A few things

[Mentor]

Heh, it was originally called trolling but the wording was changed to "Posting to cause arguments" to avoid people saying "no thatz not trolling, this iz". Posting to cause arguments is more black and white than trolling which is a word that hasn't been in use all that long and doesn't have a clear definition. Ironic that it now seems like the best thing to do is change it back

I personally don't mind the word trolling but don't like the expression ' Do not feed the trolls' because there is another definition of the word Troll which isn't very flattering (ugly little monsters) which could be interpreted to mods being rude to members.

I think the wording could be altered

My suggestion would be:

A10. Do not be a negative factor on the forum – This includes posting to cause or to fuel arguments, unnecessary attacks on forum staff or general bad manners and attitude towards other forum members. Moderators, as always, will have the final say on whether a member is constantly being negative on the forums.

My problem with the above suggestions is it still focus's on the word argument which are not a negative thing. All threads in the debates sections are posts to cause arguments. As thats what an argument is, a debate or discussion. They are all one and the same. Assuming the arguments are kept civil i can see no problem with them.

This is the reason i see flaming as the key word to use as it is flaming (personal attacks on other members and meaningless disagreements (such as trolling a users threads)) that as i understand it the rule aims to prevent. Discussion / argument in terms of conflicting ideologies, ideas and thoughts on the other hand are the key to conversation, people like different films and tv programs, different films, have different political beliefs and so on and so forth. As long as these arguments do not descend in to flaming, what is the issue?

[lick]

get rid of it and just use "dont be rude" or something

[Catzsy]

My problem with the above suggestions is it still focus's on the word argument which are not a negative thing. All threads in the debates sections are posts to cause arguments. As thats what an argument is, a debate or discussion. They are all one and the same. Assuming the arguments are kept civil i can see no problem with them.

This is the reason i see flaming as the key word to use as it is flaming (personal attacks on other members and meaningless disagreements (such as trolling a users threads)) that as i understand it the rule aims to prevent. Discussion / argument in terms of conflicting ideologies, ideas and thoughts on the other hand are the key to conversation, people like different films and tv programs, different films, have different political beliefs and so on and so forth. As long as these arguments do not descend in to flaming, what is the issue?

Yes the word flaming is good. I think it is better than troll. The word to vex/be vexatious pretty much sums it up as well.

[nvrspk4]

My problem with the above suggestions is it still focus's on the word argument which are not a negative thing. All threads in the debates sections are posts to cause arguments. As thats what an argument is, a debate or discussion. They are all one and the same. Assuming the arguments are kept civil i can see no problem with them.

This is the reason i see flaming as the key word to use as it is flaming (personal attacks on other members and meaningless disagreements (such as trolling a users threads)) that as i understand it the rule aims to prevent. Discussion / argument in terms of conflicting ideologies, ideas and thoughts on the other hand are the key to conversation, people like different films and tv programs, different films, have different political beliefs and so on and so forth. As long as these arguments do not descend in to flaming, what is the issue?

Flaming isn't the same as trolling. The two things, flaming and baiting, but baiting is more like trolling while flaming is more like simply insulting.

[syko2006]

If your Judgment is so good, why have about 6 infractions you gave me been reversed?

Because you complained and insisted that they were in spite, which they were not.

So if a user gets an infraction, they can complain about it being in spite and get it reversed? Nice.

[lick]

So if a user gets an infraction, they can complain about it being in spite and get it reversed? Nice.

No, if you read the next post you would see i said it was given for a stupid reason

i got one for saying a user had a small willie and for saying penis pump

[syko2006]

Oh ok, my bad, I'll rephrase that.

So if a user gets an infraction, they can complain about it being stupid and get it reversed? Nice.

[xxMATTGxx]

Oh ok, my bad, I'll rephrase that.

So if a user gets an infraction, they can complain about it being stupid and get it reversed? Nice.

If you have a problem with an infraction you were given by a member of the Moderation Department. Then yes, you can report it. You need to post in this thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=279102

[syko2006]

If you have a problem with an infraction you were given by a member of the Moderation Department. Then yes, you can report it. You need to post in this thread: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=279102

Ok, sweet! Thanks MG.

[Kardan]

I think the lying one needs sorting out most. If I joke about with Jen and she says something about me and I put:

DON'T LIE!!!! :@ :@

I'd be infracted for it which is silly. Not all moderators would know that me and Jen are even friends, and Jen would quite clearly know it's a joke because I don't usually type like that. I think most MODs would see 'Don't Lie' and go to infract without checking who it was aimed at and the context of the thread.