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.
Indeed.
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? 
