status-resolved Topic of a thread

[JB Lions]

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

 

[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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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]

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.