status-resolved NamePros is trying to censor me!!!

[Gabriel360]

A VIP member opened a thread to complain about Sav.com. He claimed that Sav.com failed to register the domain names he paid for.

That is until he manfully intimidated Sav.com into submission and forced them to do so by being spectacularly rude to their customer support 2 days later.

He included an excerpt of the conversation showing how rude he was to the Sav representative. His goal was to shit on Sav.com.

However, Whois reports generated by both him and the representative clearly showed that the domain names he paid for were, in fact, registered 2 days earlier when he paid for them.

But he continued to INSIST that Sav.com was wrong. That Sav.com acted shady. He claimed that they were browbeaten by his insults and unruly behaviour so they rushed to register the domains and then backdated the registrations to make it seem like they regged them the day he made the payments.

KEY POINTS:
1. He had proof that the domain names were indeed registered the day he paid for them.
2. Yet he was adamant that the proof was fabricated by Sav.com to mess with him.
3. So he continued to be RUDE and proceeded to create a thread on NamePros to "call Sav.com out" for being unreliable.

In short, he was RUDE and WRONG.

Make no mistakes, Sav.com has issues that could be improved upon. But this guy was just rude and wrong and being loud about being rude and wrong.

I commented that on the thread. Specifically, my opening line was something like this:

"You were rude, ignorant and arrogant."

And NamePros deleted my post for Namecalling. They said I called the poster "ignorant".

But that was not namecalling. It was an OBJECTIVE description of the OP based on that post.

If you have proof supplied by an independent third-party that something is someway and you continue to insist otherwise, then you are objectively being willfully ignorant.

It's not namecalling. It's just the perfect adjective to capture that particular behaviour.

As such, I expect NamePros to reinstate my post on that thread.

When people are wrong, it's important for people to be able to point out that they are wrong.

I should not be censored for pointing out the specific way in which a wrong person was wrong.

Otherwise, NamePros would just be another breeding ground for people who are wrong, rude and proud of it.

Restore my censored post!

Here's a link to the original thread:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/sav-com-is-not-reliable.1339564/

 

[johnn]

You are not the only one so don't worry about it.
Just do what you think it's right.

 

[Gabriel360]

You are not the only one so don't worry about it.
Just do what you think it's right.

I see your point and you are right.

But the thing I like NamePros.

I like to think that NamePros is filled with smart people who are rational. And that includes the people who operate NamePros.

So when I see something that's plain WRONG, I point it out because it's the standard I've come to expect on this platform.

So it's shocking to see NamePros censoring posts with the explanation that "ignorant" is namecalling for someone that is aggressively choosing to remain ignorant.

If someone wants to be RUDE and WRONG and be pampered for being rude and wrong, there are platforms that encourage that.

NamePros should not join those platforms.
That's the point of this thread.

 

[Grilled]

Here's a link to the original thread:
https://www.namepros.com/threads/sav-com-is-not-reliable.1339564/

FWIW: i reported/requested that thread be moved to registrar reviews like most threads about a registrar seem to be moved to, however that report was rejected with the explanation, "The member posted this as a warning in the "Advisories Section" which moderators cannot move topics out of."

I don’t mind advisory threads, but at best that thread is a registrar review; at worst, it’s a disgruntled hit job that reads more like a warning against doing business with arrogant namePros members than a warning against Sav.

 

[Altetra]

Yes they should allow people opinions without censure, like for example Mark Zuck is not banning people who insult him on his public posts, he even does not delete those comments, I heard this is a great tactic by him to keep FB alive.
edit: or user engagement.

 

[Echo Mod Team]

Hello,

We can see that your thread is active in Advisories, where you posted it. We are not seeing any censoring.

Are you referring to the post where you called a member ignorant? Name Calling is a violation of the rules, which is more than likely why the post was removed.

The removal reason we see is:

• Yesterday at 6:02 PMReason: Name calling / Calling a member ignorant

You were rude, ignorant and arrogant.

For internal use ONLY: https://www.namepros.com/threads/sav-com-is-not-reliable.1339564/post-9292569
Internal report reference: https://www.namepros.com/reports/131815/

The rule(s) your post violated was:
1.2. Be professional, tactful, and constructive at all times, including with your username and profile picture. Do not intentionally disrespect, harass, threaten, attack, instigate, insult, antagonize, or be aggressive toward others.
1.3. Abstain from using excessive or aggressive profanity in your writing.

We can also see that the moderator chose to just alert you to the name calling violation and did not issue you a warning. Normally a warning is issued when members start name calling in violation of rule 1.2.

 

[maya-zir]

Hello,

We can see that your thread is active in Advisories, where you posted it. We are not seeing any censoring.

Are you referring to the post where you called a member ignorant? Name Calling is a violation of the rules, which is more than likely why the post was removed.

The removal reason we see is:

• Yesterday at 6:02 PMReason: Name calling / Calling a member ignorant

For internal use ONLY: https://www.namepros.com/threads/sav-com-is-not-reliable.1339564/post-9292569

The rule(s) your post violated was:
1.2. Be professional, tactful, and constructive at all times, including with your username and profile picture. Do not intentionally disrespect, harass, threaten, attack, instigate, insult, antagonize, or be aggressive toward others.
1.3. Abstain from using excessive or aggressive profanity in your writing.

We can also see that the moderator chose to just alert you to the name calling violation and did not issue you a warning. Normally a warning is issued when members start name calling in violation of rule 1.2.

No censor on NamePros???
Seriously??
Then where are all my posts and comments??

 

[Echo Mod Team]

No censor on NamePros???
Seriously??
Then where are all my posts and comments??

If they violated a rule, they were removed and you were sent a notification (Or a warning in more serious matters).

Just like in this case where a post was removed that violated rule 1.2 for calling a member ignorant.

However, this thread is not about you and your posts, it's about the thread starters post that violated rule 1.2

Report reference: https://www.namepros.com/reports/131815/

 

[Gabriel360]

Hello,

We can see that your thread is active in Advisories, where you posted it. We are not seeing any censoring.

Are you referring to the post where you called a member ignorant? Name Calling is a violation of the rules, which is more than likely why the post was removed.

The removal reason we see is:

• Yesterday at 6:02 PMReason: Name calling / Calling a member ignorant

You were rude, ignorant and arrogant.

For internal use ONLY: https://www.namepros.com/threads/sav-com-is-not-reliable.1339564/post-9292569
Internal report reference: https://www.namepros.com/reports/131815/

The rule(s) your post violated was:
1.2. Be professional, tactful, and constructive at all times, including with your username and profile picture. Do not intentionally disrespect, harass, threaten, attack, instigate, insult, antagonize, or be aggressive toward others.
1.3. Abstain from using excessive or aggressive profanity in your writing.

We can also see that the moderator chose to just alert you to the name calling violation and did not issue you a warning. Normally a warning is issued when members start name calling in violation of rule 1.2.

First of all, this thread has been moved to a different section. And the reason given was NOT even a reason.

Next, I have explained the context of my use of "ignorant" in the original post of this thread. It's not an insult or name calling. It's an apt description of what the OP on that thread did.

Or how would you describe it when someone:

1. Has irrefutable evidence that the domain names were registered when he paid for them.

2. The Sav.com rep explained this to him.

3. He saw the proof on a third-party, completely independent platform that the domains were registered on the date he paid for them.

4. Instead of acknowledging his mistake in light of overwhelming evidence, he insisted that the registrar rushed to register the domain names and did not own up to their mistakes (a mistake that did NOT exist) but instead the registrar BACKDATED the domain registration. All because they were scared of his rudeness and intimidation.

5. Then he created a thread on NamePros to lambaste the registrar for being unreliable.

He was very WRONG. Yet extremely confident that he was right.

That mixture of wrongness and confidence is a symptom of stupidity. Everybody knows that.

But I did not call him stupid because I do not believe in namecalling.

I said he was "ignorant" because that was the fact. It was not meant as an insult or an attempt to call him names.

It was an adjective to describe the sequence of actions that led to the creation of that thread.

Finally, you pointed to the lack of a warning from the mod as an act of benevolence but it could also be interpreted as uncertainty and lack of conviction in the judgement he made to remove my post on that thread.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

It was an OBJECTIVE description of the OP based on that post.

There's no need to call someone ignorant, in an objective or subjective manner.

There are more constructive ways to go about it.

 

[maya-zir]

There are more constructive ways to go about it.

For example, to ban.
Right?
Very constructive way..yes

 

[Gabriel360]

There's no need to call someone ignorant, in an objective or subjective manner.

There are more constructive ways to go about it.

Maybe you are right. But it still doesn't qualify as namecalling. Especially not to the extent of completely erasing my whole post.

Removing my post because someone did not like a word that accurately sums up the OP's actions is CENSORSHIP.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

Especially not to the extent of completely erasing my whole post.

You can request a copy of your post if you'd like to post it again without that part.

 

[Gabriel360]

You can request a copy of your post if you'd like to post it again without that part.

That is censorship!

My original post was not namecalling. It was a statement of an objective fact. And you agreed with that. You just want me to say it the way you like.

That's CENSORSHIP and it's wrong.

Plus if you can remove it, then you can restore it.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

That is censorship!

This website has boundaries, set by its rules. Content that does not adhere to those rules is often deleted.

Most people call that standards, but you can also call it censorship if you want. You can even call it censorship to delete content that instigates violence or racism, but again, boundaries are important and they cannot exist without actions to enforce them.

And you agreed with that.

We did not agree with that; we just wanted to highlight that it doesn't matter whether it's said objectively or subjectively.

Here's our goal: https://www.namepros.com/threads/expectations-for-respect-and-constructiveness.845259/

 

[HotKey]

Why is using the word ignorant any different than claiming someone is lacking knowledge or awareness, when there is a word to define it?

I mean at this point just makes rules like we're all children playing patty cakes but be super careful to not make that one kid cry.

Part of professionalism is also not nit-picking and allowing for context depth.

In my opinion, this is a terrible road to travel down and many of us have wasted time and resources to prove the greater logic.

This is one area Namepros should consider improving on for the general well-being of its users. The example that was given by the OP in this thread is not name-calling and if it is, than so are the words "passive" "ridiculous" "shy" "excited" and thousands others that perfectly sum up what one is attempting to portray without obscenity.

 

[bmugford]

Why is using the word ignorant any different than claiming someone is lacking knowledge or awareness, when there is a word to define it?

I mean at this point just makes rules like we're all children playing patty cakes but be super careful to not make that one kid cry.

Part of professionalism is also not nit-picking and allowing for context depth.

In my opinion, this is a terrible road to travel down and many of us have wasted time and resources to prove the greater logic.

This is one area Namepros should consider improving on for the general well-being of its users. The example that was given by the OP in this thread is not name-calling and if it is, than so are the words "passive" "ridiculous" "shy" "excited" and thousands others that perfectly sum up what one is attempting to portray without obscenity.

I agree with this.

Namecalling to me is like just saying you are stupid, an idiot, or ignorant without any context.

When in the context of a longer post, I think there are times it could become reasonable.

I understand decorum, but to just automatically consider a word to be "namecalling" is the wrong approach. IMO.

Brad

 

[Echo Mod Team]

Why is using the word ignorant any different than claiming someone is lacking knowledge or awareness, when there is a word to define it?

I mean at this point just makes rules like we're all children playing patty cakes but be super careful to not make that one kid cry.

Part of professionalism is also not nit-picking and allowing for context depth.

In my opinion, this is a terrible road to travel down and many of us have wasted time and resources to prove the greater logic.

This is one area Namepros should consider improving on for the general well-being of its users. The example that was given by the OP in this thread is not name-calling and if it is, than so are the words "passive" "ridiculous" "shy" "excited" and thousands others that perfectly sum up what one is attempting to portray without obscenity.

I agree with this.

Namecalling to me is like just saying you are stupid, an idiot, or ignorant without any context.

When in the context of a longer post, I think there are times it could become reasonable.

I understand decorum, but to just automatically consider a word to be "namecalling" is the wrong approach. IMO.

Brad

I suppose it's subjective to each individual's opinion on whether or not they would be offended if someone called them ignorant. There was a poll I saw that interviewed 105 different people across the U.S.. They asked each person if they felt calling someone ignorant was offensive and the results were 63% Yes and 37% no.

The poll source wasn't from a Nationally or Globally known source, so again, it would be subjective.

However, I do agree that maybe using "Name Calling" may have been a mislabel, since the rules don't technically refer to Name Calling, specifically:

1.2. Be professional, tactful, and constructive at all times, including with your username and profile picture. Do not intentionally disrespect, harass, threaten, attack, instigate, insult, antagonize, or be aggressive toward others.
1.3. Abstain from using excessive or aggressive profanity in your writing.

Moving forward, it may be more suitable to simply reference rule 1.2, which covers professionalism, tact, and constructiveness, along with insulting, disrespectful, and antagonizing type instances, which calling someone ignorant, appears to be a gray area of.

Keep in mind, the member was not warned or infracted, they were simply notified of the rule that came into question when their post was removed, after responding to a report from a member that found it offensive, bringing it to moderators attention.

Unfortunately, moderators are not editors or underwriters. There's not enough time in a day to go around and edit snippets of rule violating text out of hundreds of posts daily (Leaving the rest intact). If a rule is violated within a post, the whole post is generally taken down and the member that posted it has an opportunity to repost (minus the part that violated the rules).

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

Fair points.

As moderators, especially when we receive reports from other members like in this case, we try to deescalate and mitigate the likelihood of a discussion going off the tracks and getting much worse. We have to use our experience and judgement to decide when to intervene, sometimes prematurely.

In this specific example, some people will have a hostile reaction to someone else telling them: "You were rude, ignorant and arrogant." Then it might turn into something ugly within minutes of them going back and forth.

Ideally, we want to encourage replies more like this: “The way you spoke came across as dismissive and disrespectful, and it felt like you weren’t open to hearing other perspectives.”

When we talk about someone’s actions (e.g., what they wrote or did), then it feels less like a personal attack and hopefully the discussion can proceed constructively from there.

We won’t always make the right choice, but we will always try our best to find the right balance.

 

[Future Sensors]

Or, summarized in just one image: