Feedback for forums

[TheCotMan]

We've made the forums better as a result of suggestions from mods and users. Here is another chance to make suggestions.

What sucks about the forums?
What can be made better?
What should be changed?
What do you like, and what should remain?
New ideas?
(I'll probably leave this thread open until the end of June.)

Thanks for your thoughts.

[xwred1]

My recollection is that there used to be more sections for just discussing non-convention related things, and now that is pretty much slotted into Community Talk. Which is fine, but it seems like there are less threads now. Total non-scientific measurement, thats just how it feels to me.

I'm sure the expanded technical discussion sections were eliminated based on feedback, I wasn't checking the forums too often then.

I think its nicer too have those sections, at least if you want this to be a place for good tech discussion, but its pointless to have them unless you really have a plethora of threads in this section. Otherwise, you'll just have a bunch of near-dead forum sections.

Thats my only concern. I'd only come to these forums to either read/post about the con itself (which is nicely covered already), or read some nice tech discussion. So anything not related to those two things, I'm indifferent on.

[TheCotMan]

My recollection is that there used to be more sections for just discussing non-convention related things, and now that is pretty much slotted into Community Talk. Which is fine, but it seems like there are less threads now. Total non-scientific measurement, thats just how it feels to me.

We had multiple sections, which included "Wireless" , "Tech" , and maybe one more. Wireless was a little popular for a brief time, but eventually, the number of new posts in that section began to trickle to nothing. With specialized forums like NS, and others, it seemed people were directing their discussions to those forums.

Tech Talk was meant to exist for technical talk, and related discussions. However, threads would appear, and die-- often without any replies. Bascule and others would post some tech-related article, and get only a few replies. I am guessing that with boing-boing, digg, slashdot, toms hardware, arstechnica and many other tech news sources, people interested in such discussions were using those forums/websites.

We even experimented with a section suggested by Bascule for news stories and current events, but it did not catch people either.

The last time this came up, I think the decision was made to consolidate all such discussions in, "Community Talk," and if we had a large influx of technical discussions, and evidence that technical discussions would be discussed more extensively, we could create a similar subforum again.

We also experimented with an expanded /dev/null and categorized problematic threads/posts. That was eliminated too. The latest expansion was to specialized subforums for events/contests to make it easy to locate them for discussion, and elected people to act as "forum leaders/organizers" for specific contests or events, to allow them to organize their contest or event and answer questions with more control over presentation of content.

(The technical subforums were created as a test to see if they would encourage more technical discussions. We can bring them back if people demonstrate they are needed.)

[shrdlu]

We've made the forums better as a result of suggestions from mods and users. Here is another chance to make suggestions.

I still find that anyone new to this is not going to be informed about things like the two week wait until *after* they've signed up. There's a FAQ, but some of the most basic things aren't in it, and that's number one of them. There is a nice explanation, buried way down, about the difference between moderators and contest organizers (and that they are not usually the same people), but the FAQ seems almost standard for just this particular forum software in some places. Nowhere in the FAQ are you pointed to, or reminded of, the "Forum Rules".

I understand that the link is there, but if there's a FAQ, then that's what people are going to read. It's just a matter of luck as to whether they read the rules or the FAQ, but my guess is they probably don't do both, at least not right away.

BTW, in the forum rules, the link to a FAQ is not *the* FAQ, and that link is broken.

Question about DefCon? Check the official FAQ first.

Besides updating that, you might also want to point back to the forum FAQ, and note that it's different than the defcon one.

What sucks about the forums?

Not much. I think it's a thousand times better than the last time I was here. It's nice to see it not degenerate into petty flame wars and stupidity.

What should be changed?

I would like to see the moderators identified as moderators in their profile. I have a good idea of who the moderators are now, but I think that users need to know when someone is making a good suggestion about something, and when someone is providing a warning about behavior. I don't always see the rules applied in an even handed manner, but (considering that you're volunteers, and that *I* wouldn't want the job) you're pretty good for the most part.

On the subject of non-defcon related discussion: I look at any new posts, but will probably ignore most anything that isn't con related, and will not pay any attention to the forums (for the most part) until it gets close to the next con. I don't think of this as a place where I'm going to see tech things that will interest me. I depend on the speakers in August to do that.

[GBHis]

== Suggestions ==
{
Would be cool to have some kind of real-time chat... Much like those java-irc-clients on other sites... We(/slash you, I haven't invented anything than the wooden lockpick) are the people who created such things.... We deserve one! :)
}

{ And please don't freak out here. People who do will be sip-sacked, sued and glued. Superbum Regularis.
A couple of links to tutorial/manuals/free papers.
Many people just need a little push(/link) in the right direction to become much better, cleverer and nicer... Help people go to IRC, bugtraq, google, fix their computers, realise that DOS ain't much worse than windows... We CAN turn the loosers into mates. What makes a "leet n00b" a jerk is not himself. Who taught him to write properly? No-one?
}
{please laugh
Well, if you could build one of these... what is it ... Y-60 things I've seen in the cinema... Was called "Millenium* Falcon" the one I saw...
And come pick me up here in Europe so I could go to the Con-?14?.
Man, I'm going to write this to Santa Claus!
}

== What sucks? / What should be changed? ==
{
I think the "navigation" of the forums are a little hard. It's hard to tell what
is subforums and what is actually general forums.... Ye should put in some colors that would still match the awesome layout!
}

{
It's hard posting "articles" in here... Either people likes you and think that you are a great guy, or otherwise they think you are jerk who shouldn't be here and decides to flame you away with pm's with nasty words and such... I've tried both.
I think we should split the Community Talk (Everything is community talk in here?) up in two sections:

Techy don't post rumors / be unserious / try to be fun, but discuss with tha pros and make no mistakes [forum part 1]

And a looser talk where people is allowed to have fun and post funny details, links to (computer/technic*-related) [forum part 2]

Nothing is wrong with either part 1 or 2 (did it sound like?)...
Part 1 is a clone of our Community Talk as we know it now...
I think we pretty much need the part 2.**
}

* = Ouch. How did you spell that?
** = Ouch. That sentence.... tell me how to write it properly!

[Rescue]

I wanted to pipe in and say a big thanks to Cotman.....

From what I can tell, he has really been spending quite a bit of time working on the forums.

+1

[xwred1]

(The technical subforums were created as a test to see if they would encourage more technical discussions. We can bring them back if people demonstrate they are needed.)

I agree that you are already doing the right thing now.

[Deviant Ollam]

i'd like to point that ever since someone clued me in to the "new posts" command i rarely, if ever, browse the forums by category anymore. in fact, my mozilla toolbar link to the forums is just a direct URL of the new posts list. i just read every new post as they come in, so how the categories and sub-forums are organized matters less. i think people are doing a great job as it is right now... things are sorted properly enough to designate organizational divisions (contests, con talk, general community chatter) but aren't broken up into dozens of unecessary sub-sub-sub forums.

it also wouldn't be a post in a thread like this for me if i didn't make my usual complaint that there's no "tinderbox" or "hot topics" subforum within /dev/nul where controversial threads could be moved as opposed to being closed. the general consensus, however, has been the Ari Fleischer advice... "people have to watch what they say and watch what they do"

[TheCotMan]

[Added: The waiting period to post replies is only 1 week. The waiting period for new threads is 2 weeks. Also, at the moment, posting in the Contests and Events subforums is available for replies to existing threads, right-away.]

(Replies to all posts are here in this one super-massive response.)

I still find that anyone new to this is not going to be informed about things like the two week wait until *after* they've signed up.

We've worked to try to advertise the rules and the waiting period.
Rules are cited at the top, in the search form.
Rules and Waiting Period are linked from:
The first page of user signup where a user selects a check-box stating they have read the rules in the little box, before they can submit a username.
The Confirmation e-mail message.
The Welcome email message(s).
The forum "Rules" subforums.

]There's a FAQ, but some of the most basic things aren't in it, and that's number one of them.

Ok. The FAQ is another location we can use. Before we start looking at adding things to the FAQ, What other things should we add to the FAQ as well? (This will allow all of the additions to be done around the same time and may help for better organization.)
* Mention of rules
* Mention of waiting Period
* Link to the "Defcon FAQ" (mentioned later)
(what else?)

I understand that the link is there, but if there's a FAQ, then that's what people are going to read. It's just a matter of luck as to whether they read the rules or the FAQ, but my guess is they probably don't do both, at least not right away.

Good point.

]BTW, in the forum rules, the link to a FAQ is not *the* FAQ, and that link is broken.

Crap. That is what I get for linking to the beta copy of the FAQ. Thanks for the notice: fixed.

Besides updating that, you might also want to point back to the forum FAQ, and note that it's different than the defcon one.

Once we add more the the forum FAQ, we can link to it from the first rules post. Maybe a link to the Defcon FAQ from the forum FAQ is another suggestion?

Not much. I think it's a thousand times better than the last time I was here. It's nice to see it not degenerate into petty flame wars and stupidity.

As converge wrote, it seems this happened as the number of /dev/null-quality posts increased, and corrective steps were not helping to slow this.
We're hoping the many steps we've added will make this year less painful than others.

I would like to see the moderators identified as moderators in their profile.

This is something that was changed before I became a moderator. One of the ideas was this:
If a new user has not lurked long enough to figure out who the moderators are, they don't know who to "brown nose" or "place nice" around. This means a new user may be more cautious and careful, since the person to which they are replying may be a mod, or may be a goon, or may be just a regular, "human," defcon member.

Due to a desire to make announcements, bring disclosure on some strategy with forum members, and solicit new ideas from everyone, nearly any new user can tell that I am a moderator. If they need to find a moderator, this gives them at least one contact. The forum e-mail address is another, easy way to contact a moderator too.

I have a good idea of who the moderators are now, but I think that users need to know when someone is making a good suggestion about something, and when someone is providing a warning about behavior.

This is difficult. For me, suggestions by peers seem fine, but warnings by non-mods are not fine. Peer pressure is a powerful tool to correcting behavior. However, threats and warnings are meant to be intimidating, and I feel such intimidating responses should be a tool of only the mods to correct behavior here. (This was kind-of addressed by Chris in that post I made into a sticky.)

When I've noticed ambiguity about a person being a mod, or questions asked about someone being a mod, I've posted replies.

Are there any other advantages to users being able to identify another user as a mod? What do you think of the advantage to other users, when new users don't know if their response is directed to a moderator or not?

I don't always see the rules applied in an even handed manner, but (considering that you're volunteers, and that *I* wouldn't want the job) you're pretty good for the most part.

This is a side-effect of human behavior. Each mod is different, and each has their own pet peeve(s.) Just which mod gets to a problem first, often directs the resulting effect.

A standard of behavior for mods could be created, but that's not something I would want to impose on volunteers. In an ideal forum, a collection of rules, and requirements for members would make the forums, mostly, autonomous; moderators can spend more time participating than moderating.

The uneven responses by mods can be a benefit to the forums. A uniform response is more easily attacked, and requires more work to maintain as well as updates and announcements to updates. However, letting each mod use their own, "asshat alarm," means the system is dynamic through reliance on individuality instead of static uniformity. (Yes, it is lazy, but as you point out, mods are volunteers.)

On the subject of non-defcon related discussion: I look at any new posts, but will probably ignore most anything that isn't con related, and will not pay any attention to the forums (for the most part) until it gets close to the next con. I don't think of this as a place where I'm going to see tech things that will interest me. I depend on the speakers in August to do that.

This is what we noticed. The other subforums (Tech, Wireless, and others as tested) were mostly unused. Most people use the forums for planning, and organing their time at Defcon.
Though we'd enjoy technical discussions, there is a history of failed attempts made to make them take place here and after 5 years, it seems that most people don't want to particiapte in this here.
I'm open for other ideas on how to make them more popular, but if there isn't enough interest in technical discussions, they won't have their own subforum.

Would be cool to have some kind of real-time chat...

I know different Defcon Groups have their own irc channels, and I've heard that other people that know each other have channels on similar topics too. Perhaps this is something that can be started by a user here. Maybe #forums.defcon.org maybe #chat.defcon.org? Then announce it in a new thread and advertise it in sigs.

The forums here were started by two people who were not goons (a sysadmin and a human) who then recruited other people to join as moderators or admins. Nearly everything at Defcon started like this as "grassroots" ideas and grew with support from people in the community.

Chat could do the same thing, as many humans have requested such a channel in the past. It just takes people to build, maintain it year-long, announce it and get the word out to others.

This can be a difficult thing, as there is often disagreement on who should be a leader, how petty disagreements should be solved, and who should be kicked and/or banned from a channel for what reasons, and more. There can even be dissagreement on what modes should be set for the channel. More than this, if the channel became popular, there is risk for destruction by popularity-- so much chatting, that it becomes difficult to follow any single conversation.

So... Who's going to start a grassroots "defcon forum channel" for chat?

A couple of links to tutorial/manuals/free papers.

We have threads on "what site can't you live without," and another on "ebooks and resources."

Many people just need a little push(/link) in the right direction to become much better, cleverer and nicer...

Such attempts have been made, but are easier to make when user demonstrate they have tried to use google, or research on their own. We don't want to make the forums into yet-another-tech-support forum, but we can direct people to google to find such forums.

Help people go to IRC, bugtraq, google, fix their computers, realise that DOS ain't much worse than windows... We CAN turn the loosers into mates. What makes a "leet n00b" a jerk is not himself. Who taught him to write properly? No-one?

The nice thing about the forums, is that support-style "pushes in the right direction," can be peer-level and sustained. If members want to see helpful behavior, they need only demonstrate helpful behavior.

Here is the question to answer:
How do you encourage a person that has spent time reading books, and trying things on their own to donate their time to other people, when other people will pay them for their time?

There are volunteers, but how do you encourage people to volunteer? Can we do that on the forums? If you have some ideas to help with this, feel free to share them.

I think the "navigation" of the forums are a little hard. It's hard to tell what is subforums and what is actually general forums.... Ye should put in some colors that would still match the awesome layout

This is an easy one for me to answer :-)
A forum is on the top-level on the first displayed page of "forums."
Anything that is under a top layer forum is a sub-forum.
(Similar to "directory" and "subdirectory.")

It's hard posting "articles" in here... Either people likes you and think that you are a great guy, or otherwise they think you are jerk who shouldn't be here and decides to flame you away with pm's with nasty words and such... I've tried both.

Do you have a suggestion on how to deal with this? (below)

I think we should split the Community Talk (Everything is community talk in here?) up in two sections:

Techy don't post rumors / be unserious / try to be fun, but discuss with tha pros and make no mistakes [forum part 1]

And a looser talk where people is allowed to have fun and post funny details, links to (computer/technic*-related) [forum part 2]

We had something like this previously.

At one time, /dev/null was open for new threads and replies to existing threads. It was a kind of garbage can for junk. However, it quickly became evident that /dev/null was growing much faster than any other forum or subforum. By keeping such a forum available, we attracted even more abusive behavior and responses from users.
When /dev/null was mostly closed, the level of noise dropped away substantially.

There was also a forum called "Politics and Religion" and it also attracted people who could only offer their convictions and resolve through emphatic opinions, but little to no peer-support for other topics.

There have been two attempts to have "fun" and "easy-entry" forums, but they resulted in more trashing of the forums.

How could such problems be avoided in any future attempt to do the same? (Open question for anyone.)

* = Ouch. How did you spell that?
** = Ouch. That sentence.... tell me how to write it properly!

*- "Related" can gain an adverb description, but it would sound weird and would be better with an added noun:
"technically related" "topics" ? "descriptions" ? "stories" ?
It might be better to rewrite it as: "And We could also add a "Looser Talk" ("loser" not "looser" and italicized, or quoted, or with "*" to show emphasis on a pseudo-proper-noun) where people is are allowed to have fun and post funny details, or links to (computer/technic*-related) computer and technical information.

** "I think we pretty much need the part 2." Rewritten:
'I think we need part 2' or 'I think we need the forum described above as, "part 2."'
("Pretty much" weakens your opinion. Use of "the" is not necessary here.)

it also wouldn't be a post in a thread like this for me if i didn't make my usual complaint that there's no "tinderbox" or "hot topics" subforum within /dev/nul where controversial threads could be moved as opposed to being closed.

None of the mods have expressed a change in their opinions about Politics and Religion on the forums yet. I don't think these opinions will change quickly.

However, any mod can revive this topic at any time. I think I did it last time, but I don't think *I'll* bring it up again for a while. (I don't want them chasing after me with torches like I was Frankenstein when I polled them last time. ;-)


Thanks to all for the negative and positive comments. If you have complaints, please be sure to offer suggestions for solutions. If you find problems with the counter-ideas provided, please counter with more reasons to support your idea(s.)

Thanks to you all for your ideas. :-)

[bascule]

I think the forums do a very good job for what they seem to have evolved to be for (i.e. making very specific, categorized enqueries regarding various aspects of Defcon)

They've basically died as a place people come to chat. That may be a good thing, that may be a bad thing. I've pretty much ceased posting anything that isn't at least tangentially Defcon-related here.

[TheCotMan]

Another related question:
Is there something the forums could provide you with, to help you with knowing what "public" events are available to you at Defcon?

This question and this thread are for new users as well as veterans. Even if you have only been here for 1 week, perhaps you have an idea that has not been mentioned.

I still have the FAQ thing on my todo list, I've just been lazy.

[astcell]

Is there a forum format for PDA surfing? Maybe make pda.forum.defcon.org and it will be readable on a PDA.

[IcEbLAze]

What I've gotten out of it so far is that you guys want tech/hacking talk/discussion, but:
You dont want 13 year old h4x0rs (no offense to the respectable 13 year olds here)
You dont want anything that pushes the envelope at all
You dont want people posting crap/random topics in /dev/null
You dont really want any type of tech-support questions
You dont really want any introduction posts
You dont want "teach me to hack" posts
You dont want any posts that aren't dead-on serious (unless these posts were made by goons, or those that are comfortable enough here to have the nerve to post something along those lines)
etc.

What is the main purpose of defcon forums?

Rule #9 states this:

9. Off-Topic Posting:
These are the DefCon Forums. They exist for discussion, planning, questions and answers, for all things "DefCon." Off-topic conversation is a violation of the rule above, against posts lacking value. Off topic posts may be /dev/null-ed, or censored (for legal reasons.)
If more than a certain percentage of your posts are off-topic, you are at risk for being banned.
Religion is off-topic. Political topics are mostly off-topic.
Be safe, and avoid topics of Politics and/or Religion.

OK, so we generally only *want* DEFCON planning, discussion, and questions about the convention in here. By constantly banning, correcting, and making public asses of, I think you've all done a great job getting it to the place where you want it to be: mostly quiet.

I mean how many times can someone say "Oh my god DEFCON was so awesome this year!" ... Eventually you run out of things to say, until of course DEFCON time comes around again.

Let's take a look at a few other forums.. Let's say binrev or class101 for example.

Binrev appears to exist for discusson, planning, questions and answers for all things "hacking".

Class101 appears to exist for discussion, planning, questions and answers for all things about how great he is, or how wonderful his DFIND program is.

So if you guys want more traffic, then go ahead and open up /dev/null and let people post random crap in there.. People like doing that in the first place, and why do you guys care? It's an outlet to be friendly with the other people here, without fear the hammer will fall upon them. Of course if it gets out of hand, I'm sure chris will show up to kick some ass, (or even cotman, it seems as of late ) like he always does.

If you guys strictly want this place to be DEFCON related issues only, then you're doing a good job, and I /salute you all for the never-ending effort the goons give.

That's my $00.02

[TheCotMan]

Is there a forum format for PDA surfing? Maybe make pda.forum.defcon.org and it will be readable on a PDA.

I've seen tools that could take existing content, modify and send it. I should look into proxies that do this transparrently. If you have any specific product in mind, feel free to suggest it.

What I've gotten out of it so far is that you guys want tech/hacking talk/discussion, but:
You dont want 13 year old h4x0rs (no offense to the respectable 13 year olds here)
You dont want anything that pushes the envelope at all
You dont want people posting crap/random topics in /dev/null
You dont really want any type of tech-support questions
You dont really want any introduction posts
You dont want "teach me to hack" posts
You dont want any posts that aren't dead-on serious (unless these posts were made by goons, or those that are comfortable enough here to have the nerve to post something along those lines)
etc.

What is the main purpose of defcon forums?

Rule #9 states this:

9. Off-Topic Posting:
These are the DefCon Forums. They exist for discussion, planning, questions and answers, for all things "DefCon." Off-topic conversation is a violation of the rule above, against posts lacking value. Off topic posts may be /dev/null-ed, or censored (for legal reasons.)
If more than a certain percentage of your posts are off-topic, you are at risk for being banned.
Religion is off-topic. Political topics are mostly off-topic.
Be safe, and avoid topics of Politics and/or Religion.

OK, so we generally only *want* DEFCON planning, discussion, and questions about the convention in here. By constantly banning, correcting, and making public asses of, I think you've all done a great job getting it to the place where you want it to be: mostly quiet.

I mean how many times can someone say "Oh my god DEFCON was so awesome this year!" ... Eventually you run out of things to say, until of course DEFCON time comes around again.

Let's take a look at a few other forums.. Let's say binrev or class101 for example.

Binrev appears to exist for discusson, planning, questions and answers for all things "hacking".

Class101 appears to exist for discussion, planning, questions and answers for all things about how great he is, or how wonderful his DFIND program is.

So if you guys want more traffic, then go ahead and open up /dev/null and let people post random crap in there.. People like doing that in the first place, and why do you guys care? It's an outlet to be friendly with the other people here, without fear the hammer will fall upon them. Of course if it gets out of hand, I'm sure chris will show up to kick some ass, (or even cotman, it seems as of late ) like he always does.

If you guys strictly want this place to be DEFCON related issues only, then you're doing a good job, and I /salute you all for the never-ending effort the goons give.

That's my $00.02

Good. What if there was a "Social Forum" that wasn't /dev/null? A forum for making comments about "life in general" (but still no Politics and Religion) ?What if it was not on the first page, but a subforum of Community Talk, and if it became popular, might be moved to the top? Would it better if that space existied, and was published, but only available to people that "subscribed" to it?

How would you expand this idea? If you were going to build such a forum?
(Good thoughts in your post, and well supported ideas. Thanks for offering them. :-)

Could you suggest a modification to the rule 9 item to describe the kind of posting that would be fair-game in that space?

I'd like to see this idea refined, so it can be taken to the mods for discussion.

We have some other ideas to encourage new users to participate, and to trap spam that may come out next week.

[shrdlu]

So if you guys want more traffic, then go ahead and open up /dev/null and let people post random crap in there.. People like doing that in the first place, and why do you guys care? It's an outlet to be friendly with the other people here, without fear the hammer will fall upon them. Of course if it gets out of hand, I'm sure chris will show up to kick some ass, (or even cotman, it seems as of late) like he always does.

Oh, I was just going to ignore all this stuff, but I hope that this particular suggestion is not acted on. /dev/null is where crap gets dumped, sure, but that's just before the moron whose post was dumped there, is also summarily removed (which is good). Why would there need to be more traffic? There's plenty, really.

If you guys strictly want this place to be DEFCON related issues only, then you're doing a good job, and I /salute you all for the never-ending effort the goons give.

It's the *defcon* forums. That's why it's called the "DEFCON Forums", and I hope that it stays just that. I read everything that's new, although some of the stuff is a bit trifling, but there's always "Community Talk" for those random items of information (more than I care for, truthfully). This doesn't need to be a happy dumping ground for the peanut gallery, please.