# Combining trust system and pre-moderation

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/combining-trust-system-and-pre-moderation/4556>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Tags:** completed\
**Created:** [7 مارس 2013، 6:10م UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/combining-trust-system-and-pre-moderation/4556 "2013-03-07T18:10:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aja](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/aja/32/103616_2.png) [@aja](https://meta.discourse.org/u/aja)\
**Post date:** [8 مارس 2013، 10:11م UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/combining-trust-system-and-pre-moderation/4556/11 "2013-03-08T22:11:25Z")

</div>

> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> Are we talking about replies, or topics?

My thoughts on new topics haven’t changed; for communities that need quality over quantity, admin approval for most new topics is a huge help.

My main concern right now is the impact that disruptive or low-quality replies can have on an otherwise civil and relevant conversation. The first week of a debate on gun control is civil and constructive, but eventually is overrun by people who want to ramp up the rhetoric. A discussion around the scientific process is eventually taken over by pseudo-science enthusiasts. Etc.

> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> Now, if every reply is inane, or if there’s a massive influx of constant noise in replies, then you certainly have a problem.

Indeed.

> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> I think it’s a huge ask to require the community deal with every new user creating “invisible” posts that other community members have to somehow like or otherwise support before they can be visible at all. Huge, huge ask, because if they aren’t actively “liking” or somehow vetting these posts, you will have no new users. It’s kind of like never ending, ongoing work.. your users must commit to constant “like”-ing of new user posts, not just occasionally flagging things that are out of bounds.

So, the way I’m picturing this, after reading Randall’s great response, is that the 0-level posts **would** be visible to all, immediately. They’d have a different coloration that made them less prominent than normal posts, but they wouldn’t be invisible.

So then what’s the point if they’re still visible? IMO, a system like this could go a long way towards:

a) getting the community more active in self-moderation: people prefer to take positive actions, like approving an entry, not negative ones like flagging. A post has to be pretty bad before most users are willing to flag it, and if you have a relatively inactive community in the first place, the flags may not happen until it’s too late.

and b) signaling to readers that 0-level users don’t necessarily speak for the community, and that their posts should be taken with a grain of salt.

In other words, say you have a community that’s focused on discussing quantum physics, but 0-level users keep wanting to talk about telekinesis. With the option to require this sort of immediately-visible-pre-moderation, the trusted users would have a way to quickly and gently discourage these types of posts, without needing to flag a specific rule violation.

also, c) you could build a LOT of data about a new user’s trustworthiness pretty quickly this way, plus it might motivate established users to be more aware and welcoming of good newcomers.

Here, does this ugly comp make any sense? 😄

 ![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/1X/c57af143260be9e4b03c13f114c36781cc9724b0.jpg)

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/combining-trust-system-and-pre-moderation/4556)._