- Impact
- 34,975
If I'm replying to something in a thread, it's on topic.
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's just as stubborn and opinionated as I am.
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:
Of course, it's possible for threads to be created that get around this rule, but it has helped.
- 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).
In that thread, Bob was relentless with presenting what I viewed to be completely erroneous misinformation, based solely on theory and not practice. No, I didn't let it go, and the fact that most of my posts are still there means that my responses were meaningful. Neither did MapleDots let it go, he felt that Bob was completely wrong too, and Maple's posts are still there too.
At some point, attacking the content may turn into attacking the man, and of course at that point it has gone too far. But it wasn't like anyone was calling him names, we were mostly saying that he doesn't know what he is talking about, and here's why.
It's rather important for that not to happen unless it's in a thread where it makes sense (e.g., with an open topic to discuss anything) or section where it makes sense (e.g., The Break Room). Otherwise, it could essentially turn into clickbait: you have hundreds (sometimes thousands) of people visiting a thread based on the title (and possibly a paragraph from of the first post) and they are expecting to read about that. It is not a pleasant experience for most readers to start reading about something else.Since when does going off topic a little really matter? If I start a thread and say that I sold gonein60seconds.com and talked about the sale then someone else replies, oh man that was a great movie, and someone else replies, I used to own a replica of Eleanor and someone else replies that they love musclecars. Who cares. It doesn't make the thread worse but actually adds a little flavor to it. It keeps members that may have not been as engaged in the conversation much more engaged.
NamePros uses state-of-the-art technology similar to what banks use to detect fraud and catch duplicate accounts. However, no technology is perfect, so if you suspect something was missed, please report it, and we'll do manual research to check.I think you should waste your time weeding out the thousands of fake accounts instead of worrying about such menial bullsh*t.
Most of the time, if someone has more than one account, then they're likely a Gold member (or recently were). Multiple Gold accounts are allowed. However, more often than not, when someone suspects they're talking to the same person on multiple different accounts, they're mistaken and they're actually distinct people. We have ways of confirming this with a high degree accuracy, but it can never be for certain.Personally I'm tired of having the same conversation with one guy that acts like he's ten guys.
That was addressed in full here:So we spoke a lot last week, about staying on topic and to quote Led Zeppelin what is and what should never be.
But I would love for someone to explain why the rules are not being upheld in this thread https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-76#post-7260132
Who is the mod going to get the project? Because most posts are off topic, reviews, who is being reviewed? Nazis, Republicans, Liberals, Atheism, Christianity? Because this is certainly not a review of a domain registrar.
That was addressed in full here:
All threads about a specific company or person go in Reviews. That is somewhat atypical of the dictionary definition but that’s how NamePros defines it for categorization purposes sitewide.
Hope that helps,
Surprisingly, there haven’t been many reports in that thread recently (We only look when there are reports) but here’s what I told another member about that thread (And the link explains):Oh thanks for getting back Eric, ok that addresses the section, but there are certainly plenty of off topic posts, which last week seemed to border on a capital offense.
Surprisingly, there haven’t been many reports in that thread recently (We only look when there are reports) but here’s what I told another member about that thread (And the link explains):
I tried reading the thread but there is just too much and a lot of things that would need to be addressed, but it's impractical for me to do that at this point given how much time it would take (I wouldn't be able to do anything else). I'll have to defer to this:
If you notice any blatant rule violations in a post like threats, name calling, or something else, please use the Report link underneath the post and a moderator will be able to review and handle it accordingly.
The link explains it best.
Hope that helps,
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.
As far as that Rob Monster thread, the response I got (this was a little while back) was:
<<thread 'Whats going on with Epik and Rob Monster?' - Heated Debate / It appears that the thread has gone off and back on topic a few times, however, most of the sub-topics were being used as comparisons to try and find the boundary of where ethics starts and stops.>>
i.e. the Mod seems to be saying that it is more or less on topic. I don't agree, but anyway that is the response I got. I'd say that since then, it has actually gone even more off topic.
Really the bottom line is that it comes down to interpretation. Are the US immigration laws today any different from what was on the books six years ago? No! But the current administration chooses to interpret and enforce them differently.
According to the title and first post (Which defines the topic), everything currently going on with Epik or Rob is on topic. When Rob introduces new topics about himself and his beliefs, that’s on topic with what the thread starter defined.I want to know what is and what isn't on topic in this thread?
I would love to hear what you and Paul believe is the proper topic of that thread and again is that fair game for everyone?