating that a certain website is illegal?

A3. Do not accuse others of scamming or hacking, or any other illegal activity ~ making baseless accusations only leads to arguments and often members are targeted wrongly or unfairly. We do not allow you to accuse anyone of hacking, scamming or illegal activities with or without evidence so as to maintain a positive atmosphere about the forum.

Because the rule doesn't care about celebs