# Combining trust system and pre-moderation

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/combining-trust-system-and-pre-moderation/4556>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Tags:** completed\
**Created:** [March 7, 2013, 6:10pm 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:** 13

<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:** [March 8, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/combining-trust-system-and-pre-moderation/4556/13 "2013-03-08T22:46:18Z")

</div>

> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> Indeed, but isn’t clicking “no” to the question “is this an appropriate contribution?” a negative action?

It certainly is, but I think it’s a degree or two less negative. “Is this appropriate? No.” doesn’t have the same “running to teacher” feel as flagging.

Also, if a lot of users have “seen” the post, but **not** clicked “Yes”, does that say something about the post? What if users who are usually quick to click “Yes” read the post without choosing Yes or No?

> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> Sure, unless a few of your so-called trusted users are keen on telekinesis.

Seriously, right? That’s where I’d love to see a trust system be able to determine the difference between an active user who’s trusted enough to post and to make some decisions (this is spam) but not trusted enough to set the tone of the community (their “likes” don’t count as much, their approvals don’t count as much, etc).

---

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