Correct usage of Fratching

[Rapscallion]

Fratching is a board licence I pay for so political and controversial stuff can be posted. Like this site, it's free and we don't spam you, but we expect you to stand up for yourself far more than you do here.

Correct usage of Fratching is to think whether or not something is the right thing to say, and if it isn't (feel free to check with a moderator - we only bite if you pay extra) then start a thread about the issue over there (possibly with a link back) and mention in the thread that you'd like to discuss the harsher issues there.

Incorrect usage is to talk about Fratching, meaning that you've already thought it could go down that route, and then say whatever you feel like saying as if it's a shield of immunity.

We've seen too many similar instances of late. We're quite happy to hand out infractions in the worst cases.

Rapscallion

[Dave1982]

D'oh.....here am I reading this after having just committed that sin (though I think I danced around the issue, and it was not the main focus of my post anyway). Sorry. :o

[blas]

Raps, I is slightly confused.

Are you saying you're wanting those of us on Fratching already to stand up for ourselves more over there (as in we aren't really debating hard enough?) or are you saying that you'd like more people to take threads that get closed over here and take them over there?

If it's the latter, I definetly agree. Usually when I see a thread get closed, I book ass over to fratching and see if that member started a thread about it....except most of the time, that doesn't happen.

[Ree]

I think the meaning was that he wants to see more use of fratching and less controversial statements here.

Also, he's asking people to stop making those controversial comments on CS and then hide behind the "but that's for fratching" excuse.

If a person has to make a disclaimer, it's better left unsaid.

It's like saying, "I'd make fun of your ugly dress and stupid looking hair, but that would be rude."

I'm sorry, but you can't un-ring a bell, and saying something that will incite a debate and then adding the fratching disclaimer is just the same as actually saying it on CS, which is against the rules.

If a person feels that strongly about an issue, starting the fratching thread, then posting the link over here with a simple, "Meet me at fratching," will suffice.

[blas]

It just kind of irks me that a thread will get closed, the mod will even state "You can take it to Fratching", and I go over there, and nope.....that person isn't even on Fratching, and no thread. I suppose anyone can start a thread, and it doesn't necessarily have to be the person who started the thread on CS......maybe I'm just being lazy and should start taking them over there.

Idk. Just my thoughts. I know we can't force people to join over there. But it would be nice if closed threads over here could take a trip over there and we could debate it without having to hold back.

[Ree]

By all means, if someone doesn't put their money where their mouth is and doesn't follow up with a fratching thread after being asked to take it there, feel free to start one of your own.

[Damien]

I registered for Fratching but are still waiting for mod approval...

[Ree]

Trollguard is in place over there as well as here, so all new members are under moderation. Members need to post and keep posting in order to be automatically off new member moderation.

[Jack Doe]

So, a question for followup. If we wish to broach a particular topic that we know is more appropriate for Fratching, eg, if I wanted to start a thread on reciept checks, is there a procedure on CS to advise others about the Fratching thread?
(edit: ) Um...to be more specific, would it be appropriate to open a thread inviting other members over to participate in the Fratching thread, or would PM's be the preferred method?

[Ree]

The simple answer is no.

Make your post at Fratching, and those who are members of both sites will most likely see the thread over there.

Currently, we prefer that members do not start threads over here asking for others to come check out their fratching thread.

[Andara Bledin]

The way I understand it is that if it's a new idea, just post to Fratching (as Ree said).

If it's something that comes up in a post and you realize your response is more Fratching than CS, then you're allowed to say that your response is up at Fratching (or that there's a thread for it at Fratching), and include a link, but you're not allowed to include Fratching-worthy statements at CS itself.

Basically, you can say, "My thoughts on the subject are over here (linked) at Fratching" and leave it at that. You're allowed to say that you've posted there, but not the actual content of said post.

I'm sure someone will come along and correct me if I've got it wrong. :)

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

eg, if I wanted to start a thread on reciept checks, is there a procedure on CS to advise others about the Fratching thread?


Receipt checks? Can't see why those would be contentious. It's when the thread degenerates into constitutional amendments and arguing about those that it becomes Fratching material. The point I'm making is that we've had a number of people typing something along the lines of, "This is something that should be over at Fratching, but I'll say it here anyway, and since I've mentioned Fratching that means I'm immune from the consequences of my actions."

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Receipt checks? Can't see why those would be contentious.
By receipt checks, I think Jack is referring to when they check your receipt against what's in your cart/bags, which can devolve into exactly the sort of thing you're trying to keep off of CS.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

That's pretty much what I said. Receipt checks are fine - part of the working day, and thus the meat and drink of SC reports etc.

It's when the thread starts going down to the level of 'Because of politician X I can't do so and so' or 'Because of this gubmint rule' that we start having trouble.

Rapscallion

[Jack Doe]

It's when the thread starts going down to the level of 'Because of politician X I can't do so and so' or 'Because of this gubmint rule' that we start having trouble.


Actually Raps, that's exactly what I mean. Not necessarily the day to day grind of "Oh, I had someone jump my stuff about receipt checks" but instead "Why I jumped someone's ass about receipt checks, here's the legal."

So, to recap, starting a thread about item XYZ specifically to point to it in Fratching is verboten, but PM'ing individuals to invite them is allowed. Dropping a phrase such as "I think XYZ is stupid because of ABC, but that's Fratching territory" is verboten, but saying "I think XYZ should be discussed in Fratching" and starting a thread there is allowed. Yes?

[PepperElf]

i can't remember if i saw this posted somewhere here but... "if you have to ask if it should be at Fratching or CS, it probably belongs at Fratching"

[iradney]

I believe it is Boozy's signature to which you refer:

If you have to ask, it's probably better posted at www.fratching.com

[Dips]

I believe it is Boozy's signature to which you refer:

If you have to ask, it's probably better posted at www.fratching.com

That sums it up nicely.

And look!

There's even a handly link! ;)

[Dips]

I'm bumping this up. We're seeing a lot of posts where people make a statement that belongs on fratching but preface it with a disclaimer such as...

"Please don't take this to fratching."

or

"I don't want this to go to fratching, but..."

Making a disclaimer doesn't give you free reign to post your opinion on a controversial topic and then basically tell the rest of the membership they're not allowed to argue back with you.

That needs to stop. If you think your statement is going to invite debate, then please make it over on fratching or keep it to yourself.

There is one exception. If an OP knows that a sucky customer's views on politics, religion etc. might steer his thread off topic into fratching territory, that OP is perfectly free to put a note in his OP to ask that people not take his thread where it doesn't belong amd get it closed.

However OPs should keep in mind that their posts should stick to the facts and the suckiness of the customer. OPs should refrain from making statements airing their own opinions on politics, religion etc.

And if you see this stuff? Use the report button and tell us about it. Please don't respond to it in any way, even to tell the poster it is against the rules.

And, as always, it can't hurt to review the rules every now and then, especially if it has been while since you last read them. They can be found here:

http://www.customerssuck.com/board/showthread.php?t=190

[Peppergirl]

Bumping this one yet again...and only three days later.

Please stop it.

[wolfie]

Hypothetical situation, but would this be a correct division of CS vs. Fratching material?

- There's a thread in CS where a user feels that their reply might be "over the line"
- User starts a thread in Fratching, beginning with something along the lines of "In response to (link provided) thread in CS, here's what I have to say on the subject"
- User posts a reply in the CS thread, saying "My views on this subject can be found in (link provided) thread in Fratching

The purpose of the double linking is so people reading on Fratching can see what prompted the thread, and people reading on CS who have more "over the line" comments to add can easily find an appropriate place to post them.

[Ree]

That has always been a perfectly acceptable way to handle it.

[Peppergirl]

Bumping this again.

As stated a few posts above, if you find yourself typing a post that has the words "I'd say more, but I'm close to Fratching". Or "Not to get into fratching territory, but..."

Guess what? You're likely already there.

If you find yourself posting these things, please stop.

We simply don't have the manpower to constantly edit these posts.

Thanks.