Abuse of staff powers / Outright fail in communications and knowledge of rules.

[Chippiewill]

This is all a bit petty. I havnt read all of this but some of it I have. What's the reason you can't just have a smaller avatar image anyway? It hardly contributes a lot to your posts, since it's in your sig anyway..

Yes, but he shouldn't have to.

And surely what you're saying is, since I bought VIP, and when it runs out, I've earnt the rank VIP and so therefore should be able to keep an avatar of 150x150..

Exactly

[FlyingJesus]

Ok, so many posts comeing in now. And so far i've responded to all without anyone really takeing myside.

The only reason no ones winning is becuse you all can see i'm right. The rules do not state an avatar being over the size of a groups limit as being against the rules. and No, this is NOT implied. Even if it is, rules should be clear, not require you to read 3 faq articles and infer the conclusion.

FAQ - this provides answers to commonly asked questions, such as what is the max size i can set my avatar to while in this group
This is information. not rules. They are different
The faq articles also do not say it is against the rules to have an avatar bigger than the size you can set while in a group.

As no rule exists in rules. Logically i can conclude there is no rule. Simple enough?
if something is written in an faq and not stated to be a rule, i assume it is an faq article not a rule -

That seems pretty logical to me? Your logic on the other hand doesnt appear to mesh with the common usage of that word.

TruthfulLove: that would be true - IF the rule existed. The sig rule exits, the avatar one does not. Also i was not notified of the 24 hour time limit.

Saurav: there is nothing to get away with, i broke no rule. if a rule is added, then it can be inforced. Since it has not been, then it should not.

Then if all else fails you still disobeyed a direct request from a smod, believing yourself above the situation instead of doing as you were told until you got an answer from Jin. There's nothing wrong with you getting hold of him but if you aren't going to comply with requests which (whether you believe it to be a rule or not) are obviously quite tame and would have caused you perhaps a minute to find a new avatar or edit your old one until you were put back in a usergroup in which moderation was happy with it. It's really not that difficult to not make a fuss of it especially when it's down to your own lack of compliance.

[Seatherny]

You are, however, allowed to post pictures of yourself, although they are NOT allowed in your avatar or signature.

Now I can see people putting a picture of themselves as their profile picture and arguing that its not in the forum rules when its common sense.

[kk.]

Yes, but he shouldn't have to.


Exactly

He should have to, it's just general knowledge that you'd have to.

And that exactly is exactly right.. You had the priveleges, but now you don't, so you change it

[Mentor]

Or maybe the majority of the forum disagrees with you is because we can all see you are wrong and just arguing over silly things which are considered plain common sense. Like I said, if we followed your logic, each rule would be about 600 lines with all the if's :rolleyes:

Funny how you keep telling me of this common sence and rules, yet when i asked you to go find the rule, you never replied?

+ your repeting yourself already

Some people would be forgiven for thinking you're defending a court case.

This is only a forum, i really don't think every rule has to be written is such detail. Everyone else seemed to get the idea that there is in fact a size limit for user groups, even if it doesn't literally say that there is.

If it doesnt litrally have a rule, i don't think it should literally be applied. Much like in a court case, i have evidence that proves i'm right. People saying i'm wrong seem to have had to resort to telling me i'm wrong in different ways, implying i dont understand logic and saying everyone else was happing being told off?

None of these really help make their case. I show the rules contain no such rule. I show the faq which are no rules contain no such rule, nore implication of one.

What is being offered as evidence from people saying i'm wrong about this rules non-existence?

Now I can see people putting a picture of themselves as their profile picture and arguing that its not in the forum rules when its common sense.

...
You see how the bit you quoted saying posting pictures of yourself as avatars is against the rules, says just that.

Now go find the bit that says the same about avatar sizes in the rules. If you cant, would you mind stopping with the irrlevnt quotes and implying i'm stupid?

[Chippiewill]

Now I can see people putting a picture of themselves as their profile picture and arguing that its not in the forum rules when its common sense.

Actually, yes you can put a picture of yourself as your profile picture.

[kk.]

I have an idea.. Reverse the warning (which isn't a big deal anyway..), update the rules to whatever reds be, and just resize the avatar to fit your usergroup. Wait until you get VIP and then upload again..

You were given 24 hours to save your avatar onto a computer if you hadn't already..

[Seatherny]

Funny how you keep telling me of this common sence and rules, yet when i asked you to go find the rule, you never replied?

http://habboxforum.com/showpost.php?...8&postcount=36

I did reply, stop making stuff up to make yourself look better.

Actually, yes you can put a picture of yourself as your profile picture.

Last time I read a announcement relating to pictures, it said it is against the rules to actually upload the pictures onto the forum, and I am pretty sure you have to upload them when using a profile picture.
If the rules for it has changed then its my fault for not reading the new rules relating to it.

[GommeInc]

Now I can see people putting a picture of themselves as their profile picture and arguing that its not in the forum rules when its common sense.

How is that common sense? Common sense is posting your avatar without the fear of being bum raped somewhere, as there is no rational reason for having a "rule" for this in the first place And FAQs by definition are not rules, they're questions that are frequently asked Perhaps the rules need beefing up in one of the updates, and the FAQ fixed?

[Seatherny]

Should just add a sentence to the Rules: All the content of the FAQ should be considered as rules.
Otherwise people will continue to argue over small things when there are better things to sort out at the moment.