How to Improve (ie "save") the Forums

Nick Wilder wrote:

Sure, start a new "clean" topic with ideas!  

To get it started: perhaps a user can access the "Latest Posts" page only if they meet certain criteria (such as: perfectly clean record, been a member for a year, has some number of points, etc).

OK, here are some ideas:

1. Users are required to identify themselves with a real name/ID/phone number/etc. This information need not be publicly displayed.
2. Everyone has read-access to the forums, but only "contributors" can post. This benefits the well-behaved lurkers.
3. Contributors would be defined as people who have added a certain number of new routes, new areas, or photos to the database. Similar to the old MP "points" system. However, unlike the points system, you can't achieve contributor status for making comments to existing routes, areas, or photos. Nor would you for making forum posts.
4. Eventually, given you've had an active account in good standing for a certain amount of time, you could gain posting privileges even if you haven't become a contributor through adding to the database substantially. This would allow the well-behaved lurkers who very rarely post to do so when needed.
5. Your "Troll Factor" would penalize your status exponentially, thus possibly dropping you below the threshold required for posting privileges.
6. The ability to up-vote (much like the existing "thumbs up" button) and down-vote (a new "thumbs-down" button) forum posts could be implemented. If a post reaches a certain negative threshold (say -5), that post would be hidden and only clicking on it would reveal it. If the post reaches a second negative threshold (say -10), one's "Troll Factor" would increase... and the post could possibly be deleted altogether.
7. Flagging should be reserved for more egregious offenses/spam/etc.
8. Troll Factor should be influenced by length that the MP account is active (longer = better score), flagging (less posts flagged = better score), down-voted posts (as previously described), username changes (less changes = better score), contributions to the database (more contributions = better score), plus all the other mysterious variables (such as how often one posts, etc) that already go into it.
9. Strict zero tolerance for users who have multiple accounts. Multiple accounts = automatic banning.
10. Certain forums could be posted to by anyone with an account regardless of contributor status. For example: Lost and Found, Partner Finder, possibly For Sale...
11. All users can "subscribe" to or "favorite" specific forums they wish to see (just like the current "For Sale" forum display option and similar to how we can see "What's New" in our favorite areas). Only threads from these subscribed/favorite forums appear on the front page for that user. This will keep the chaff out of sight from those who don't wish to see it.

I generally like some of these notions as a framework.  As for #9, could this even be possible to enforce?

I anticipate the Troll Factor would be very hard to score accurately.  I really can't think of suggestions though.  That said, there has been some "nonsense" that added good flavor to the MP forums like Alex Z., Fritz and the Goats, Tradiban (RIP), to name a few out of so many...  :-/  

Then again, Trolls live in forums.

Gumby King wrote: I generally like some of these notions as a framework.  As for #9, could this even be possible to enforce?

I anticipate the Troll Factor would be very hard to score accurately.  I really can't think of suggestions though.  That said, there has been some "nonsense" that added good flavor to the MP forums like Alex Z., Fritz and the Goats, Tradiban (RIP), to name a few out of so many...  :-/  

Then again, Trolls live in forums.

Thanks.

I think multiple user accounts could be detected by way of monitoring IP addresses as a bare minimum.

Some nonsense is fun, but I figure less nonsense is better than no forums at all. One possible compromise is to have a specific forum (like "Community") that is less regulated? I don't think I like this idea but it could serve as a playground for trolls or those who are into that sorta thing.

I like this approach. I’ve learned a ton of climbing-related stuff, probably 80% of which from a very few users, all of whom would qualify as contributors.

The Troll Factor is the crux. I’d suggest doing away with the thumbs (up or down) entirely. I’d also limit users to an appropriate number of “flags” per month. And maybe a penalty for flagging in bad faith.

Suggest also retaining open access to the beginners and partners forums, with stricter behaviour standards, including that topics be climbing related.

I’ve participated in a few of the political exchanges here recently. I’d have no problem taking that part somewhere else. It’s a shame though. There’s something valuable and increasingly rare about a group of people willing to confront differences in the service of of a common goal (to be reductive, climbing).

Thanks for the site and all the hard work, Nick. 

Andy Wiesner wrote: I like this approach. I’ve learned a ton of climbing-related stuff, probably 80% of which from a very few users, all of whom would qualify as contributors.

The Troll Factor is the crux. I’d suggest doing away with the thumbs (up or down) entirely. I’d also limit users to an appropriate number of “flags” per month. And maybe a penalty for flagging in bad faith.

Suggest also retaining open access to the beginners and partners forums, with stricter behaviour standards, including that topics be climbing related.

I’ve participated in a few of the political exchanges here recently. I’d have no problem taking that part somewhere else. It’s a shame though. There’s something valuable and increasingly rare about a group of people willing to confront differences in the service of of a common goal (to be reductive, climbing).

Thanks for the site and all the hard work, Nick. 

Thanks Andy. Some thoughts:

The "Troll Factor" is already in place (and apparently useful). I think it could have a great benefit to the forums.

The idea of the up-rating and down-rating is to relieve Nick and admins of some of the burden of moderating forums. This puts the power in the users hands a bit more, and the admins are subjected to less blame for perceived censorship. This method has been demonstrated to be really effective on sites like Pinkbike (which I frequent) and Reddit (or so I'm told).

I think differentiating between legit beginners and those that are here to troll or spam will be tricky. Any suggestions? As far as the partner forums, I think those could be exempt or more lenient in terms of posting privileges.

Remember, everyone can still VIEW the forums. The restrictions are for those who want to post and will hopefully only be noticed by those who aren't really contributing anything of value anyway.

Josh Janes wrote:

Thanks.

I think multiple user accounts could be detected by way of monitoring IP addresses as a bare minimum.

Some nonsense is fun, but I figure less nonsense is better than no forums at all. One possible compromise is to have a specific forum (like "Community") that is less regulated? I don't think I like this idea but it could serve as a playground for trolls or those who are into that sorta thing.

Trolls would rather play in other peoples Playgrounds...

But, unless I missed something (which is likely given that I don't check every freaking thread now...) are Trolls the reason for the forum "shutdown"?  I know they can be viewed as a problem but I think there are other issues at hand.

Josh Janes wrote:

Thanks Andy. Some thoughts:

The "Troll Factor" is already in place (and apparently useful). I think it could have a great benefit to the forums.

The idea of the up-rating and down-rating is to relieve Nick and admins of some of the burden of moderating forums. This puts the power in the users hands a bit more, and the admins are subjected to less blame for perceived censorship. This method has been demonstrated to be really effective on sites like Pinkbike (which I frequent) and Reddit (or so I'm told).

I think differentiating between legit beginners and those that are here to troll or spam will be tricky. Any suggestions? As far as the partner forums, I think those could be exempt or more lenient in terms of posting privileges.

Remember, everyone can still VIEW the forums. The restrictions are for those who want to post and will hopefully only be noticed by those who aren't really contributing anything of value anyway.

For the beginner's forum, maybe anyone can open a thread but only contributors respond? As for the thumbs up- and down-rating as a basis for evaluating content, IMO it's too easily abused. Checks and balances are required.

I'll be quiet now. Will have to get used to it until I start putting up routes. Do I get any credit for my video of the one handed butterfly knot? That took hours to perfect.

To me, the thing that gets really tedious, and derails a lot of threads, is when people get into a steady back and forth that degenerates into outright nastiness and goes on seemingly forever. It seems like it would be useful to have a per day per person post limit.

I like the idea of one real person, one account, but I don’t have any idea if that is technically doable or not. It’s not like Nick can do background checks on people.

I’m kind of resigned to the idea that this Forum will disappear at some point in the not too distant future. 

Josh Janes wrote: Contributors would be defined as people who have added a certain number of new routes, new areas, or photos to the database. Similar to the old MP "points" system. However, unlike the points system, you can't achieve contributor status for making comments to existing routes, areas, or photos. Nor would you for making forum posts.

I like a lot of the ideas that you’ve laid out, Josh, but this one is sticking with me a little bit. 

Climbing is a prohibitively expensive activity for a lot of people. I’m pretty well off and I climb a lot. But developing is even more niche and exclusive than climbing in general. If adding new content is the only way to achieve contributor status, and adding new areas or routes is nigh impossible for the average climber (non-developer), then I can foresee a lot of spam images being uploaded to the site, which is just another way of making work for Nick, et al.

Obviously, you don’t have to be a developer to add content to the site. In my experience, the old guard and developers are those to whom new areas and routes are available. Out in the real world, cool, if you work hard, you get the new routes, but I’m not sure it should be a measure of whether or not you can participate in the forums. I have a lot of experience climbing, guiding, teaching, and as much as I learn from others far more experienced on this site, I have some tidbits to contribute as well. Just because I’m not (yet) involved in the community pioneering new areas and routes shouldn’t mean that I can’t share as well

​I like the idea of people needing to be active in the digital community and contribute to the site in order to have more access/perks, but the way in which we decide to limit access shouldn’t be too limiting. 

Doctor Drake wrote:

But developing...

Just to be clear, by "new" I mean previously not in the MP database. You don't have to go out and put up a new route. I also included photos - so if you want to be a contributor but can't find a route or area to add to the database, you can always add some good beta photos.

I also included another way (see #4 above): That's simply length of time your account has been active, and in good standing, on the site.

I like the idea of being able to subscribe to select forums (so that you could see the latest threads from just those forums that you care about). Additionally, if specific forums are being abused, badly behaving users could be banned from those forums.

Josh Janes wrote:

1. Users are required to identify themselves with a real name/ID/phone number/etc. This information need not be publicly displayed.

Sad to see that as #1 - I am always surprised when people suggest forcing real names as some method of alleviating trolling / toxicity. People are assholes under their real names all the time. And lots of posters with pseudonyms are great forum citizens. Why would anybody want to give more access to personally identifiable information like an ID? For a hobby site so I can chat about climbing? Good for marketers, I guess. And stalkers.

I prefer to stick with pseudonyms as at least a minor obstacle to some nutjob who takes offense to something I've said or otherwise wants to move things to the real world. Particularly on a site like this where ticks and comments can make it pretty easy to figure out where somebody is and tends to be.

I don't think requiring real names is remotely practical, so in the interest of finding productive ideas, let's drop that and focus on other things.  Thanks!

Here's an idea that is in use on another internet community I frequent:

Require an invite code for new registrations. An invite code can be obtained from an existing user. In effect, a new user must find an existing user to vouch for them.

If a user invites a lot of troublemakers, they can have their invite privileges removed (and in some cases they may be banned). This discourages users from inviting people who may cause problems on the forum. This also encourages invitees to stay on good behavior, as their actions will reflect on the person who vouched for them.

In practice, invitations can be given out relatively freely - it is not necessary to know the person "IRL". For example, if I am on Reddit, and I see someone is asking for an invite, I can look at their post history to determine if they are a decent person. This is usually a good enough filter.

As a benefit to moderators, the invite tree makes it easy to recognize sockpuppeting and other forms of registration abuse.

To avoid creating an exclusive community, open registrations can be available periodically, so people can still join without being invited at times. This still greatly limits the amount of spam and troll accounts that are created, keeping the stream of new users more manageable for the moderators.

The community that uses this does not limit the number of invites a user can give out, but for MP it might make sense to do so.

My 2 cents: many of the suggestions so far are meant to reduce troll accounts but I fear they will also make the forums less accessible at a time when the climbing community is trying to welcome more diverse climbers. For example, the "contributor" idea would make it near impossible for new or not well-connected climbers, particularly BIPOC, to engage in these forums. Perhaps there is a way to achieve the goal of promoting respected members without shutting down newbies?

My suggestions:
1. A 10-day wait period where a new user cannot post to the forums. This may prevent reactionary trolling accounts while still allowing new climbers to post after a short wait.
2. Temporary user bans/posting bans. Perhaps a similar "time-out" period for trolling or disrespectful accounts. Combined with the previous idea, it could defuse threads that get heated in a matter of hours or days.
3. Heavy forum moderation via dedicated, diverse moderators. For all the cries of "free speech" that will go up in response to being moderated, I think it's worth clamping down aggressively. 

Big Red wrote:  
3. Heavy forum moderation via dedicated, diverse moderators. For all the cries of "free speech" that will go up in response to being moderated, I think it's worth clamping down aggressively. 

This. 

This is a privately owned forum. It is up to Nick to determine whether he welcomes all free speech or creates rules pertaining to users about expressing mutual respect vs bigotry, hatred, trolling or anything else he sees fit in terms of user participation. There is NO legal requirement to allow free speech, in this virtual place which I see as his living room.

As I stated in another thread the following things are all fair considerations. I have seen these things work brilliantly on other online forums I participate in. 

-Requiring users to agree to rules of conduct (which need to be expanded from the current laissez-faire "don't be a jerk")

-A no tolerance policy for users shitting the host's living room

-Punative measures including banning abusers

I would lament seeing this forum shut down because of the incessant user bullshit. The funtional aspects of sharing climbing adventures, discussing gear, climbing techniques, training, dealing with climbing related injuries, trading, buying and selling gear, regional access and condition notification and discussion, and hooking up with other climbers is invaluable. The rest of the "banter" that turns into garbage is better expressed on other forums specifically dedicated to such garbage.

I can assure you, gentle reader, that more rules are not going to solve the problems of forums. Understand, we the people are a rabble. We always were. Same rabble that starts revolutions and bar fights and riots and panic-hoarding. The only way to fix the rabble out of forums is to close the forums. Actually I think we all know and understand this, so, yeah.

You know what I hate? - MFA. I bet trolls would hate that as well.

Use MFA to verify new users - phone number might be the best non-PII identifier. Yes, it is not that hard to fake, but it does take some work.

If a user becomes associated with negative content, force them to use MFA for posting during the cool down period. Nothing would stop verbal diarrhea as having to copy 6 digit code from their favorite messaging app for each post.

With due respect, Josh, it seems like you're looking at removing the bad aspects of the forums, but don't have a clear idea of what you value in a forum in the first place. Your proposal would throw the baby out with the bathwater, removing everything good about the forums along with the bad.

I'll admit I don't see a lot of value in the forums--their basic function seems to be drumming up activity so people add the routes/areas which are the real value of MP. There are a few posters who post valuable content (rgold and Jim Titt, for example) but it would be a lot better if you just gave those people blogs--other people's uninformed responses to their informed posts actively detract value. Overall, I'm not actually a big fan of social media. But if you're going to keep the forums at all, whatever changes are made should at least try to maintain some semblance of discussion.

I don't particularly think forcing "real names" would be that functional.

I know very minimal about coding or how difficult it would be to implement (probably pretty difficult) but I think a user verification text would be beneficial. Email verification is easy and free to push through, just make your 19th gmail account and away you go, but cell numbers cost real world dollars, so it would eliminate bot spam, and would stop people from immediately creating a new account after being banned.

I think an easier to implement system would just be requiring a 3 month account age before you can post in any forum that isn't lost and found. This blocks "bot" style spam, and at least slows "troll style" spam.

Josh Janes wrote:

Just to be clear, by "new" I mean previously not in the MP database. You don't have to go out and put up a new route. I also included photos - so if you want to be a contributor but can't find a route or area to add to the database, you can always add some good beta photos.

I also included another way (see #4 above): That's simply length of time your account has been active, and in good standing, on the site.

Of course, I guess I neglected to mention in my post that this is also problematic as existing routes may be excluded from the database for a variety of reasons that have at least 50 pages of “discussion” already on here: FA doesn’t want it on MP, racist name, landowner issues, Lost City in the Gunks situation, the list goes on. 

I’d just like to see some other criteria that constitute contribution. I don’t have many ideas off the top of my head, but I’ll try and share some later.