status-resolved Topic of a thread

[JB Lions]

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

 

[Paul]

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

 

[equity78]

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.

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.

 

[equity78]

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?

​

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.

 

[Paul]

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'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.

 

[xynames]

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.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

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

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.

 

[equity78]

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.

No I like 2.6 I don't think enough members know so they can report threads that violate that rule and let the moderators handle it.

 

[xynames]

In that thread, Bob was relentless (he's always that way, in case you haven't noticed) 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.

But anyway, we'll just be mindful of toning it down in the future.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

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.

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.

That isn't speculation because we see it every day. We almost never read threads looking for off-topic posts. The off-topic posts are almost always reported to us by members who are displeased with their presence. If members enjoyed them, then they wouldn't be reported and we wouldn't bother removing them in most cases. An exception to this is in support threads where it is important to us to have them organized and helps us provide better and clearer support.

I think you should waste your time weeding out the thousands of fake accounts instead of worrying about such menial bullsh*t.

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.

Personally I'm tired of having the same conversation with one guy that acts like he's ten guys.

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.

NamePros has dedicated more to that technology than anyone reasonable would find practical, but we felt it was just as important as you, so we continue to spend unreasonable amounts of time on it. The integrity and security of NamePros is paramount.

Please start a new thread if you'd like to discuss that topic further (i.e., accounts).

As for the topic of a thread, it's important to a lot of members and understandably so.

 

[equity78]

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.

 

[Eric Lyon]

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:

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

All threads about a specific company or person are considered Reviews (Does not apply to threads about multiple companies like “Best Registrar?”). That is somewhat atypical of the dictionary definition but that’s how NamePros defines it for categorization purposes sitewide. If a review is designed by the OP to promote, then it’ll be moved to Promotional instead of Reviews.

Hope that helps,

 

[equity78]

That was addressed in full here:

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

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,

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.

 

[Eric Lyon]

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:

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

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,

 

[Eric Lyon]

Generally (Almost Always):

If you notice a thread being heavily moderated, then that means there is at least 1 member (Or usually more) reporting posts in it because they care about the rule violations taking place.

The opposite is equally true, if you don’t see a lot of moderation in a thread, then no members care enough to report the rule violations taking place.

That thread is largely in the “members don’t care” category when it comes to reports.

If no reports, then we don’t look at it. Paul even mentioned turning over most of the moderation to the community and then what I just explained would be more clear (Shown on posts), we’ll see how that goes.

 

[equity78]

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:

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

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,

Oh Eric I agree it would be an unbelievable task for a mod, that's why I said who wants that project. But you would have to agree the thread is mostly off topic.

I mean can I start a thread about what's going on with you and question your politics or religious beliefs in a review of Namepros or Scorpion Agency?

You might not see reports but I can tell you people privately and some have posted about that thread alone being a reason why they want nothing to do with Namepros. So you guys do what you like it's your show.

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?

 

[equity78]

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.

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

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...-and-rob-monster.1128748/page-76#post-7260132

Strict was your word

 

[equity78]

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.

Thanks, the explanation seems problematic, it opens the door to doing that with anyone.

To be fair I do think the fact that Rob posts so prominently in that thread and has not asked for it to be closed is one factor.

It sets a dangerous precedent, I mean if someone starts a thread, :What’s the deal with so and so and their company name and just blasts their religious or political beliefs, how is that thread closed?