Topics Now Require Approval

October 9th, 2014, 10:24 pm

I have modified the posting permissions to require new topics to be approved before they are made public and before other can post replies to them.

I believe this will save a lot of moderation work by making sure topics get off to a good start.

This will also prevent the problem wherein some members have their interesting replies deleted simply because it was in reply to a topic with an OP that was not up to par.

Moderators and contributors are exempt from being on the moderation queue.

I am still looking for volunteer queue moderators. Please reply here or send me a PM if you think you might be interested in helping out with approving/disapproving the held posts in the queue.

Spectrum · Post by **Spectrum** » October 12th, 2014, 12:26 am

I find the above move a 'killer' to the spontaneity to contribute topics.
It is has been more than 24 hours since I posted two OPs and they have yet to appear.

Schaps · Post by **Schaps** » October 12th, 2014, 1:52 am

I am interested in helping. What are the qualifications needed to be part of the process?

Roel · Post by **Roel** » October 12th, 2014, 9:19 am

If this is for spam, I can totally understand it. But I 'm a bit worried about the human factor here. What will be the requirements for a topic to be approved? What for example if a moderator is left-wing and chooses to not approve a topic because it is against his or her personal political ideology? Wikipedia has the same problem in fact, one of the editors was removed from his function because he was a scientist simply editing about 200 articles because they weren't in line with his views on climate change. This is why I don't really like wikipedia, because it's not reliable. At Philosophy Club, I found very distinguishing people, and a very open culture to talk, I don't want this place to go in the same direction as Wikipedia and have moderators/editors/admins turning the place in a closed culture where corruption happens.

I could help with approving topics, but I first want to know what the requirements are. I want to help in preventing spam and bad subjects which aren't philosophical and don't agree with the forum, so if that's what the requirements are I can help.

Robert66 · Post by **Robert66** » October 12th, 2014, 3:27 pm

In regard to the new rules, could you please tell me:

How would you view the OP which began the discussion "Gun control and mass murder"?

Hog Rider · Post by **Hog Rider** » October 14th, 2014, 6:31 pm

Scott wrote:I have modified the posting permissions to require new topics to be approved before they are made public and before other can post replies to them.

I believe this will save a lot of moderation work by making sure topics get off to a good start.

This will also prevent the problem wherein some members have their interesting replies deleted simply because it was in reply to a topic with an OP that was not up to par.

Moderators and contributors are exempt from being on the moderation queue.

I am still looking for volunteer queue moderators. Please reply here or send me a PM if you think you might be interested in helping out with approving/disapproving the held posts in the queue.

What is the definition of "contributor"? Topic approval seems a good idea, but the criteria might be tricky to formulate.

-- Updated October 14th, 2014, 5:32 pm to add the following --

Robert66 wrote:In regard to the new rules, could you please tell me:

How would you view the OP which began the discussion "Gun control and mass murder"?

Surely it would depend on the content of the first post?

Robert66 · Post by **Robert66** » October 14th, 2014, 8:52 pm

Exactly, Hog Rider. The reason I asked was because I would like to know if the new rules require an OP to be without insult or lies, both of which were contained in the original post by UniversalAlien, and have since been repeated by him.

Consul · Post by **Consul** » October 14th, 2014, 9:06 pm

Scott wrote:I have modified the posting permissions to require new topics to be approved before they are made public and before other can post replies to them. I believe this will save a lot of moderation work by making sure topics get off to a good start.

I believe such an overregulation is counterproductive and will deter people from opening new threads.

Hog Rider · Post by **Hog Rider** » October 15th, 2014, 11:29 am

Consul wrote:
Scott wrote:I have modified the posting permissions to require new topics to be approved before they are made public and before other can post replies to them. I believe this will save a lot of moderation work by making sure topics get off to a good start.
I believe such an overregulation is counterproductive and will deter people from opening new threads.

Whilst this might be the case, I think it would only restrict frivolous and inflammatory threads. Many Forums have special "Rant Houses" for such things - they can be interesting, even if frivolous.

Post by **Misty** » October 16th, 2014, 6:34 pm

How are moderators/contributors to know the thought processes, intentions of an OP's mind? Soon the forum will only reflect moderators/contributors thoughts. It is becoming less and less enjoyable to engage in this forum. The exemption is unfair.

Prof · Post by **Prof** » October 16th, 2014, 10:32 pm

Scott wrote:I have modified the posting permissions to require new topics to be approved before they are made public and before other can post replies to them.

.

Is my recent thread on the topic of "morality" ever going to be approved, Scott? How long would that take??

And how do you avoid the censorship problem? If you screen them personally, I am not worried. If some small-minded Mod filters them, I agree with those who said, 'It gets creepy!'

Spectrum · Post by **Spectrum** » October 16th, 2014, 10:37 pm

Misty wrote:How are moderators/contributors to know the thought processes, intentions of an OP's mind? Soon the forum will only reflect moderators/contributors thoughts. It is becoming less and less enjoyable to engage in this forum. The exemption is unfair.

Share the same sentiments.
I had 3 OPs rejected and fortunately I did not waste time posting the others in waiting. The reasons are grammar, spelling, formatting and descriptions required for links.
In the past I have no serious issues from posters with my other posted OPs.
In the past, immediately after posting the first draft I will view the OP and edit for any obvious shortcomings. At times I have to do a few rounds of editing on certain over-sighted errors.

One point is some posters like me are not good in English and are also very busy with other projects, thus at times tend to be hasty to move on to other activities. Nevertheless I make it a point to do the necessary post-editing.
Since this is not submission for a school term paper, I think there is no need to be so stringent.

This new ruling and approach DO NOT suit me at all but I will respect the owner's prerogative.

October 17th, 2014, 10:08 am

I am a queue moderator and I think the reason I'm exempt from having my opening post in the queue is simply that I can go in the queue and approve it there myself!

I also want to say that I think that a good number of opening posts do not follow the rules and I think the rules on this forum are very good. Starting the day on the right foot is important and making an opening post isn't as easy as making a reply. It requires to be made in the right forum; it requires an argument or philosophical question; it has to be of a certain length and the post's title has to match the contents. Having someone to make sure you went through all these steps makes sense. As a queue moderator, I do not have myself to fix all the mess that poor opening posts create and so I think Scott's decision is very justified.

Idk · Post by **Idk** » October 17th, 2014, 11:51 am

Topic approval required is an excellent idea to prevent frivolous non philosophical topics from being posted. I had actually decided not to bother with the forum because of so many of them but will check the Forum out more often now.

GaianDave51 · Post by **GaianDave51** » October 22nd, 2014, 12:52 am

I just banged up against this new policy when trying to open a new thread in The Philosophy of Politics forum. Yes, my new thread is controversial. Yes, anyone dealing with it could find themselves on a gov't watch list. But I'm asking the readership here a question I need help with! I need advice!

Scott, if you want good spelling, grammar and syntax, add a "Preview with Auto-Edit" button under the post, and run it through a good one, like Word's (c). If that costs too much, in your view, ask for donations. You'll be surprised how many of us will pony up.

But if this policy in any way tends towards censorship, it really sucks a pustule, and I'll be outta here in a New York second.