Limits on Forum Posts?

Shawn Mitchell wrote: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!

Ouch! I can't actually read...

Ryan Nevius wrote: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.

Some ideas:
- no more than 10 posts/day total ***Seems reasonable, but I'd say 12 or 13 to prevent false alarms.
- no more than 3 posts per thread per hour ***Yes, if someone has something useful to contribute, they could probably wait until that time has elapsed.***
- no posts within 5 minutes of a prior post in same thread ***Sure***
Do we need this? ***Yes***
Will it work? ***No***
What kind of limits would be effective? ***I had to agree with someone else's suggestion to block specific IP addresses after 3 warnings, and site landlord responded that people use multiple addresses these days. I don't know, but it still seems like it would help to some degree if people frequently post from the same location(s).***

Hmmm... Seeing the absolute thrill fest this is providing the rule followers, I reneg on my support of any such limits. Let it be noted.

OK, most of us have all taken a pretty definitive collective turd on this idea.

File it away under bullshit.

I like that they think about things other than women, it keeps this website amazing!!!

Yea mods ....go take out the garbage or call yo cousins! Honestly im very proud of my past 3 days of climbing especially the Licorice stick 5.9 trad lead at castlewood....I know no one cares but im just saying it to rub it in hahaha! Climbing rocks for all I care!!!

...and mods...
double my points will ya?

I would favor an "ignore user" function, with some way of tracking how many people are ignoring a given user. If the number gets too high, the admins have the option of suspending or banning that individual.

Shawn Mitchell wrote: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!

Please tell me that you lied about your age in your profile. 49? I'm all for setting up some rules here to keep folks like Shawn in check.

Burn the trolls!!!

mark felber wrote:I would favor an "ignore user" function, with some way of tracking how many people are ignoring a given user. If the number gets too high, the admins have the option of suspending or banning that individual.

There's always the option to do something like MP user 'jt512' did for rockclimbing.com and make some kind of "killfile." This doesn't have to be made by MountainProject.

Link to the killfile here: userscripts.org/scripts/sho…

The Dread Pirate Killis wrote:^^^^ Well said, bro.

Well, not really, IMO. The handful of trolls who are a problem generally are not the ones adding good content to the site. The limits proposed would have very little effect, if any, for those who are building the route database etc.

M Sprague wrote: Well, not really, IMO. The handful of trolls who are a problem generally are not the ones adding good content to the site. The limits proposed would have very little effect, if any, for those who are building the route database etc.

Agreed. Maybe not one handful, but probably no more than two.

I think it may be going in the wrong direction.

Bold Text Allow users to block other users if they wish

Mark Wyss wrote: Please tell me that you lied about your age in your profile. 49? I'm all for setting up some rules here to keep folks like Shawn in check.

C'mon, Mark...turn your Sarcasm Detector on. I was spoofing the proposal, unfunnily, alas.

Andrew Haag wrote: All you complaining gumby first year climbers will be forced to pay your dues, or quit climbing.

That sounds patently ridiculous. You feel first year climbers have to pay their 'dues' in the context of negative and demeaning forum posts or quit climbing? This really makes very little sense. What dues are you referring to exactly and how is paying these dues relevant in being a MP user?

Mark Lewis wrote: That sounds patently ridiculous. You feel first year climbers have to pay their 'dues' in the context of negative and demeaning forum posts or quit climbing? This really makes very little sense. What dues are you referring to exactly and how is paying these dues relevant in being a MP user?

Only real hardmen have anything worth saying on MP! Duh! What do you think your one year of climbing has taught you something?

Great idea. Even if people create multiplie accounts at least it will require them to log-out and log-in continually to break the rules.

Ryan Nevius wrote: There's always the option to do something like MP user 'jt512' did for rockclimbing.com and make some kind of "killfile."

I've started development on a Chrome extension that does this. I'll post up a link when it's finished. When I'm done, I may create a Greasemonkey script for Firefox users. I'll continue development unless Mountain Project comes up with a solution of its own.

Giving us the ability to 'vote' comments up/down and hiding those that received too many down votes would likely clean up a lot of the clutter. 'Ignore user' functionality would help too. And, the admins would have the data needed to evaluate which accounts to delete based on community response.

There'd still be the problem of people creating multiple troll accounts but no solutions going to be perfect and the above functionality won't get in the way of legitimate discussions.