Is there an off-topic rule as of today?

[NeTrips]

Good evening, a couple CF members and I have been having a discussion about a rule that we have seen cited as a reason for a post delete several time in the not to distant past. "Off topic". None of us have been able to locate any rules other than the following which really don't apply to the deletion of a single post within a thread.

-substantial derails.... we don't think this applies to individual posts.

-off topic to a forum.... if the thread is on topic to the forum, this does not appear to apply to a single post wihin an existing thread.

Is there anyone who can help out with this? thanks all and God Bless.

[synger]

First message, posted from NeTrips (reposted here so we can use the wiki to summarize any discussion that happens)
Good evening, a couple CF members and I have been having a discussion about a rule that we have seen cited as a reason for a post delete several time in the not to distant past. "Off topic". None of us have been able to locate any rules other than the following which really don't apply to the deletion of a single post within a thread.

-substantial derails.... we don't think this applies to individual posts.

-off topic to a forum.... if the thread is on topic to the forum, this does not appear to apply to a single post wihin an existing thread.

Is there anyone who can help out with this? thanks all and God Bless.

[synger]

The site-wide rule that most closely applies is:

Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.

[Tonks]

I don't think that single posts which are not germane to the topic should be removed unless there is some pretty serious observed thread drift.

[Addicted2~Jesus]

This is jes as it was a couple years back.. an here's the flip side of it once agin.. who decides what is an isn't off topic, espically for a discussion in which normally the moderator isn't part of? This caused a tremendous amount of problems in the past an it sounds like it's doin it agin. This takes a bit of common sense where I believe some folks lack entirely, if we're talkin bout the color of the sky an someone comes in an starts talkin bout the stock market, obviously it's off topic, but spose someone is talkin bout the color of the ground. Is this still off topic? Perhaps their talkin bout the color of the ground as it relates to the color of the sky.

More often then not it's been my expereince that over zelous staff members, er members who have sumthin against a user is where this rule most often rasies it's ugly head.

But... so long as staff may interpet rules however they wish then this will not stop, infact, it will only git worse until there's another "revolt" by members fed up wit stupidity.

Since a rule can not be nailed down witout leavin it wide open to be interpeted anyway staff see's fit.. what do we do? We havta put up wit it er tolerate it until folks git tired of bein hammered for silly stuff. Now I will qaulify this by sayin, I do not know this very specific instance, perhaps it was a matter of a discussion bout the sky an someone talked bout the stock market, in which case fine, remove the post but certainly don't cite the poster, espcially if it's an honest mistake.

Years ago I had an entire thread wit a number of other members posts deleted an left wit the comment, off topic an offensive... go figure, it happened to be a discussion in the MM bout inmates providin their own electricity in prision, now this is where it gits screwed up, at that time that was the community of people I knew an discussed thins wit. What possible sense would it make to run off to some other sub forum where no one knows me an I don't know them an then try to have a meaninful discussion over a topic that applies to this sub forum but not that sub forum. It's jes a tickin time bomb waitin to blow up.. as usual.

[stumpjumper]

To be honest, we probably delete for OT in connection with reports in Theology a bit too much. It is the type of thing that we wouldn't issue a warning or infraction for but would delete a few posts as off-topic if they are personal, directly address other members but do not rise to the level of flame/bait, or are substantial derails of the thread in question.

One issue is that the Theology section is a debate section. It's not a chat room. Some threads will get completely derailed with side discussions and then people will report the derail. What do you do?

[I'ddie4him2]

To be honest, we probably delete for OT in connection with reports in Theology a bit too much. It is the type of thing that we wouldn't issue a warning or infraction for but would delete a few posts as off-topic if they are personal, directly address other members but do not rise to the level of flame/bait, or are substantial derails of the thread in question.

One issue is that the Theology section is a debate section. It's not a chat room. Some threads will get completely derailed with side discussions and then people will report the derail. What do you do?


1) Not mollycoddle those members that constantly report this stuff ?? That might be a starting place.

2) Then simply split out the derail into an OPEN thread where it can continue if those folks so choose.

[stumpjumper]

Or people could realize that the Theology debate forums are for, I don't know, actually discussing theology.

They are not for discussing other people, groups of people, or the actions of other people in the forums.

[I'ddie4him2]

Or people could realize that the Theology debate forums are for, I don't know, actually discussing theology.

They are not for discussing other people, groups of people, or the actions of other people in the forums.

I wasn't specifically referring to the personal attacks.
I am more addressing the viable thread drift and other subject matter being brought into a thread thru the course of discussion.
Subject matter that IS being / HAS been reported as off topic and not germaine to the thread.

All to often in being an Admin on Debate team, We got reports daily for this reason and after due consideration, Found many to be credible and viable tangents to the discussion and were allowed to remain.
Now, We have people reporting everything under the sun they disagree with simply cause they fail to see the relevance and founded nature of these posts.

[stumpjumper]

I wasn't specifically referring to the personal attacks.
I am more addressing the viable thread drift and other subject matter being brought into a thread thru the course of discussion.
Subject matter that IS being / HAS been reported as off topic and not germaine to the thread.

All to often in being an Admin on Debate team, We got reports daily for this reason and after due consideration, Found many to be credible and viable tangents to the discussion and were allowed to remain.
Now, We have people reporting everything under the sun they disagree with simply cause they fail to see the relevance and founded nature of these posts.

Okay.

Well that's not the type of posts or derails that would generally be deleted as off-topic in the forums I moderate.

One problem, however, is that certain sub-forums do have a more hostile or argumentative atmosphere and threads and posts are more personal and/or inflammatory than other forums. In those cases, moderator discretion is necessary and personal and off-topic derails do get deleted.

[Sojourner1]

I don't think this wording "and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion" is very helpful quite honestly. Shouldn't it say something like off topic posts that cause a derail within a thread may be removed by staff or split off into a new thread? Let the member know what could happen, not just that it is looked at unfavorably. The occasional off topic post shouldn't be actioned.

[NeTrips]

Some good ideas and thoughts have been posted in this discussion, thanks.

What is seen often is that "off topic" becomes a catch-all for posts which are't quite flames, are generally in disagreement with the OP and are supportive of the opposing position (this is in the debate forums generally), and often the moderator calling for delete is of an opposing political opinion than the poster. I've seen this go both was, so it can't be claimed that only one side of the political spectrum is more heavy handed than another.

What would help is to codify the fact that off-topic posts can be deleted for being such, even if they are not substantial derails and are contained within threads on-topic top the forum posted in.

I know the newest version of CF is not big on lots of rules, but this may be one to consider adding.

'trips

[MachZer0]

There actually is no rule against off topic or derails. The rules only say that substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion. This is language that gives mods leeway to delete posts they don't like even though the rules don't support deletion

[Mary_Magdalene]

There actually is no rule against off topic or derails. The rules only say that substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion. This is language that gives mods leeway to delete posts they don't like even though the rules don't support deletion

you are correct. that is exactly what that "rule" is there for. :sigh:

[Debi1967]

Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.

I agree the wording might be better but in reality the wording could probably be better for all the rules and then we would be back to where we were pre 777 with the rules being too overwritten. The simplicity of the rules is supposed to help us and you in the long run.

In my area which is Recovery mostly we do take out posts which causes derails of threads and are OT to the thread because then the thread is not being helpful to the person that is asking for a specific type of help in the OP.

[Addicted2~Jesus]

Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.

I agree the wording might be better but in reality the wording could probably be better for all the rules and then we would be back to where we were pre 777 with the rules being too overwritten. The simplicity of the rules is supposed to help us and you in the long run.

In my area which is Recovery mostly we do take out posts which causes derails of threads and are OT to the thread because then the thread is not being helpful to the person that is asking for a specific type of help in the OP.


bold mine


well, that's jes........ well... completely an utterly wrong. In so far as I am concerned, when Erwin finally tanked the place it was made known that all the 'changes' did absoultely nuthin but stick all of staff's "ghosts" right back in the closet, close out the membership as a whole, destroy the community as it were, hide everthin, an of course give staff ultimate authority.. agin I might add... to interpet rules in anyway they see fit, screw over anyone they do not like an place this ... site... back into the days of staff police instead of actually moderatin discussions. You are however very correct in that the rules are to service the staff, an do very lil to guide er help the membership.

This specific topic of "off topic" material etc simply stands to inflame the membership, if we had the data on the amount of users that understood er accepted thier post er thread removal verses those who were perplexed er upset at more heavy handed silliness, I should think it would be clear jes how badly interpeted this rule, like others are.

Since so many of the staff wear thier feelins on thier shirt sleeves an it is impossible to speak in regards to staff specifically etc, allow me to clarify an state for the record that I am not sayin, nor do I believe that all staff areout to "git" everbody, er that all staff interpet rules poorly etc, nor am I flamin all staff by my comments. Simply though, there are some staff who fit this mold.

[MachZer0]

I don't see it this way. At least not in moderating my area of the board. Recovery is a very special area of the board. It is a place to go where members seek out member peer support on a host of subjects. Our members that come there expecting to be supported and to be protected by the rules and the guidelines that are in place that are there to service them.

If th member isn't provided that comfort level then they will not feel safe talking about some rough situations that sometimes are very personal to them. It is our jobs to make sure that they have that comfort level to be able to post in security.

I also used to think the way that you used to about the mods and administration of this site until I was asked to serve here. I think one thing that the openess has taught us when things were open is that there are very few mods and Admins that take advantage of their positions but in fact that most of them are there to make sure that the member is taken care of. This still holds true to this day.

Just like there are a subset of members that make all the good members look bad because they refuse to abide by the rules when they post you are going to have a few rotten apples in our area too. But, just like the rules usually take care of those members that make the others look bad the mods also take care of those mods that make them look bad as well.

We are still after all bound by the same rules that you are. For the most part the staff just like the members want nothing more than to be good servants. I heavily disagree that because you may see someone or two or even disagree with a rule that was made up by the owner which those rules were this time, that all of us are bad in some fashion.

Also most people that I tell their posts are OT to a thread already know that the post was OT to the thread. They usually do not disagree or if they ask for clarification they are given the clarification by my team.

We as mods and Admins are encouraged to talk to people now more than ever in explaining why something might have occurred. We endeavour to do this with as much Grace as possible.

We do not like acting like policemen but when the time calls for it then we have to because the rules have been broken. It is not us breaking the rules but the membership breaking the rules and then we have to act accordingly. Quite truthfully if the membership abided by the rules then there would be little use for us to begin with but unfortunately that need doesn't exist.In the debate areas, things are quite different

[Debi1967]

You are however very correct in that the rules are to service the staff, an do very lil to guide er help the membership
I don't see it this way. At least not in moderating my area of the board. Recovery is a very special area of the board. It is a place to go where members seek out member peer support on a host of subjects. Our members that come there expecting to be supported and to be protected by the rules and the guidelines that are in place that are there to service them.

If th member isn't provided that comfort level then they will not feel safe talking about some rough situations that sometimes are very personal to them. It is our jobs to make sure that they have that comfort level to be able to post in security.

I also used to think the way that you used to about the mods and administration of this site until I was asked to serve here. I think one thing that the openess has taught us when things were open is that there are very few mods and Admins that take advantage of their positions but in fact that most of them are there to make sure that the member is taken care of. This still holds true to this day.

Just like there are a subset of members that make all the good members look bad because they refuse to abide by the rules when they post you are going to have a few rotten apples in our area too. But, just like the rules usually take care of those members that make the others look bad the mods also take care of those mods that make them look bad as well.

We are still after all bound by the same rules that you are. For the most part the staff just like the members want nothing more than to be good servants. I heavily disagree that because you may see someone or two or even disagree with a rule that was made up by the owner which those rules were this time, that all of us are bad in some fashion.

Also most people that I tell their posts are OT to a thread already know that the post was OT to the thread. They usually do not disagree or if they ask for clarification they are given the clarification by my team.

We as mods and Admins are encouraged to talk to people now more than ever in explaining why something might have occurred. We endeavour to do this with as much Grace as possible.

We do not like acting like policemen but when the time calls for it then we have to because the rules have been broken. It is not us breaking the rules but the membership breaking the rules and then we have to act accordingly. Quite truthfully if the membership abided by the rules then there would be little use for us to begin with but unfortunately that need doesn't exist.

[NeTrips]

Quite truthfully if the membership abided by the rules then there would be little use for us to begin with but unfortunately that need doesn't exist.

It's difficult to abide by rules that do not exist, are not written down anywhere, or are applied in what can be perceived as a haphazard manner. The off-topic "rule" is a prime example. Different folks apply it differently and it's not written down anywhere.

[MachZer0]

It's difficult to abide by rules that do not exist, are not written down anywhere, or are applied in what can be perceived as a haphazard manner. The off-topic "rule" is a prime example. Different folks apply it differently and it's not written down anywhere.Allowing a rule that doesn't exist to be enforced also subjects that non-existent rule to the very distinct possibility of being enforced based on personal prejudice

[Addicted2~Jesus]

this is the rule

Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.

this is where ALL the rules are found (bottom of the page there is link to the rules that says RULES)

http://christianforums.com/rules

how can anyone say that they are not written down anywhere when they are in fact written down on the rules page for all to see????

Please do not mock, patronize er talk down to us. Most of us in this forum know EXACTLY where the rules are, EXACTLY what they say an EXACTLY how they have been allowed to be interpeted. You like to use the term "leeway", that's your choice of course, but I think most of us know EXACTLY what that means. It means staff may take any rule they so desire, apply it in anyway they desire an the users... agin.. saddly.. agin... have vey lil recorse.. less they want to waste thier time in the private appeals stuff agin where there is ZERO accountablity.

The simple facts are: The off topic rule allows for anyone to interpet it in anyway they see fit, It has been in the past, an I have NO doubt it is still currently bein used to bash members where no violation occured.

Havin a rule that states: "are not looked upon in a favorable fashion."

Means what? Whose version of "favorable fashion" How can anyone be right er wrong for thier view of what a "favorable fashion" is? An as sad as it is wit this place... it has once agin come down to 'staff can do no wrong', 'staff are always right' My goodness the flash backs I'm havin here.

It is very difficult to build a foundation on shiftin sand is it not? The rules that shift continously is no different, an I believe thats the member was talkin bout when they said, it is very difficult to abide by rules that are left wide open. This is not unlike the same discussion we used to have many many moons ago, it's all happenin as it did before. It is completely unrealistic to expect members er anyone for that matter, to obey rules that could be interpeted in anyway. An then there are rather poor staff members out there that would sooner infract first an ask questions later... I'm startin to git quite the pile of names agin that are on the outs wit some staff member an boom... constant staff action against em... so very sad.. an what's more sad is no one seems to see it er cares bout it, none of the die hard cf lovers anyways. Love more the name then the oppurtinituy that exsists in this site, always been ignored, for years now.. how disappointinly sad.

Agin, this is not to say that all staff abuse members er rules bla bla bla bla

[Debi1967]

It's difficult to abide by rules that do not exist, are not written down anywhere, or are applied in what can be perceived as a haphazard manner. The off-topic "rule" is a prime example. Different folks apply it differently and it's not written down anywhere.
this is the rule

Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.

this is where ALL the rules are found (bottom of the page there is link to the rules that says RULES)

http://christianforums.com/rules

how can anyone say that they are not written down anywhere when they are in fact written down on the rules page for all to see????

[Debi1967]

Allowing a rule that doesn't exist to be enforced also subjects that non-existent rule to the very distinct possibility of being enforced based on personal prejudice
Even the rules before which were highly spelled out could be used in this manner so abuse can come in any form trust me on that front.

The fact that we have fewer rules means there is less possibility of being able to use these rules and abuse them but yes it does give us some leeway when applying them. Given the situation that exists then we can apply the rule to cater to the the situation.

[Debi1967]

That is what we are doing. I don't think single off topic posts within a thread have really been addressed yet. The sitewide rule about off topic doesn't address single off topic posts in a thread.

If there's only one or two off-topic posts, and they don't affect the flow of the discussion, leave them be.
Well I agree with this and if we are going by this then we have addressed the single post problem

[NeTrips]

That is what we are doing. I don't think single off topic posts within a thread have really been addressed yet. The sitewide rule about off topic doesn't address single off topic posts in a thread.
Sojo, the problem is that there's no sitewide rule about off topic posts within a thread. The rules that exist cover off topic threads in a forum, posts that contribute to a substantial derail, but nothing that clearly speaks to off topic posts themselves.

[synger]

From my understanding, one of the reasons that the new owner rewrote the rules was to give staff flexibility to apply the rules along the wide spectrum of the various forums of CF -- from the "safe havens" of the Congregational forums and Recovery to the more "free-wheeling" forums under Theology and Debate.

Then, with the recent staff reorganization, where moderators are not limited by one category of forums, we have an influx of staff in more debate-heavy forums who are used to applying the rules fairly strictly, and some in more protected forums who are used to much looser interpretation of the rules.

I think this first month or so has seen a lot of adjusting one way and the other, and that issues like this are being rightly raised as something we need to be aware of. Many of the administrators, myself included, have begun seeing the cross-cutting issues and inconsistencies more clearly, because we're no longer focused just one one area or another of the site.

Staff communication also has changed drastically. Issues such as you raise are discussed not just among the staff that work a particular forum, but among staff as a whole.

Thus I believe that, slowly but surely, we will see less and less forum-specific application of rules, and more consistency in how rules are applied.

[synger]

So, all that being said, what can we do to clarify this specific rule for our staff? The Policy folks have the authority to clarify the protocol and rules, but members and staff who participate here in DR can give them suggestions and direction.

I would suggest that we start with basic "topics". The site is organized by topic, so the basics of what is "off-topic" should go along those lines. For instance, in Theology, there is Mariology under General Theology. So a thread that is posted in General Theology on the topic of the veneration of Mary is "off topic" for General Theology and probably will be moved to Mariology. When things are that clear-cut, and we're talking about the whole thread, I think that's pretty much how the staff deal with it.

One of the issues that is raised in this thread is that of single posts. What should moderators do when there are posts in a thread that are completely off-topic? From my experience there are a couple of options:


If there's only one or two off-topic posts, and they don't affect the flow of the discussion, leave them be.

If the main discussion seems to be coming to a close or a lull, and a series of off-topic posts derails it into a related discussion, then it might just be "topic drift". Conversations change and grow, and don't always stay exactly on one subject. I usually suggest we let the thread live on. This is a judgment call, though, and sometimes hard to make.

If a series of off-topic posts lead to a derailment of the discussion, and both forks of the discussion are still active and are appropriate to the forum, split them off into two threads. This option is often used in some forums, and seldom in others. I think we may need to remind staff that they have this option in their toolbox.
Anyway, those are just some of my initial thoughts on the subject. Any other specific issues or suggestions?

[NeTrips]

If there's only one or two off-topic posts, and they don't affect the flow of the discussion, leave them be.
If the main discussion seems to be coming to a close or a lull, and a series of off-topic posts derails it into a related discussion, then it might just be "topic drift". Conversations change and grow, and don't always stay exactly on one subject. I usually suggest we let the thread live on. This is a judgment call, though, and sometimes hard to make.
If a series of off-topic posts lead to a derailment of the discussion, and both forks of the discussion are still active and are appropriate to the forum, split them off into two threads. This option is often used in some forums, and seldom in others. I think we may need to remind staff that they have this option in their toolbox.Anyway, those are just some of my initial thoughts on the subject. Any other specific issues or suggestions?
Synger, I like your suggestions, but what would be most helpful from my perspective is to clearly add the rule "off topic posts may be deleted by staff", then add your clarifications above. It would reflect what is curently the de facto rule being applied today. Maybe add something to allows for light hearted banter that does not derail a thread.

What exists today is too open-ended and the interpretations and resulting applications are being perceived as arbitrary staff actions for less than honorable motives. Why this may not be the case at all, it's one perception that is common amongst many members. Adding this rule would give staff the support to remove posts without this perception.

[Debi1967]

So, all that being said, what can we do to clarify this specific rule for our staff? The Policy folks have the authority to clarify the protocol and rules, but members and staff who participate here in DR can give them suggestions and direction.

I would suggest that we start with basic "topics". The site is organized by topic, so the basics of what is "off-topic" should go along those lines. For instance, in Theology, there is Mariology under General Theology. So a thread that is posted in General Theology on the topic of the veneration of Mary is "off topic" for General Theology and probably will be moved to Mariology. When things are that clear-cut, and we're talking about the whole thread, I think that's pretty much how the staff deal with it.

One of the issues that is raised in this thread is that of single posts. What should moderators do when there are posts in a thread that are completely off-topic? From my experience there are a couple of options:

If there's only one or two off-topic posts, and they don't affect the flow of the discussion, leave them be.
If the main discussion seems to be coming to a close or a lull, and a series of off-topic posts derails it into a related discussion, then it might just be "topic drift". Conversations change and grow, and don't always stay exactly on one subject. I usually suggest we let the thread live on. This is a judgment call, though, and sometimes hard to make.
If a series of off-topic posts lead to a derailment of the discussion, and both forks of the discussion are still active and are appropriate to the forum, split them off into two threads. This option is often used in some forums, and seldom in others. I think we may need to remind staff that they have this option in their toolbox.Anyway, those are just some of my initial thoughts on the subject. Any other specific issues or suggestions?
Perfect and I thought this was how we were handling it already, but maybe I am behind the times here....

[Sojourner1]

Perfect and I thought this was how we were handling it already, but maybe I am behind the times here....
That is what we are doing. I don't think single off topic posts within a thread have really been addressed yet. The sitewide rule about off topic doesn't address single off topic posts in a thread.

[Debi1967]

That is what we are doing. I don't think single off topic posts within a thread have really been addressed yet. The sitewide rule about off topic doesn't address single off topic posts in a thread.

If there's only one or two off-topic posts, and they don't affect the flow of the discussion, leave them be.
Well I agree with this and if we are going by this then we have addressed the single post problem

[WarriorAngel]

I don't think this wording "and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion" is very helpful quite honestly. Shouldn't it say something like off topic posts that cause a derail within a thread may be removed by staff or split off into a new thread? Let the member know what could happen, not just that it is looked at unfavorably. The occasional off topic post shouldn't be actioned.
:wave:I agree.
I am not a fan uf unfavorably.

'Off topic posts that are substantially derailing the thread would be a violation.'

However; that said, i dont think minor off handed comments should be considered substantial.

Substantial, imho, is when the member takes the entire topic and changes the theology discussion to a new theology debate.

A small [edifying] prayer, a simple hello, a minor comment to another member which takes the time to 'yadda yadda' briefly aren't OT.

Changing the entire OP presentation of the discourse of discussion is OT.
Example
Baptism to Marriage.

With a few other posts which could be OT if the poster comes in and beats on someone just under the radar of the rules about another thread they were in...and so forth.




Threads which are off topic for the individual forums are not allowed, and substantial derails of threads are not looked upon in a favorable fashion.

I agree the wording might be better but in reality the wording could probably be better for all the rules and then we would be back to where we were pre 777 with the rules being too overwritten. The simplicity of the rules is supposed to help us and you in the long run.

In my area which is Recovery mostly we do take out posts which causes derails of threads and are OT to the thread because then the thread is not being helpful to the person that is asking for a specific type of help in the OP.

I think the word unfavorably isnt a strong indication that it is a rules violation.

And again, minor derails shouldnt be over done in moderating.
IN GT ppl need to let out a valve of release and remember that they do care for one another. Sometimes taking a few posts to say 'Hey how's your mom, hope you are good.' And then the thread continues.

In the debate area, i feel this is crucial that the ppl stop, pause, take a second to wish one another well, and then move on.

It is a debate board, yes, but it is also a place where friendships can form and ppl can care for one another. And it is in those small spaces of time in the world of posts that we get to know one another.
It softens our own posts to be more in line with an actual debate on the topic and NOT the person.

Which after all, is the main objective of CF..no?

[Sojourner1]

I'm glad you've bumped this thread again. I hope that this is one rule that can be changed.

[CaDan]

I have never been much of a fan of "off-topic" rules. It's THE INTERNET, folks! It exists to be off-topic.

[stumpjumper]

I'm personally a fan of thread splits for substantial derails but if it's not substantial or if they are connected people can generally follow two or more discussions within a thread.

In fact, thread drifts are pretty much inevitable and, many times, interesting...

[Sojourner1]

The off topic rule is needed to keep threads on the topic of the forum in which they are posted (off topic applied to threads, not posts). Otherwise, the occasional off topic post isn't a problem and when there is an off topic rule about posts then everyone starts reporting all posts that stray from the OP. I agree with sj about the substantial derails.

[Debi1967]

I think the word unfavorably isnt a strong indication that it is a rules violation.

And again, minor derails shouldnt be over done in moderating.
IN GT ppl need to let out a valve of release and remember that they do care for one another. Sometimes taking a few posts to say 'Hey how's your mom, hope you are good.' And then the thread continues.

In the debate area, i feel this is crucial that the ppl stop, pause, take a second to wish one another well, and then move on.

It is a debate board, yes, but it is also a place where friendships can form and ppl can care for one another. And it is in those small spaces of time in the world of posts that we get to know one another.
It softens our own posts to be more in line with an actual debate on the topic and NOT the person.

Which after all, is the main objective of CF..no?GT and actually most other areas of the board and the Recovery section are two different animals when trying to moderate them ... when you are looking at a post to see in GT and most other areas to simply see if it violates the rules or FSGs we are looking deeper into posts to see the person behind the post and the problem that they are addressing and then how do we handle the person accordingly, sometimes yes the person may have violated a rule but at the same time has the person just posted that they just lost a family member and are incredibly sick with grief and we have to take that into consideration and help that person and reach out them... see it isn't just about if they violated or not in Recovery it is what can we do as Christians to help them

[Crazy Liz]

The off topic rule is needed to keep threads on the topic of the forum in which they are posted (off topic applied to threads, not posts). Otherwise, the occasional off topic post isn't a problem and when there is an off topic rule about posts then everyone starts reporting all posts that stray from the OP. I agree with sj about the substantial derails.

Moving a thread to a different forum isn't so bad, so long as the mod who moves it posts a "to-from" post notifying everyone of the move, and so long as the move isn't to a forum with different rules.

[NeTrips]

I'm glad you've bumped this thread again. I hope that this is one rule that can be changed.
ditto. Or if not changed, at least clarified.

There's still a band of mods that like to use this rule to selectively delete posts for being off topic while leaving others that they agree with.

[MachZer0]

ditto. Or if not changed, at least clarified.

There's still a band of mods that like to use this rule to selectively delete posts for being off topic while leaving others that they agree with.QFT

In politics, an off topic post seems to be a violation depending on which side of the political spectrum you're on when in fact, there is no violation for an off topic post as the rules are currently written

[Crazy Liz]

Good evening, a couple CF members and I have been having a discussion about a rule that we have seen cited as a reason for a post delete several time in the not to distant past. "Off topic". None of us have been able to locate any rules other than the following which really don't apply to the deletion of a single post within a thread.

-substantial derails.... we don't think this applies to individual posts.

-off topic to a forum.... if the thread is on topic to the forum, this does not appear to apply to a single post wihin an existing thread.

Is there anyone who can help out with this? thanks all and God Bless.

QFT

In politics, an off topic post seems to be a violation depending on which side of the political spectrum you're on when in fact, there is no violation for an off topic post as the rules are currently written

And in some of the Theology forums, a cluster of off-topic reports seems to be a pretty effective way of getting a thread shut down.