status-resolved Topic of a thread

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.

JB Lions said:

If I'm replying to something in a thread, it's on topic.

Click to expand...

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.

Support Team said:

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..

Click to expand...

Exactly, so I respond to that, and get warnings and deletions? 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.

JB Lions said:

If I'm replying to something in a thread, it's on topic.

Click to expand...

I agree.

JB Lions said:

If I'm replying to something in a thread, it's on topic.

Click to expand...

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.

JB Lions said:

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.

Click to expand...

It was causing too many problems, so I had to restrict the topic a bit.

Paul Buonopane said:

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.

Click to expand...

Restrict the topic? You banned it.

My wording is fine. The part you deleted, I'm guessing is true. Just make lolwarrior a mod and he can delete any post pointing out the game he's trying to run. It is fear they'll start another new gtld forum, so you're bending over backwards for them. So be it.

Support Team said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

JB Lions said:

My wording is fine.

Click to expand...

No, it is not. You need to tone it down.

equity78 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Paul Buonopane said:

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.

Click to expand...

No Paul I was talking about my example and not as an antagonist because the answer is helpful and allows members to just ignore threads so as to not get deleted or warned, etc...

"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?

Someone asking me what name or how much? Is that off topic, because I know why I did it, which was to brag really, make myself seem like a huge player, not many 8 figure sales.

JB Lions said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

JB Lions said:

It is fear they'll start another new gtld forum, so you're bending over backwards for them.

Click to expand...

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.

equity78 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Support Team said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

equity78 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Support Team said:

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.

Click to expand...

To be fair I think that's how LOL's thread started out and it was ignored and then way too many topics started going back and forth.

Paul Buonopane said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Paul Buonopane said:

Yes. We do not allow antagonistic content.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/af...tfolio-until-2025.1136623/page-5#post-7245589

I doubt he got infractions. So infract people that respond or point out the game trying to be run. That makes sense.

-------
Nevermind. Just had even more posts deleted 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.

So what's the point, you have the delete power, the power to shape the conversation. Not responding anymore. It would be just more stuff that gets deleted.

equity78 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

JB Lions said:

Yes, you do.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/af...tfolio-until-2025.1136623/page-5#post-7245589

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

(Edit: I've since deleted that portion of the post.)

JB Lions said:

I doubt he got infractions. So infract people that respond or point out the game trying to be run. That makes sense.

Click to expand...

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.

JB Lions said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

JB Lions said:

But then I get even more infractions and post deletions.

Click to expand...

You have not received any infractions from this thread.

JB Lions said:

So what's the point.

Click to expand...

We need your help to get to the root of it.

Could you respond to these questions?

(For the record, I didn't delete your posts--or mine--in this thread. Another staff member did.)

Paul Buonopane said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I wrote the below to you in the other thread.

I don't want to discuss anything specific. We'd just go back and forth no point in that.

But speaking in GENERAL, how do you respond to the below? Where do we draw the line? Personal attacks are out - sure. But is saying that someone doesn't know what he is talking about because blah blah blah, a personal attack? Or that someone is wrong because what he did or said in the past contradicts his claim, a personal attack? etc. etc.


Paul:

When someone makes a post claiming to have made a sale, there are inevitably people who come along and state that they don't believe him, that he didn't make the sale.

When someone posts verifiably that he made a certain sale, invariably some come along and say that the domain wasn't worth that much, or, on the other end of the equation, that he sold it too cheaply.

When someone makes a post about any concept or practice regarding anything at all, invariably both the underlying proposal will be debated, as well as sometimes the qualifications of the speaker to offer the concept or practice.

I agree that a lot of the topics you mention

Example topics this thread does not cover:

• lolwarrior
• lolwarrior's company
• lolwarrior's experience
• lolwarrior's inexperience
• lolwarrior's intentions
• Why you are a better domainer than lolwarrior
• Why you are a better domainer than anyone defending lolwarrior
• Why you are a better domainer than anyone not insulting lolwarrior
• What lolwarrior ate for breakfast

This isn't up for debate.

are not up for debate, but then there are also fine lines involved with a few of the barriers you mention. If we believe that someone is hyping, we're not allowed to comment on it? If someone has zero documented sales, and is offering the holy grail solution to increased sales, we're not allowed to mention that the speaker has no verified sales? If someone states that he has paid out all of his domains for six years and looking over his WhoIs we find that this is not true, we can't mention it? If someone comes along and claims to be selling like gangbusters but was begging money from us via DM to pay for renewal fees very recently, we can't comment on where those renewal fees probably came from? I think some of these issues revolve around decency versus black letter guidelines over what should and should not be discussed.

At the end of the day, isn't this a business website? Is the end goal to allow all content to pass unfiltered and uncriticized or to direct people to the best possible results, within the context of inevitable differences of opinion.

As your own moderator has said

Kenny said:

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..

Click to expand...

so are we to leave this "figuring out" of who knows and who blows to unwritten thoughts, or to public debate?

Again, the spirit of what you are getting at is commendable, and makes sense. But in practice, if we were to anesthetize threads to the full extent of what you are implying, there would simply be one post, and the topic immediately closed with no further comment. I suppose you could leave the like and dislike buttons up, but that's about all that we could do without violating any of the barriers you mention.

I think some of us have gone a little too far with criticism in that lolwarrior thread. But we could also go too far in the other direction, and simply make a directive that no matter what anyone says must be accepted at face value. That isn't what you'd want, I hope, either.

Support Team said:

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?

​

Click to expand...

I'll try to answer, I believe the post was a bragging post but was disguised as a way to talk about renewing for multi years out. When someone asked the name which someone just told me in this thread would be "on-topic" it was ignored. Now I agree no need to get hostile and people probably would have been less persistent if it wasn't this member's pattern of behavior.

equity78 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've been looking into it, but I haven't really had much time; I've been too distracted by cleaning up the thread and replying to everyone who objects.

@xynames, you're conflating several different issues. To be clear:

1. The point of the ban on discussion of the OP is to prevent further antagonistic posts. It should not be taken as an indicator that problematic content in that thread was exclusively directed at the OP. It is purely to mitigate further problems.
2. Normally, in a thread like that, discussion of the OP might be somewhat relevant. It has now been banned from that thread to prevent further issues. As such, a debate over what would be allowed under normal circumstances isn't really relevant here.
3. Your own problematic posts weren't really directed at lolwarrior.

There was one comment in particular that you made that was quite out of line:

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.

Click to expand...

Okay understood, as far as the general guidelines (that the lolw thread got out of line so extreme measures had to be taken).


As far as my comment, as I mentioned before it's probably not productive to get into specifics we could go back and forth a long time. However, I know that I thought carefully about phrasing it as "the same stubbornness and opinionation you find in any of us." meaning, in case you didn't get it, that I was talking about myself as much as about Bob, that I was saying that he's not an angel, that he can be just as stubborn and opinionated as I can be.

equity78 said:

When someone asked the [domain] name which someone just told me in this thread would be "on-topic" it was ignored.

Click to expand...

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.

Not too long ago, we did add a rule that prohibits threads from being created solely for that purpose:

• Rule 2.6. Do not create a thread solely for the purpose of reporting a sale unless at least the item's full name (e.g., domain name or business name) and exact sale price are shared within it. The exception to this rule is showcase threads where everyone can share partial details about their sales (e.g., "the name starts with insurance and sold for $XX,XXX") in the same thread (not limited to 1 showcase thread but rule 1.13 applies).

Of course, it's possible for threads to be created that get around this rule, but it has helped.