Forum Rules Discussion

[stickstones]

This is a thread where we can discuss the current forum rules, learn about them, and propose changes. In general, this forum leans on fuckcombustion rules, but with what we hope are improvements. So, when in doubt, act like you were on fc.

One fc rule we didn’t bring to this site is “no public discussion of staff decisions”. I think this rule did more harm than good. But we need to know why rules are in place if we are to change them appropriately. The main reason for this rule was to keep those discussions out of vape and topic specific threads, which is something we want to continue here. So this thread right here is the thread to talk about the rules.

If you bump into a rule and want to know more, come here and ask about it. You should learn why the rule is in place before you suggest a change to it. From there we can all chip in and discuss what the rule should be moving forward.

-----------------------------

I’ll get the ball rolling, and bring a rules discussion over here from the Joystick thread. There, @TheDabHut was told not to say anything negative about vapes since he was a retailer account. Instead, he broke the rule and quoted the rule and said it sucked (I paraphrase). Two things going on here. One - breaking the rules is inappropriate…cut that shit out. Two - discussing the rules is very welcome - here.

This rule is in place for manufacturers and retailers, and goes way back to the early log vape wars on fc. Tldr: log vape manufacturers were going into each other’s threads and hacking on the materials used, and little fights broke out everywhere and cluttered up a lot of threads. So we sent them back to their respective threads and told them to stay there unless they had something nice to say. Retailers usually got patrolled a little harder because they were the entities that were more likely to send new reps to forums with little training, and they would spam it all up.

We want industry participants to post on the forum because they bring expertise and insights that can help us all with the kinds of discussions we get into here. They are a wealth of knowledge.

So, ultimately, this rule about retailer participation is in place for community harmony, but also to protect the retailer from accusations of bias. Because they can have financial incentives in so many vapes, it can be hard for them to participate anywhere without their motives questioned.

But it sucks for them if they actually like to vape and want to participate here. So how do we loosen things up for manufacturers and retailers so they can give more insight, but not spam and fight at the same time?

One proposal I would like to offer is multiple accounts. Maybe there can be a retailer account that they post on in accordance with the current forum standards, and if they want to just be one of the guys, they get a personal account. We still need the affiliation exposed and understood, but I know people in this industry that I think would contribute and have fun without drama, if only we could figure out a way.

[jackrod]

I for one don’t want to read through people bashing other products and others defending them. Like you said it clogs up threads. I don’t see that much value added in manufacturer comments on other products. But I would like to see some technical comments if there is something relevant, sometimes comparisons to what exists are the easiest way to do that. Why we make things the way that we do. For example I have to give credit to Alan for my log designs, which use the Heat Island technology. But I chose to use a halogen bulb because I think it might help get the heat even in the core, and it looks cool. Maybe he disagrees. That type of thing.

Is there already a rule here forbidding materials discussions in device threads, like on FC? That might be a helpful one. Maybe too restrictive? But also a thread clogger.

[420vapezone]

I think every individual should be allowed to share their opinions and insights.

Brand reps have an additional responsibility to maintain tact and objectivity. They should be handled on a case by case basis. There will be brand reps who don’t share anything, there will be brand reps who share respectfully, and there will be brand reps who try to steer and manipulate every chance they get. I’d rather flush the turds and have more naturally engaged brand reps.

Vape bashing and fanboi circle-jerking are not problems exclusive to brand reps either.

Our rules should allow reps to discuss vapes, but we need to thread the needle on steering and repetitive bashing.
Err to the side of objective information first.

[420vapezone]

additionally - i don’t think @TheDabHut crossed any lines in the Joystik thread.

He stated his opinion on clone-gate, and the community should be allowed to judge him based on that stance.

He should also be allowed to state his opinion on vapes, but the mission of this site is to serve the community objective vape information and helpful insights - any interference is a threat to that mission and should be removed immediately.

[Northernhigh420]

Agree should be allowed to state an opinion to many rules around this usually makes me check out of places. Otherwise feels like a controlled conversation little like Reddit can get. Be great to avoid that

[stickstones]

@420vapezone

Brand reps have an additional responsibility to maintain tact and objectivity. They should be handled on a case by case basis. There will be brand reps who don’t share anything, there will be brand reps who share respectfully, and there will be brand reps who try to steer and manipulate every chance they get. I’d rather flush the turds and have more naturally engaged brand reps.

I like this a lot. This wasn’t done at fc when I was there…we just made blanket rules. Case-by-case creates more work in the beginning at sign up and in regular monitoring, but I think it’s worth the stronger community it builds. One thing fc had was a rules page for these accounts that had to be agreed to before activation. I think that’s important to make sure we’re all on the same page. We can get to work on that to get something in place…

I appreciate all the input!

[TheDabHut]

For me it mostly comes down to not trying to directly replicate FC. That’s seems like an impossible ask and there were things that site could have done better all-around. If this is going to be a replacement/new main hub for vaporists, I’d challenge moderators to maybe loosen up on a few of the stricter rules like not creating a thread (even if it’s not related to their device), and not being able to engage on other device threads.

@stickstones We may have gotten off on the wrong foot here, but it was the overt bias in the conversation that led to me speaking up. I have no problems that you’re an affiliate and rep for POTV, while also carrying Vices’ products. Same for @420vapezone and his endeavors. However, from a consumer perspective and those who were involved at FC, I’d argue that both of you have a much larger obligation to avoid bias in your interactions. It was dismissive to the greater discussion and from an outsider perspective, it looks like a way to avoid scrutiny on products you’re actively promoting. Please don’t take this next sentence the wrong way, but it must be said.

It’s going to be hard to get the same user base active and involved when two of the moderators/owners have direct financial incentives to many of the brands being discussed. That’s a reality that will be hard to overcome and even more, when you won’t call something a clone or direct descendent of another device in certain situations, but will readily call it out in others (not on this site but elsewhere).

I absolutely want to be a part of this community, but I also have opinions and if I want to go on a thread of another device, I should be allowed. If I’m being a jerk, or negative, it’s my grave I’m digging and I get you’re trying to act in everyone’s best interests, but sometimes we all have to live with what we say. It turns the place into a heavily moderated forum without honest discussion. @jackrod might want to avoid other manufacturers inquiries, but shouldn’t people welcome conversation? Unless they are ill-equipped in the first place, then maybe it makes it easier for them to hide in plain sight. I prefer real conversation and not the synthetic curated version that places tend to become with overtly aggressive moderation.

[stickstones]

Thanks. It sounds like Troy and I may have more to prove than you or others…thanks for the insight. I’m up for it! [Side note: I’ll figure out where to post my industry position and current affiliations so it’s clear to everyone exactly what I do. I don’t think anyone really knows.]

It sounds like you’re in agreement with the case-by-case “prove it” style of moderating manufacturers/retailers, yes? Is that better for you than separate accounts?

I forgot about the rule about starting threads. I suggest we move that to a similar “prove it” style as well, as that could limit early awareness for our members.

Are there other rules you thought were too restrictive, @TheDabHut ?

[TheDabHut]

We all have affiliations that aren’t financial too. I certainly have zero issue with how one earns a living. In fact, I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think you guys could be objective. It’s just more of a reminder and note. There are likely plenty of eyes on this new forum and maybe a bit of caution to join from some prior participants in FC. Never hurts to clear the air on that piece.

Definitely case-by-case seems best. I would hate to manage 2 accounts haha but more than that, I think we can all add value in certain areas. I know actually far less about stuff like logs, stems and even many of the portables. I’m sure there will be a point where I want to chime in on the conversation to learn more from a technical perspective. I’d hate for that to be something moderation has to suppress. For both parties it seems like a waste of energy.

Agreed on starting threads too. I’m also less likely to do that since I really don’t make new stuff myself. However, if I did have something to show off that would be an unfortunate restriction. I’m never a fan of someone else speaking on my behalf, if I can avoid it.

All other items are basic human decency things we absolutely should all be in agreement. Can’t think of anything else.

[Northernhigh420]

Unfortunately it’s always going to be viewed that way whether they moderate fairly or not by some in the Community. Personally think even if your promoting something covering something up with bias is a bad move it’s your reputation at the end of the day. Least for me thats more important than a buck. I think moderation should really be there for when people go off in an argument delete and clean it up. Otherwise let the conversation stand for itself moderation otherwise is a nice way of controlling a conversation.

[jackrod]

@TheDabHut

@jackrod might want to avoid other manufacturers inquiries

I’m ready for inquiries! I try to keep my build somewhat open source. So that people know what they are getting. I just don’t want to see threads derailed by constant back and forth.

[GrindheadJim]

I have a suggestion in the spirit of the discussion around potential bias, regardless of the source or nature of it:

Embrace it.

Jerry mentioned posting his affiliations somewhere so that he can clearly point to it. That’s step one. Everyone who has a professional or financial stake in the industry should be disclosing that information openly.

Feigning objectivity in any enthusiast environment is futile. We’re human, guys. Even as a consumer, I have strong biases with what I prefer to use, and will heartily suggest it to anyone who will listen. Even if I don’t materially benefit from it, the bias is there.

Instead of objectivity, we should strive to operate with mutual respect, honesty, integrity, & professionalism.

Disclose that which might create bias in your opinion, but own your opinion in a constructive way.

Rather than stifling discussion, it should seed greater depth of conversation. If you enter a conversation knowing that the others participating will behave with respect, honesty, integrity, and professionalism, you have every incentive to do the same.

That said, there’s always one. You know the one. That poster that claims not to know the rules and feigns innocence after disrespecting others, failing to be completely honest, or operating in the opposite spirit of the discussion.

Disciplining these outliers fairly is a separate discussion, but I wanted to acknowledge that there’s an expectation of rebellion against even rules with the most pure intentions.

I could go on, but this is already a lot to chew on.

Back to my coffee.

[stickstones]

Brilliant perspective, Jim. We have real bias and perceived bias, and both can be damaging. I think both can be well accounted for the way you laid it out.

[420vapezone]

great conversations so far

to be clear we’re not trying to be an exact FC.

I had issues that prevented me from fully engaging on FC and I know others did too. We’re trying to create a space that serves the community better.

[Ronny]

I second @GrindheadJim response. I think embracing affiliations/brand reps would be great. As consumer, I have a responsibility to educate myself on what filter is being applied to the information I am gathering. I also filter product expectations when watching any influencer reviews of products who get the review products for free (all products, not just the vape world). If influencers had to pay out of pocket for every product they reviewed, that would have a bearing on the final review of that product. A great $500 product may not be ranked as high if there is a $250 product almost as good. Again, that is my job as a consumer. And by simply being transparent, you can give that power to the consumer trying to make a decision. Yeah, that Lamborghini is great, but is it 200k better than the C8 Corvette? If I got them both free, yes it is! If I had to pay for them, nope. Not everyone has to be objective, but be open about your perspective.

[Northernhigh420]

I agree should disclose those things I post my receipts or mention in my content if it was sent for free. Lot of the affiliate codes I have I paid for the devices. Dr Dabber for instance lot of grey area here think for most people reviewing this is probably a likely scenario.

[420vapezone]

regarding the rules - is it fair and safe to put the responsibility on the brand rep to be transparent?

[GrindheadJim]

Well, this is the precarious part: even if you put in the rules that by registering that you are agreeing to be honest, professional, respectful and act with integrity, there’s the possibility of bad actors.

That possibility exists already, so why not put our best effort into building intent and trust?

In the profile edit page, a checkbox could be placed to check it if you associate with the industry directly and/or professionally. Hell, it could be a drop down menu (Enthusiast, Content Creator, Entrepreneur, Industry Professional, etc) that displays its result on the profile page when visited.

There could be an open window to type in additional information to describe your perspective as whatever you identify as.

Again, trust has to flow in both directions. For those who cannot adhere to that basic of a social contract (edit: the honesty aspect)? Outta here. That’s my take.

[420vapezone]

thankfully this software is built to enable the most trusted users, and we have a few good mods on board

i don’t want anyone throttled without reason, and being a part of the industry is not a reason

[GrindheadJim]

Of course not! We want to encourage engagement, not the opposite. I don’t think asking for transparency and integrity is unreasonable.