Limits on Forum Posts?

Sorry it took so long ...I was actually out climbing with Mr. Stone. Not playing on the internet. I only do that to stay awake. If u r gonna moderate my posts that's fine im just gonna keep making new people. Btw I sent a 5.9 trad. So deal with THAT!

Elena Sera Jose wrote: that's fine im just gonna keep making new people.

Some of us care because you're really annoying.

Elena Sera Jose wrote: Btw I sent a 5.9 trad.

Nobody cares.

Elena Sera Jose wrote:Sorry it took so long ...I was actually out climbing with Mr. Stone. Not playing on the internet. I only do that to stay awake. If u r gonna moderate my posts that's fine im just gonna keep making new people. Btw I sent a 5.9 trad. So deal with THAT!

Way to be a rebel! And also, if that complete sentence challenge still stands I think you just won. Congrats!

Glenn Schuler wrote: Some of us care because you're really annoying. Nobody cares.

Rude on two accounts. Both useless. Moderate yourself please.

Killis, I call any thing that is sarcastic and does not have bearing on the subject trolling. Sorry that is pretty broad.

Elena Sera Jose wrote:Btw I sent a 5.9 trad. So deal with THAT!

As proven by this thread, thread drift is inevitable on the interwebs. Would it be great to have a forum that was so tightly moderated that any off-topic post was deleted? Maybe. Would the forums be negatively impacted by the resulting loss of forum posters? Probably not. But is it fun to have the occasional tangent? Maybe. Key word: "occasional." Perhaps it would be useful to simplify the "flag post" feature? If a post (or thread) received a certain number of flags (for example, 5) it would then be pushed to the moderators for review. This would reduce the number of posts that moderators would have to review, while at the same time allowing users to participate in the cleansing process.

Ryan Nevius wrote:As proven by this thread, thread drift is inevitable on the interwebs. Would it be great to have a forum that was so tightly moderated that any off-topic post was deleted? Maybe. Would the forums be negatively impacted by the resulting loss of forum posters? Probably not. But is it fun to have the occasional tangent? Maybe. Key word: "occasional." Perhaps it would be useful to simplify the "flag post" feature? If a post (or thread) received a certain number of flags (for example, 5) it would then be pushed to the moderators for review. This would reduce the number of posts that moderators would have to review, while at the same time allowing users to participate in the cleansing process.

I like your idea... As if my like will change anything. On a side note, the drift of topic and rude comments were made by people other than Burt and Elena. Maybe they are not the only two problems?

Limit, if not already in place, one username per email address.

Otherwise no limits unless they are causing problems for Mountain Project staying administratively good, ie eating up too much space or causing too many problems for Admins.

If it's "bothering" you, don't read it. Any of the time limits and other limits suggested by others won't stop the quick, rude responses that show up to a genuine post and are often the first thing out of the rude posters mouth. Yes, it might spiral into all kinds of ugly crap after the original rude post, but censorship is an ugly path to tread. Learn to ignore flamers and trolls.

Cindy wrote:Limit, if not already in place, one username per email address.

Already in place. They just get new email addresses.

Have you thought of the man hours--sorry--the peep hours it would take to police?

This is a lame idea!

Who's the fascist dictator who thought of this? What a bastard!

Why can't adults just choose what to read?

Good to hear there is a simple email address/username limit.

Now it's time for people to learn to ignore the trolls. Unless someone is being harmed, move along, don't give them incentive.

Perhaps the biggest downside to the suggested limits are that truly productive conversations could be effectively prevented entirely or certainly made laborious to conduct at a minimum.

Cindy wrote: Perhaps the biggest downside to the suggested limits are that truly productive conversations could be effectively prevented entirely or certainly made laborious to conduct at a minimum.

Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yeYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yesYes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yess yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Shawn your annoying me but I can't stop reading your posts. What do I do?

J Hazard, can't you read Rule # 1? Don't be a jerk!!

Moderator, I flagged him!!! Delete his harassing comment! Suspend his posting privileges! Delete his account!

Can you add post limits but just for individual users or a class of users? Set the post limit to something really high in the beginning and then tune to optimize.

It might not be frustrating enough for people to create a new account, and life lessons will be learned. ;)

It would be great if you could make some kind of poll in response to this thread. After accumulating a bunch of ideas, a poll could be crafted that would simply ask whether or not people think some kind of moderation needs to occur (yes or no), and then would get more specific about the method of moderation.

Trolls iz funzz... Idunno why it is that erybody be hatin. What about edits?