A few things

[lick]

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.

I think nvr said its not even a rule any more yet some mods are still editing for it..

[Immenseman]

He also added it depends on the context. If it's posting to cause argument then it will still be edited. Obviously, if you say "LIAR!!!!!!" then it's going to be ignored. However, if you use it to start an argument then you will still be edited but with the do not post to cause arguments or insulting infraction. Again, dependent on the individual situation. It really isn't rocket science to grasp.

[lick]

Then why was mine edited when i said

"*user* you're a liar"
and
"lying is bad for you"

I was hardly trying to cause arguments there. i even had proof the user was lying and the second time it was a joke and the user knew it

[Immenseman]

In that context an edit on the post is fine. I don't know who it was aimed at but if the mod saw it wasn't light hearted fun then they are going to edit. If you go a warning/infraction then it's a different story. Calling someone a liar isn't positive, not necessarily negative, depends on how it's used.

[Black_Apalachi]

Couldn't almost anything negative comment cause an argument though? I mean if someone's being an idiot and posting loads of rubbish which is clearly false, and you come along and say "stop lying", chances are as they're already being immature and whatever they're going to retaliate and argue against your post which called them a liar. Thus your post has caused an argument and you could be infracted. Then when you say you weren't trying to cause an argument, if was to a person like that, I imagine a Mod would say it's highly obvious they were going to argue rather than backing down and staying quiet.

Sooooooo basically anyone could do this with any negative comment and turn it into an argument whereas aimed at a normal person, they probably wouldn't argue but rather discuss their point of view in a more civilised tone. In other words, it can be down to the other person whether your post becomes an argument causer or not.

[The Professor]

Tbh I don't think the wording of these rules is the issue, but the enforcement of the rule. The spirit of the rules is clear to everyone, e.g. the phrase "don't post to cause arguments" comes under "don't be a negative factor on the forum" which implies the rule targets members who are posting to cause arguments which make the forum a negative place rather than those who post contradicting someone else and starting a civil debate/discussion.

Imo moderators just need to be told to stick to the spirit of the rules and use common sense when enforcing them and these problems will go away; if we keep digging into to specific wording and the terms used and stuff we're going to be here until Christmas and we're never going to find a perfect solution that covers all our bases without making the rules unnecessarily long and detailed, and when you do that people stop wanting to read them because they become like terms of service which no-one reads for that very reason.

This isn't a court of law and we don't need to make sure every eventuality is covered by the wording of the rules. The rules we have atm are mostly short and to the point and get the message accross and that works well as long as it's enforced properly.

[buttons]

Yeah Robald, that was my point. Everything can be seen as posting to cause an argument, I got infracted for something that's been said on msn then brought onto the forum. yet I gave msn evidence of someone doing the same to me and nothing gets done It shouldn't be used so loosely because there are so many things that can be interpeted as causing arguments, if it's obvious that it's about someone else then FINE, infract it. When I give evidence that shows something has been said because it's AGAINST me I expect something done, I mean, when it comes to me saying something really little about one person it gets infracted/warned whatever else straight away.

For example, someone made a thread that was aimed at a mod but he didn't mention their name or nothing and it was closed, a staff member uses a ****** little insult at me over msn and clearly copies and pastes to their forum mates to brag about it and one of them makes a thread to have a little sly discussion over it! The punishment should be the same, closure of the thread especially after supplying evidence. It seems there are different set of rules for different members here and it's not very fair.


I couldnt even suggest to someone (AS A JOKE) to hack their staff because it's much funner than being "immature" (as they were called) without being infracted because then apparently it's *+*oBvIoUs*+* that I'm accusing someone of hacking. They don't even tell you in the pm who you've apparently said hacks? O.o



Also the "leave the moderating to the moderators" rule is **** aswell, it's a valid rule as it could cause arguments but gawwwwd you guys don't know how to use it?

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....6&postcount=14 - Telling someone not to spam in a spam thread is not telling them off. 1) It isn't even a rule to post off topic in a spam thread so he's not acting like a mod at all... 2) He wasn't saying the member would get infracted for it or was breaking the rules anyway so I see no harm done.

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....6&postcount=24 - Calling someone a RULEBREAKERRR is harmless fun, would you agree Jake? You said if it was harmless fun there should be no edit, this one is and it's just messing around. Of course not, it was edited..

http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....5&postcount=25 - So now, saying someone didn't break the rules is now apparently doing a moderators job?? I think not. It was edited anyway ^^ (to make it clear I was talking to the moderator that was in the quote there)

Yes, I should pm it to Nvr and complain and yes I already have, he's just too busy at the moment so I don't want any of that "omg we cnt do nefin so plz moan sumwher else thx" or "WELL YOU DESERVE THAT EDIT BECAUSE YOU'RE A TROUBLE MAKER" **** please. If the mods could explain why they found the need to edit any of them and give me a satisfactory answer that would be great thanksss!

There was another thread with stupid edits like that. Only myself, Graham and Adam's were edited of course but yeah it's been moved, hopefully because they want to keep that stupid mistakes out of public eye, needs sorteeed
I agree Prof-Alex, I don't think it's the wording that's too wrong it's just which infraction reason is used and when :S like shown above ^_^


nice, just found a new example
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....7&postcount=24 - Don't really see how that's trying to do a moderator's job at all. Again, he didn't say "you're going to get infracted it's not allowed" he didn't say anything about the rules, he pointed it out and that was all. I bet it was edited because it was Graham. I don't wanna play the victm but when it's only 3 of us getting these crap edits then I'm sure you could see why we think we're being treated unfairly

[Immenseman]

Yeah Robald, that was my point. Everything can be seen as posting to cause an argument, I got infracted for something that's been said on msn then brought onto the forum. yet I gave msn evidence of someone doing the same to me and nothing gets done It shouldn't be used so loosely because there are so many things that can be interpeted as causing arguments, if it's obvious that it's about someone else then FINE, infract it. When I give evidence that shows something has been said because it's AGAINST me I expect something done, I mean, when it comes to me saying something really little about one person it gets infracted/warned whatever else straight away.

Regardless of your supposed "evidence" moderators can't act on it. You know perfectly well the don't accept chat logs as any sort of evidence. If they did I'm pretty sure half the forum would be banned, including staff. MSN is a place for people to mess and joke around. Without dropping names, management with red and green names insult people on MSN, it's not hurting them.

Evidently if you were infracted for something you said on MSN which got carried through onto the forum then you made it obvious that it was directed at a member and the other person whoever you may be talking about is either innocent and you're just worrying or alternatively they're better at covering it up. That's not meant in a patronising way, just the two things that I can think of.

The last line is just silly thinking that you're the only person who gets infracted. I know Kyle and Liam were/are cautioned and other members get punishment too - everyone has a level playing field and is treated with the same rules, regardess of depleted conspiracy theories.

For example, someone made a thread that was aimed at a mod but he didn't mention their name or nothing and it was closed, a staff member uses a ****** little insult at me over msn and clearly copies and pastes to their forum mates to brag about it and one of them makes a thread to have a little sly discussion over it! The punishment should be the same, closure of the thread especially after supplying evidence. It seems there are different set of rules for different members here and it's not very fair.

I could use the phrase "life isn't fair", but that's something my parents or a teacher would say and I'm neither of those. As I've said above, MSN chat logs which is what you're said was the evidence aren't ever conclusive. I know people on this forum who would go out of their way to re-create chat logs to get other people in trouble.

Sadly us members have let ourselves down here. If the moderators knew that a thread was aimed at another user they would penalise that user. However, they never know if a user has faked the chat logs. If all members were trust worthy, that wouldn't be an issue. However, they aren't, thus an issue arises. Unfortunate that we let ourselves down on that one.

I couldnt even suggest to someone (AS A JOKE) to hack their staff because it's much funner than being "immature" (as they were called) without being infracted because then apparently it's *+*oBvIoUs*+* that I'm accusing someone of hacking. They don't even tell you in the pm who you've apparently said hacks? O.o

Then the moderator will use common sense. See what other posts have been made. I don't know the exact post but say for example you quoted someone and then said it. It would be obvious who you were aiming it at. Regardless of it was a joke the user could still take offence.

I could say "Nvrspk4 is a hacker - jokes" and say there was past posts accusing him of hacking and he didn't like it he could report the post and say he didn't find it funny and the moderator would do their job and deal with the post and the user who posted it.

I have deleted the part of your post on the individual posts because I'm not a moderator so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on them as individual posts. Best bet is to PM the moderator(s) in question and get their response. I'm sure they'll take time out of their day to explain it to you and to resolve your issues.

Yes, I should pm it to Nvr and complain and yes I already have, he's just too busy at the moment so I don't want any of that "omg we cnt do nefin so plz moan sumwher else thx" or "WELL YOU DESERVE THAT EDIT BECAUSE YOU'RE A TROUBLE MAKER" **** please. If the mods could explain why they found the need to edit any of them and give me a satisfactory answer that would be great thanksss!

He has replied in this thread and numerous PMs from me over the last few days so I don't think he's very busy. If you've sent him a PM he may have just prioritised more important ones, he'll reply, he always does.

There was another thread with stupid edits like that. Only myself, Graham and Adam's were edited of course but yeah it's been moved, hopefully because they want to keep that stupid mistakes out of public eye, needs sorteeed
I agree Prof-Alex, I don't think it's the wording that's too wrong it's just which infraction reason is used and when :S like shown above ^_^

Threads are moved when there is an excessive amount of rule breaking and they move it away to deal with it or because there are posts that can't be seen by the general forum. I'm sure once again if you sent a PM to a super moderator they would give you a valid reason as to why they moved the thread.

nice, just found a new example
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....7&postcount=24 - Don't really see how that's trying to do a moderator's job at all. Again, he didn't say "you're going to get infracted it's not allowed" he didn't say anything about the rules, he pointed it out and that was all. I bet it was edited because it was Graham. I don't wanna play the victm but when it's only 3 of us getting these crap edits then I'm sure you could see why we think we're being treated unfairly

Lmao, that's ludicrous - thinking there is only three of you that get infractions :eusa_wall Like I said earlier in my post I know Kyle and Liam were cautioned this week, they might still be - not sure. I also know of more than three people who have had infractions/cautions/post edits throughout their rule breaking posts in spam over the last few days.

You say you don't want to play the victim but then you say there are only three if you getting silly edits in your own words then you must be the only three making silly posts.

Your best chance of getting a proper answer is to either PM the moderator(s) who gave these "silly" edits or go straight to the forum manager and demand an answer. I'm sure he'll tell you something that the majority of the forum could, the posts were a minor violation of the rules thus a post edit was used to remind you of your future conduct.

[buttons]

Wasn't chatlogs, was a screenie of a convo. I didn't get the part where they admitted what the thread was about though as it was afterwards and I'm aware you can't really use it as evidence. Yep, it's a place for people to mess around and say stuff you can't on the forum, I wasn't infracted for it no, the other member made the thread at me and a mod said something like it to me earlier so it was closed, it wasn't obvious at all because it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular in the first place


I don't think I'm the only one that is infracted, it's just the 3 of us that gets THAT one rule (please leave the moderating to the moderators) edited and whatever else. I haven't seen it used so much before nevermind in one bloody thread, what I'm trying to say is they can't actually use the right infraction reason properly. I don't think everyone is treated the same, when I was "friendly" with some ex-mods they would just tell me off and didn't actually do anything about it and I told them I didn't want that. After saying it so many times they finally got the hint but started infracting for the worst things. When I fell out with one mod they started infracting me very often afterwards, I'm not saying all mods have favourites but I've seen it personally. I think some of the mods see post reports (except mine!!) and think they HAVE to do something about it and don't actually use their own judgement.

They weren't really logs, just a direct screenie of the conversation as it was happening - which is why I couldn't get where they had admitted what it was about but "life is not fair" right? As for getting people into trouble, I don't really think you can talk about that but I better not say anything just incase I get infracted for accusing members of causing trouble. lol.

Yeah, I think I might pm them but it's not just for my benefit, it was for the others in question and just wanted to see what others thought about it, we're all allowed a say in what we think about the rules and I was wondering what on earth the mods were thinking when they edited that ones

He HAS replied and I know that, he pmed me and a lot of other people (2 lines lol) saying he was very busy and would look at all the pms by tomorow and this weekend. I'm fine with that. I'm not going to be impatient and cry, nothing will get done if no-one complains publically about the rules.

Silly posts? Who are you to judge that? I showed the links and don't think they're silly at all so no, I'm not the one that's at fault. Yes, they are "silly" edits, can't you see that for yourself? They weren't minor at all, they were perfectly harmless.

I asked for your opinion on one thing, not everything. I don't appreciate someone who is *just* a member like myself acting as though they're much more superior.

I'll ask for this to be closed and nvr to look at my posts instead. I'll pm the 2 mods in question aswell.

[Catzsy]

[ Buttons]For example, someone made a thread that was aimed at a mod but he didn't mention their name or nothing and it was closed, a staff member uses a ****** little insult at me over msn and clearly copies and pastes to their forum mates to brag about it and one of them makes a thread to have a little sly discussion over it! The punishment should be the same, closure of the thread especially after supplying evidence. It seems there are different set of rules for different members here and it's not very fair.

Well it is probably a good idea to be a bit more specific as to what you are actually saying here and quote the thread. That's why I only have two members on my msn. It is all to easy for someone to try and get others into trouble and misinterpret what has actually been said. This is quite an accusation to make so if you are serious you should make a complaint.

[Buttons] I couldnt even suggest to someone (AS A JOKE) to hack their staff because it's much funner than being "immature" (as they were called) without being infracted because then apparently it's *+*oBvIoUs*+* that I'm accusing someone of hacking. They don't even tell you in the pm who you've apparently said hacks? O.o

No that's correct it breaks:
Rule A4. Do not accuse others of scamming or hacking - Because we don't want innocent people being accused of illegal activities, we don't allow accusing others at all. This means it's also NOT allowed to accuse Habbox or Habbo Staff of abusing their powers on the forum. Also posting any images of people is NOT proof of them doing anything wrong as it could be an alteration. Even if you do have proof and know its 100% real, you should PM an administrator who may be able to do something.
The other member did not see it as a joke and also the pm quoted your post
so there was no need to state that again and it was not an infraction it was a warning which is much different.


Comment on my edit:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....7&postcount=24
- I edit everybody that breaks Rule A13 which is quite specific.

A13. Leave moderating to the moderators – If you see someone breaking a rule, click the report post icon on that post with a brief description. Also, you may not discuss bans on the forum. If you wish to dispute a ban use the Support System. Also, you should never ignore a moderators warning, change their warnings, or open a thread they have closed.

We are allowed to leave edits. It is up to the members to read the rules
although I have already pm'd the person concerned regarding this rule break
and quoted the rules so he should be aware of them. My view is that if you don't break the rules you will not get an edit or any other further action. If you feel this is unfair Habbox has a very good system to get it reviewed
by posting here:
http://www.habboxforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1331 or pm'ing
Matt Garner or Nvrspk4.

My personal view is that you & mwah are treated no differently than anybody else. I don't know who the third person is but the same applies. if members didn't break the rules they wouldn't get the edits and they always have the option of reporting rule breaks via the report button where we also say what action is taken so they can be checked for any so called favourtism by any member of the Forum Management.