status-resolved Topic of a thread

[JB Lions]

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

 

[equity78]

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.

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]

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..

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.

 

[Paul]

My wording is fine.

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

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?

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]

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.

That's exactly what happened. The majority of the debate between you two was extremely informative! I look forward to reading it more carefully when I'm less worried about cleanup. I certainly wasn't going to delete that--heated debate is fine. There was a clear point at which it went too far, though, and I strongly suspect that it was fueled by intermittent unhelpful interjections from other people who weren't contributing as much.

 

[hookbox]

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.

I think you should waste your time weeding out the thousands of fake accounts instead of worrying about such menial bullshit. Personally I'm tired of having the same conversation with one guy that acts like he's ten guys.

 

[Josh R]

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

I agree.

 

[Paul]

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

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.

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.

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

 

[equity78]

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.

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.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

 

[xynames]

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

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..

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.

 

[Paul]

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.

Acknowledging that you're acting that way doesn't excuse the behavior, though. You were aware that you were doing it, yet you chose to continue the cycle.

 

[xynames]

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.

 

[Eric Lyon]

I want to know what is and what isn't on topic in this thread?

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.

No mods can take on that “project”, the reason is here:

• https://www.namepros.com/posts/7169300/

Very serious rule violations in the thread should be reported.

Thanks for your help,

 

[Paul]

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?

I’m staying out of it, or I’m going to get bopped over the head again by my coworkers. “Go back to your servers!” “But it’s lonely in the server room...”

 

[JB Lions]

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.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

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.

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.

 

[JB Lions]

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.

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.

 

[equity78]

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.

 

[Paul]

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.

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.

 

[equity78]

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.

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.

 

[equity78]

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.

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.

 

[JB Lions]

Yes. We do not allow antagonistic content.

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.

 

[Paul]

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.

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.

Yes, you do.

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

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!

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

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

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.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

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.

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.

But then I get even more infractions and post deletions.

You have not received any infractions from this thread.

So what's the point.

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

Could you respond to these questions?

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.