Under Consideration Allowing users to put their own threads for a mod review before posting them

This suggestion is under consideration for the future.

roydan

Senior Member
Founder
Sapphire Member
Fourth Star Third Star Second Star First Star
Joined
Mar 30, 2025
Messages
741
Reaction Score
2,047
Feedback
1 / 0 / 0
So, the idea is to allow users (mostly newbies) to have threads reviewed by a mod before turning them public if the OP is not sure about rule breaking.
This would allow them to avoid receiving notices and points if they think they might break the rules by posting something that is in a gray area or just not covered by the rules yet, giving newbies a nicer welcome (everything is nicer than a notice, I guess)
It would also creat less reports because a violating thread will only be limited to one ticket instead of multiple reports what would clog up the moderation queue.
A mod approved thread will have a small icon on it, showing senior members that it was pre approved, so they don't need to report it if they're unsure (and also show the community that this type of content is allowed).
 
So, the idea is to allow users (mostly newbies) to have threads reviewed by a mod before turning them public if the OP is not sure about rule breaking.
This would allow them to avoid receiving notices and points if they think they might break the rules by posting something that is in a gray area or just not covered by the rules yet, giving newbies a nicer welcome (everything is nicer than a notice, I guess)
It would also creat less reports because a violating thread will only be limited to one ticket instead of multiple reports what would clog up the moderation queue.
A mod approved thread will have a small icon on it, showing senior members that it was pre approved, so they don't need to report it if they're unsure (and also show the community that this type of content is allowed).
I like this idea. We could add it in as an official process and let members know they can do this if they're uncertain. I'm not sure about the "mod approved" icon though as some people might abuse that by misleading others by suggesting in the thread that everything they post in that thread is approved. Still, your example of showing senior members it was approved makes sense.

Also, if something isn't defined yet or unclear, we wouldn't issue a notice or count that against them unless they did something really malicious, something like post lewd deepfakes of members. Like when we started this forum, we briefly allowed people to advertise on their own profiles regardless of status just to try that out. This was quickly changed as we just can't have that kind of benefit here without someone joining and just post "check out my profile" in every discussion thread.

You might remember one person last month saw we were more lenient about this and posted an ad for themselves in a discussion thread. Because this wasn't disallowed, when we did implement the rule, no retroactive action was taken against the member. We even left the content up, but messaged the member saying we had to take it down because someone joined the other day, saw him do that, and thought they could do that as well despite my post in the same thread saying it's no longer allowed.

Anyway, if we get 8 upvotes on this, we can look into adding this in.
 
This would work now when the threads are low, but poor mods when we get thousands of members. Only way would be if there is a fee involved to get it approved as a stamp, a lot of extra work for mods otherwise.
 
This would work now when the threads are low, but poor mods when we get thousands of members. Only way would be if there is a fee involved to get it approved as a stamp, a lot of extra work for mods otherwise.
The idea was to reduce the work load, not increase it.
By pre approving a certain thread we eliminate members from reporting it if it broke the rules, as well as prevent members from reporting it if they think it broke the rule and it didn't because it will show that it was pre approved.

The idea was to use it just for questionable threads, not every single one.

Thankfully, we don't have rules about writing introduction posts or replying to them :-)
 
The idea was to reduce the work load, not increase it.
I know what the idea was about, I stand by my thoughts therefore in the bigger picture.
 
Back
Top