I would also like to take a moment to mention just how freaking awesome it is to be part of a community that can have an honest open discussion like this one. Seriously, congratulations Troy, Jerry, the mods, anyone behind the scenes getting 420VG up and running and this entire vape community. People will never stop having disagreements. It is how you move forward that defines your character. 
11 Likes
Wonderful discussion and engagement from everyone. I am so glad to have joined this community. I am learning so much from you all. Speaking from the perspective of an enthusiastic consumer I greatly appreciate all the discussions and debates of the vast vape options that are out there. I understand that moderation of these discussions can and will be tricky at times if things take a perceived or intended negative tone. I think a case by case interpretation is a strong approach to weeding out any with ulterior motives but even with that there could be pitfalls with an interpretation of a statement or rule. As long as we don’t break out “Robert’s Rules of Order” we are good. I have the utmost confidence in our communities moderators and if I step over the line in a discussion I will welcome the feedback. You all Rock!
3 Likes
So basically disclose, be transparent and don’t be a dick. I can dig it. Great convo!
9 Likes
One topic I wanted to mention wasn’t really an FC rule I don’t think? but many thought it was?
I would often see users try to enter a thread and ask some basic questions about a vape. Often, some people would jump on them and chastise for not searching the thread for the answer first before asking. I guess this was annoying to some, and I’m sure it may be best to do some research first so the same questions aren’t repeated. But it became this policing thing that a number of people (who weren’t moderators) would do. It got downright intimidating to ask anything without scouring through a thread that had may of had hundreds of pages, for fear of getting embarrassed.
My feeling was always, if the post annoys you then keep scrolling past it and move on.
While many of us loved the FC, the number of participants began to drop off over time and I thought it a disservice to the site to jump on newbs and drive them away by making their first intro to the site a negative one.
12 Likes
thissss was a big push for me too - i hated the “search the 900 page thread” mentality and thought it ruined the general social use of the forum
this forum is set up different. we’re allowing master threads, but also allowing tangent threads. they can all mingle 
8 Likes
Yeah, we can try to update that part of the culture. Hopefully the focus on first post wikis will help with that. Not everyone is going to hang out and join the community. Some just want an answer before they move on, and that’s okay.
7 Likes
It’s nice to see #2 acknowledged and added to the new rules.
The transparency issue on FC wasn’t really between manufacturers or reviewers.
It was between “credible” regular members being sent free gear and playing undercover brand ambassador, under the illusion of being a grassroots supporter.
9 Likes
the rules have been updated - 420VapeGeeks RULES & GUIDELIENS
nothing is set in stone though and we’ll continue to adjust as needed
5 Likes
Brand reps can bring knowledge and support but they can also get tribal and overbearing. In some open forums they try to take over. Providing accurate and helpful info without over communicating is what I prefer
4 Likes
Let me bring another one over here. Back on fc we had a rule we affectionately called the tradhead rule. It got the name from a member named tradhead from the Canary Islands who decided to make fc his personal soapbox. Tradhead would show up just about every day to deliver the same complaint about the same company in the same thread, and no matter how many times other members said “yeah, we hear you, thanks,” he kept posting the same complaint over and over.
That kind of behavior derails threads and fucks with the forum vibe, so the mod group came up with a rule: if you’ve got a beef with a company or a product, you can come in and state it as fully as you want, once. You don’t get to come back and keep repeating the same gripe with no new substance. For example, it’s appropriate to come back when there’s an actual development. “I contacted the manufacturer about this and they said X” is a useful update. Coming back to restate the same complaint in different words is not.
We recently had a new member show up and use their first post to deliver an emotionally charged message about fiberglass in the Tafee Bowle thread. I thought the community handled it really well. People acknowledged the issue and wanted to look at it further. Some folks even reached out with concern for the poster, who clearly had something heavy going on. But the poster never engaged with that. They didn’t follow up on the responses, they didn’t post on any other topic, and eventually they wrote a swan song saying they weren’t coming back for a while. A first time poster with a single emotionally charged issue and no other engagement is exactly the pattern the tradhead rule was built to address. Not because the underlying concern doesn’t deserve a long, hard look, but because that pattern of posting is typically devisive.
I know some people felt fc drew too hard a line on this kind of thing, and that the rule lent a bias to the topic. Others thought it didn’t do enough. The intent was always to keep things civil while keeping the conversation alive, not to shut it down. There’s a difference between “we discussed this fully and there’s no new information” and “we’re not allowed to talk about this.” Most of the feedback I got privately from the community regarding the fiberglass issue wanted this reigned in more. But others didn’t.
So my question to the forum members is what feels good to you? What do you want in this rule? Did the fiberglass discussion feel well moderated, or did we not moderate it enough, or did we moderate it too much? I’m in favor of a rule here at 420vapegeeks similar to fc’s tradhead rule because, in my opinion, it was effective at keeping the peace. It protected the forum vibe without making tough topics off limits, and it kept the conversations civil.
I really don’t want to watch this forum evolve into a place for hate and divisiveness. If vapes have real issues, we can talk about them rationally and calmly and get to the bottom of them. And we don’t have to rely on just conjecture. We have connections and resources here that other forums don’t. We can get in touch with manufacturers, get their side, and sometimes learn details the original poster didn’t have. That’s a real strength of this community. We just need a structure that lets us use it.
So - what do you want this rule to look like?
10 Likes
I think some form of this is needed. You routinely asked that poster if he contacted Tafee directly and he kept dodging the answer.
I’m all about honest, respectful and acknowledged dialogue and transparency.
If one of them wilts, so does the entire conversation.
7 Likes
No question some process is needed to prevent feeds getting bogged down with complaints on repeat. I personally feel this is an essential rule to keep the site clean and promote healthy dialogue. The Fiberglass in the air path discussion was moderated spot on for my taste. The OP started to cross some community standards I feel when he was getting vaguely personal and accusatory. The moderation of that thread was diplomatic and fair to all while avoiding getting caught up in the veiled accusations on integrity. It’s understandable that when people feel passionate about an issue to vehemently argue their case but we need to be aware when our passion crosses that line of frustration. We all need some good moderation from time to time and I have the utmost faith in the crew here.
5 Likes
that’s a great point about passion and frustration.
sometimes people get so in the weeds (no pun intended, or is there 
) they forget that sometimes the person with a different opinion simply doesn’t have all the facts and data you do, as it’s not been on their radar.
If you approach anything with anyone aggressively, you should expect skepticism and push back.
articulate your point and your concerns without personal attacks and acceptances that sometimes people have different preferences and risk assessments.
4 Likes
I think it should be simple: three good faith attempts to address the repeated concern(s), then a timeout of some kind (24 hours?). After that, two good faith attempts, then another timeout (48+ hours?), and on that last good faith attempt, if there’s no evidence of a change of behavior, bye bye (IP ban?).
Every situation is unique, and people have to be given space to learn and grow, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.
4 Likes
those are good…thanks! But I’m falling behind you. I’m still on the rule definition, then on to the spankings. (although, the “time out” term has been on my mind for a while…funny you mention it!)
for me, the “state it once, then wait for an update” is gold. offenders can be warned, then go on time out, whatever. how does that sit with everyone?
7 Likes
I concur completely. I made a reference in an earlier post about Robert’s Rules of Order. For those who are not aware they are the rules used in a parliamentary proceeding I.e. Congress…the House of Commons…etc. The whole Point of order stuff, there are rules in place to keep a discussion going not bogged down on one issue between battling opinions. Thats why there is a chairperson(Admin) to move it along. Something like…point, counter point, 1 rebuttal each then move to table that and move along. I am completely comfortable with an administrator of this site telling me…“you made your case known…time to move on”. If someone doesn’t want to cooperate then an appropriate debate recess is called for. If said individual still cannot contain themselves after the recess an appropriate escalation of consequences could be laid out.
5 Likes
Seems fair to me. 20 characters
2 Likes
I think the recent fiberglass situations were handled fairly and appropriately.
We gave the complaint space and we limited the arguments to user opinions and citations.
A few messages crossed into personal attacks and ad hominem, but were edited by moderators.
regarding the “tradhead rule” - the FC rule sounds isolated on whistleblowers, hit pieces, and haters. I think we can zoom out a bit and apply the rule to all forms of repetitive dead-horse beating type activities.
Our “debate the gear, respect the people” rule can be translated into “provide facts, not narratives and drama”
10 Likes
It’s funny that you bring the tradhead rule and also evoke the Taffee fiberglass concerns thread here, because it’s precisely that rule but when applied to the YYL fiberglass concerns thread on FC that seemingly for some people damaged FC reputation (or were the nail in the coffin)
Even today you can read on reddit people parroting that Grass Yes and Pakalolo were YYL’s shills because they had to close the thread while they were waiting for an official YYL answer, and precisely because of the tradhead rule not being respected, with many users were stuck in a loop making the same arguments over and over and the thread was going nowhere.
I personally think they did the right thing but people accused FC and its mods of always being in favor of manufacturers. And it’s quite insane because that was the beauty of FC: it rolled for no one in particular and tried to be as neutral as possible.
The similar problem and how it was handled here on this forum will be perceived as even worse because both Troy and Jerry have financial incentives to keep friendly relations with manufacturers they work with and/or get financial interests from in one way or another. And as said above, even with best intentions in mind, humans will always be biased.
Several people told me in private that they would not join this forum specifically due to these perceived conflicts of interest and that by definition both owners could never ever be really objective.
Suppose we could always let the old people run it that couldn’t spend the 5 mins it takes to backup a sql database 
. Honestly whoever runs it someone’s going to have a problem with it. Personally really disliked fc over moderation and find this more fluid overall. Call bs when you see it no ones above scrutiny if they pull something to protect financial incentives
4 Likes