Suggestion: Mod-approved posts

[Christ-Chan]

Considering the number of new members we get now that Chris is making semi-updates on Facebook and Twitter it's become quite obvious that some of the posts that pop up from newly registered users aren't always... Well, they're sometimes... Let me put it this way:

Now, I'm not saying all members who have been for a little while longer crap out gold every time we hit the Submit-button, everyone makes stupid or dull posts from time to time, but something I've been thinking about is that when a poster with less than 10 or whatever published posts tries to submit a new one it could be saved as a draft that has to be approved by a mod before it's actually posted. I'm a member of other sites that use this system, and while they use it to filter out inappropriate posts I think the same process can be used to filter out shitty posts. It would also help shutting down re-regs before they manage to annoy the general population.

I don't know, maybe it's a stupid idea, but it's just a suggestion I'd like to put out there.

 

[Null]

I'm not a fan of censorship. The PHPBB post approval process also sorts posts by their posting date, which means many new poster's posts would not be visible in a busy thread.

Here's a bit of a stretch, but this is a great scenario example for why this sort of system sucks:
1. Chris threatens to commit commits suicide.
2. Anna registers on the forum.
3. Attempts to post in facebook thread about suicide note about how it was a hoax or whatever.
4. Mods approve post 30 minutes later.
5. Thread is already 10 pages down the line. Anna's post is never read.

The only thing that this resolves is immediate visibility. What happens if the new user posts something objectionable? That's a really subjective prospect. Hunter, being a gay redneck, might find a post offensive that Surtur, a masculine and reformed individual, would not. Do they just delete the post and tell the guy to not be retarded? Do they just ban him? What's the outcome? Who really cares if that post gets made visible or not?

I mean, even Rika figured out how to post like a normal person long enough to get into General to get Rio's picture. If a person is so horrendously incapable of being civil all mod queue does is prevent people from seeing another potentially hilarious spergatory post. I'd rather not rob them of the privilege.

 

[Bob's Fries]

Considering the number of new members we get now that Chris is making semi-updates on Facebook and Twitter it's become quite obvious that some of the posts that pop up from newly registered users aren't always... Well, they're sometimes... Let me put it this way:

Now, I'm not saying all members who have been for a little while longer crap out gold every time we hit the Submit-button, everyone makes stupid or dull posts from time to time, but something I've been thinking about is that when a poster with less than 10 or whatever published posts tries to submit a new one it could be saved as a draft that has to be approved by a mod before it's actually posted. I'm a member of other sites that use this system, and while they use it to filter out inappropriate posts I think the same process can be used to filter out shitty posts. It would also help shutting down re-regs before they manage to annoy the general population.

I don't know, maybe it's a stupid idea, but it's just a suggestion I'd like to put out there.

No.

(Post was not approved. Reason: RUDE.)

 

[CatParty]

or click the little exclamation point?

 

[Saney]

or click the little exclamation point?

Na, too easy.

 

[champthom]

I agree that people shitpost on here but here's how I view things - there are some restaurants that ask for a black tie as dress code and there are other places that just ask that you wear shoes. /cow/ is like the former, they're very proactive about shit posts and they tend to have a higher standard. Here, we just ask that you wear shoes, so to speak. I'm willing to accept that not every post is a work of genius and that every discussion has to be very insightful. But at the same time, I expect users to at least lurk a tiny bit and spend more than 10 seconds when thinking "Is this a good topic of discussion?" Just because you can make a topic doesn't mean you should.

If you see a really shitty post, don't be afraid to report it.

 

[José Mourinho]

Nope. After all, there are users with less than 10 posts who do make decent posts.

 

[Christ-Chan]

My point wasn't "ugh, this post was a hassle to scroll past", my point is if people have to wait for their posts to appear posters who put no effort in would probably give up quickly and we wouldn't have a lot of gimmicky or just generally crappy users.

Anyway, suggestion redacted.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

I agree that Modding newbie posters probably isn't the best idea. It's going to create a lot of work for the mods and the decrease in shitposting wouldn't be worth it. Shitposting isn't even a huge problem, because the mods do a pretty good job of nipping it in the bud.

Tangent: I've said in the past that a mods-only area might be a good way to communicate with Chris without weeners disrespecting him. I'd think that would be a much better use of the feature... but that's a different project entirely.

 

[Holdek]

I agree that people shitpost on here but here's how I view things - there are some restaurants that ask for a black tie as dress code and there are other places that just ask that you wear shoes. /cow/ is like the former, they're very proactive about shit posts and they tend to have a higher standard. Here, we just ask that you wear shoes, so to speak. I'm willing to accept that not every post is a work of genius and that every discussion has to be very insightful. But at the same time, I expect users to at least lurk a tiny bit and spend more than 10 seconds when thinking "Is this a good topic of discussion?" Just because you can make a topic doesn't mean you should.

I used to post on DailyKos, which is a leftist political website, and they have a thing where if you register then you have to wait a week before posting.

I think the purpose of this is so that angry conservatives don't come in and register an account and post a tirade or insult because after a week they will have cooled off or forgotten about whatever issue Rush Limbaugh had managed to get them all riled up about on the day they registered. Kind of like waiting periods for handguns.

But here that could force people to lurk and get to know basic stuff about Christory and also see by example the kind of posts that get sent to Spergatory. And it could cut down on some impulsiveness like if someone got linked to the video of Chris Chan lifting boxes of tea and then immediately came over here wanting to ask how brittle his bones are.

It could also be just like 3 days or something instead of a week. IDK just an idea. I don't see shitposts as a huge problem at this point but then again I don't have to mod these boards.

 

[Null]

A 3 day's grace would probably be a really good idea. I don't think it's natively supported by PHPBB, so I'd have to find a mod for it or create a mod myself. Either way I'll wait until after the Linode move.

 

[The Dude]

The Libertarian in me says: CENSORSHIP BAD
The CWCki Forums member in me says: Waiting period OK
The slacker in me says: Meh

 

[impossibility]

Nope. After all, there are users with less than 10 posts who do make decent posts.

I hope to!

It's a weird feeling. Under such a system I'd feel -obligated- to post, and for some I think that obligated feeling would -encourage- them to shitpost.

IMO any rules that encourage quantity aren't good ones.

 

[TL 611]

^ champs made that arguement before and it's kinda true, it does inspire shitposting.

However what we could do is a bit of a shaming technique. The people who post spergy shit normally do it repeatedly. I know many of the mods just sit there and at some of the posters in Chris - really fucking annoying but not bad enough to ban.

They could be put into a different group of people with the rank "sperg" or "shitposter" and their messages would need to be moderated until they prove they're not an idiot/they get returned to the users group after a period of time like a month.

 

[Holdek]

^ champs made that arguement before and it's kinda true, it does inspire shitposting.

However what we could do is a bit of a shaming technique. The people who post spergy shit normally do it repeatedly. I know many of the mods just sit there and at some of the posters in Chris - really fucking annoying but not bad enough to ban.

They could be put into a different group of people with the rank "sperg" or "shitposter" and their messages would need to be moderated until they prove they're not an idiot/they get returned to the users group after a period of time like a month.

I just don't know if mods want to spend their time 'Spergsitting. It's easier and quicker just to ban if someone becomes a nuisance.

 

[Null]

The 10 posts rule offers a vague and ultimately shallow veil of privacy for the general boards. Originally, Brooklyn would manually import anyone with +50 posts who wasn't a retard into a hidden General board. I changed this to make General more open -- being see-only visible to guests and new users. The idea was to give people the notion the community had more to it than just Chris. When I first joined it was more than a little unsettling that the forum had so many active users but just a Chris forum. It was a little creepy, and after I set up the current incarnation I sought to dispel that impression, but I didn't want people to be able to openly see into the general forum (especially search engine indexers).

The 10 posts rule acts as a nice buffer so we can ban seriously dysfunctional people before they cause a problem. The restrictions of being a new user are pretty small. You can't PM more than one person at a time. You have to wait a few moments between posts. You can't start new threads. These are more to stop spam bots than anything (we had a few when we first opened up).

Ultimately, people need to realize there's nothing we can do to improve post quality. I try to help keep everyone happy and the discussion just occurs on its own. Sometimes people get really hyped up and say stupid things. Sometimes people get really cruel in what they say. Sometimes people want to speculate on if Chris eats his poop. There's little to be done besides manual quality control. That's why we have 2 moderators per board, plus Compy and Surtur, plus . There's a lot of man power for in relation to how many posters we have because, really, we probably dish out more bans than a normal forum several times larger than us. It comes with the subject matter. You have to roll with the punches and just deal with it.

 

[Fibonacci]

How will I ever get my post count back up to my Yuku levels if mods have to approve my posts?

 

[The Dude]

How will I ever get my post count back up to my Yuku levels if mods have to approve my posts?

That's kind of why I backed off on posting so heavily the past week or so. I don't want to become a major post whore and rub people the wrong way. I would like for most of the forums population to at least tolerate me, if not like me a little. Now I sound like an insecure 14 year old girl...

 

[Pikonic]

How will I ever get my post count back up to my Yuku levels if mods have to approve my posts?

That's kind of why I backed off on posting so heavily the past week or so. I don't want to become a major post whore and rub people the wrong way. I would like for most of the forums population to at least tolerate me, if not like me a little. Now I sound like an insecure 14 year old girl...

Nah bro you're cool with me. I don't think you shitpost

 

[José Mourinho]

How will I ever get my post count back up to my Yuku levels if mods have to approve my posts?

That's kind of why I backed off on posting so heavily the past week or so. I don't want to become a major post whore and rub people the wrong way. I would like for most of the forums population to at least tolerate me, if not like me a little. Now I sound like an insecure 14 year old girl...

Nope, you're cool to me.