- Impact
- 34,872
If I'm replying to something in a thread, it's on topic.
That's certainly a reasonable way to think about what is on topic and off topic, and that may very well be considered on topic at many other forums.If I'm replying to something in a thread, it's on topic.
Note: The topic is decided by the title and the first post/message; subsequent posts (even by the topic's creator) do not change the topic. If a topic's creator changes the title or first post/message within the edit time limits, then previous posts/messages will be unaffected and the new topic will apply moving forward only..
I agree.If I'm replying to something in a thread, it's on topic.
If I'm replying to something in a thread, it's on topic.
Seriously. Explain to me how you want to ban people from the topic of a thread, that's literally in the title? That makes no sense.
Not if the content you're replying to was off-topic to begin with. Furthermore, your posts in the thread to which you're referring were extremely antagonistic; you really have to work on your wording.
It was causing too many problems, so I had to restrict the topic a bit.
That's certainly a reasonable way to think about what is on topic and off topic, and that may very well be considered on topic at many other forums.
At NamePros, we have strictly defined "on topic" in this rule:
- Rule 1.15. Organization. All content must be organized in an appropriate section ("forum"). Posts and messages must be on topic and relevant where submitted (e.g., a discussion thread or direct message).
- Note: The topic is decided by the title and the first post/message; subsequent posts (even by the topic's creator) do not change the topic. If a topic's creator changes the title or first post/message within the edit time limits, then previous posts/messages will be unaffected and the new topic will apply moving forward only.
Let's discuss whether that should be updated.
My wording is fine.
Let me ask this and I want a clear and concise answer with no wiggle room.
If I start a thread titled, "Just completed my first 8 figure sale" In the post I put WOW just completed my first 8 figure sale, have any of you had an 8 figure sale?
If @JB Lions asks me what the name is or what extension can I report him for posting that, since the thread was braggadocious in title and I just wanted to ask if others have been as successful as me, that's the only thing on topic and allowed?
No, it is not. You need to tone it down. This isn't a request. Consider it your final verbal warning.
Yes, you can report anyone for anything. That doesn't mean we'll take any action, nor does it mean there will be no negative consequences for deliberately sending unhelpful reports.
@JB Lions is complaining about a very specific post I made. In the context of that particular thread, I am restricting the topic: there is to be no further discussion of @lolwarrior in that thread.
What is the topic of the thread in your opinion?I respond to what's in the title, to what's in the first sentence of the first post, then get told not do to that.
You are misunderstanding our intentions. The problem we are working to solve is not fostering a hostile and unpleasant environment, especially when the rules are being violated in order to create those problems.It is fear they'll start another new gtld forum, so you're bending over backwards for them.
In this example, you could ask questions about the sale (e.g., the domain name and its price) and discuss anything you find out about the sale. That'd all be considered on topic given its title. However, things about the person posting are generally not going to be considered on topic in that thread. You could, however, start another thread with that as the topic if you wanted.If I start a thread titled, "Just completed my first 8 figure sale" In the post I put WOW just completed my first 8 figure sale, have any of you had an 8 figure sale?
What is the topic of the thread in your opinion?
What was the topic of the post that you made that was removed as off topic?
Let's clearly establish those two things, and then we can figure out where the disagreement lies.
You are misunderstanding our intentions. The problem we are working to solve is not fostering a hostile and unpleasant environment, especially when the rules are being violated in order to create those problems.
In this example, you could ask questions about the sale (e.g., the domain name and its price) and discuss anything you find out about the sale. That'd all be considered on topic given its title. However, things about the person posting are generally not going to be considered on topic in that thread. You could, however, start another thread with that as the topic if you wanted.
Examples like this are helpful in clarifying the rules.
Thanks for asking.
Well thank you, and of course a forum never wants to be considered a hostile place, it also and I am not saying currently that it is, but it does not want to be a con man's dream either. What do the victims of every Ponzi scheme say, I didn't ask enough questions and everyone else said they were a good guy.
In this example, you could ask questions about the sale (e.g., the domain name and its price) and discuss anything you find out about the sale.
It's possible to question people without being aggressive or dismissive. The majority of that thread was fine up until the last few pages, and we probably would've left it alone entirely if not for what happened later on.
Yes. We do not allow antagonistic content.
Agreed like I just wrote to NP I think the first few people did ask about the name and it was ignored, and you guys have to look at member behavior patterns, this member does that all the time. He could have stated the name and a price range, not show his financials like he tried to say to me in the Bob Hawkes thread.
hmm, you seem a little cranky if I might say so - it seems you can not process longer written English text in it's complexity. Which is fine, but please do not let that irritate you and to attack people like Bob - if the written text is too complex for you, just do not read it!
I doubt he got infractions. So infract people that respond or point out the game trying to be run. That makes sense.
It is, but you and Paul should take part of that discussion to a direct message (or a different thread). It is distracting from the core issue that we are all trying to understand/solve in this thread.Thought this was the thread to talk about stuff, since stuff was getting deleted everywhere else. But then I get even more infractions and post deletions.
You have not received any infractions from this thread.But then I get even more infractions and post deletions.
We need your help to get to the root of it.So what's the point.
What is the topic of the thread in your opinion?
What was the topic of the post that you made that was removed as off topic?
Let's clearly establish those two things, and then we can figure out where the disagreement lies.
It's not really appropriate to bring up that pattern in the thread itself, though we probably wouldn't interfere if people did so without getting too aggressive. Once a thread crosses the line, though, we have to go through and completely gut it, or people end up steering it back toward the aggressive side of things.
I'm not really sure what to do about that one--the thread is mostly sided against him, so I feel bad deleting one of his few responses, but you're right: it's got some really dismissive and rude comments in it, like this one:
hmm, you seem a little cranky if I might say so - it seems you can not process longer written English text in it's complexity. Which is fine, but please do not let that irritate you and to attack people like Bob - if the written text is too complex for you, just do not read it!
You were the only one who got infractions because you kept replying with the same thing after I told you multiple times to stop. You replied to that thread, another thread (off-topic), here, and in DM. DM and separate threads are fine, of course, but if you continue posting arguments after your first one gets deleted, you're going to get an infraction.
so are we to leave this "figuring out" of who knows and who blows to unwritten thoughts, or to public debate?take everything you read in this thread with a grain of salt.
Some members know what they are talking about, some don't, but everyone has an opinion, and it shouldn't take you very long to figure out who knows and who blows..
It is, but you and Paul should take part of this discussion to a direct message (or a different thread). It is distracting from the core issue that we are all trying to solve in this thread.
We need your help to get to the root of it.
Could you respond to these questions?
Paul I didn't post about it and was not saying for anyone to post about it, I was saying mods need to see these patterns in several threads by the same member. That's the point I was making.
Bob just keeps saying the same thing and offering his imaginary numbers and incorrectly calculated projections. You know - I hadn’t realized before how pointless it is trying to reason with him but underneath those thousand word treatises of his that seem to be placating is the same stubbornness and opinionation you find in any of us.
Yes, that type of question is allowed in that thread. Granted, the thread creator isn't obligated to answer it in this case because that's not the sole purpose of the thread from our perspective. It's certainly possible that he only created the thread for that purpose, and we hope members will report the thread when they believe that is the case, but ultimately, the moderator handling the report will make that decision after reviewing it.When someone asked the [domain] name which someone just told me in this thread would be "on-topic" it was ignored.