status-resolved Topic of a thread

[JB Lions]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[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?