A better forum model

Feedback
1

​I appreciate that this forum is a free, community-driven platform where participation is voluntary, I want to share some constructive feedback regarding how current moderation policies impact user experience and the overall spirit of open discussion. Recently, I spent significant time writing a thoughtful contribution to an active thread, only to have the entire topic locked and removed shortly after. This baffled me as I didnt see anything wrong with it. Having effort erased because a thread was flagged after the fact is frustrating. It disincentivizes meaningful participation and runs counter to what should be ideally a space for open dialogue and exploration among free thinkers.

​In reviewing the TOS, several conditions strike me as overly restrictive—specifically, the rule permitting threads to be flagged for “general musing, rambling thoughts, or vague writing without a core argument.” Evaluating whether a post is “low quality” or “vague” is inherently subjective. What one moderator or member considers a low-effort post, another may view as a valid exploratory idea worth unpacking. What was the case in my scenario. Enforcing strict, subjective standards at the entry level naturally stifles organic discussion.

​To address this without sacrificing quality across the entire board, I’d like to propose a better model:

Level 1 (general): Open to all members. Moderation here is strictly technical (removing spam, illegal content, or explicit harassment). Threads are not flagged or removed for perceived low quality or lack of formal structure, allowing for casual musings and open-ended exploration.

Level 2 (invite only): A higher-tier space where rigorous posting standards and flagging apply. Posts created by Level 2 members appear in both Level 1 and Level 2 views, but high-standard moderation only occurs within the Level 2 tier.

Member Levels: Tier status remains hidden to prevent status-driven behavior. If a member’s contributions consistently fall below standard, they can be demoted back to Level 1 rather than having their threads deleted outright. This system also rewards member contributions.

​Under a system like this, low-quality posts lead to structural demotion over time rather than immediate deletion of ongoing threads. This protects community standards while preserving the effort and contributions of members who participate in good faith. Why this needed? As it stands, someone might not feel they have anything to contribute and see no reason to “risk” putting themselves out there.

Thank you.

2

I think that what you are proposing is similar to what already exists. Level 1 is the lounge, with a relaxed attitude toward rigorous posting standards. Level 2 is the main Topics, where rigorous posting standards apply. The main difference, is that unlike what you propose, all members get access to both levels. So, what is expected is some degree of self-moderation, recognize where your post belongs.

The hidden status proposal doesn’t make any sense to me. If some members are seen to be only lurking in tier 1, it would be obvious that they are sub-par members and this might actually produce status driven behaviour.

So the question to you @Johnathanrs, is why would you want to judge the person rather than judge their writing? That is basically what you are suggesting, judging certain people as incapable of producing acceptable quality, and restricting them to a special section, instead of judging the writing, and dealing with it accordingly. Really, if a person is judged as incapable of producing acceptable writing, shouldn’t they just get banned?

3

The way I see it, restricting Level 2 isn’t a evaluation on the majority—it operates like any tiered system, from standard/VIP access to verified contributor roles in online communities. It creates a space with different rules and mutual protection, where dedicated contributors aren’t subject to drive-by flagging, while simultaneously giving ambitious members a clear path to earn a status that incentives contributions.

​As for myself, I have zero interest in playing moderator or deciding the fate of other members. I am simply offering a systemic solution to a practical problem and one that I have already dealt with for my short duration here as a member. This solution protects high-effort contributions so members don’t spend hours writing thoughtful topics only to have them arbitrarily killed which again has already happened to me. Why should I take a hour to respond to posts if it is possibly going to be deleted later on?

4

I doubt you’ll get anything resembling a reasonable response to this beyond “we can’t do that with the software we’re on” (which could be true - no idea).
The moderation here features all the bugs you’ve noted. It’s not a fair system, it’s based on shitty European internet laws and the administrator is anything but neutral. It is what it is shrug. I’ve just come off a one month ban for which I have absolutely no notes, idea, description or indication of what possible could have caused it. Its been said and accepted this is a dictatorship. It clearly is.
Wade through, or dont :slight_smile: It’s shitty, but it is what it is.

5

Reminds me of parliament. It’s a conspiracy I tell you! What’s a conspiracy you ask? That is a conspiracy! What’s that you ask? Gotta go.

6

I was wondering where you went @AmadeusD.

The way I see it, the review criteria and resulting enforcement are like any lines people draw - fuzzy at best, rarely black and white, prone to error, both when they are drawn, and afterwards when we interpret them.

I just hope always in all the fray, no one is unnecessarily humiliated. I must confess I’ve been told to “knock it off” a couple ways a few times myself. I consider myself to be a reasonable person, so it felt like I was mistreated. There is nothing I won’t discuss with anyone else who is being reasonable, my silence didn’t seem needed to me.

But this forum is not the right forum for all of the things I would discuss.

There must always be lines drawn for things like “a forum” to take physical shape. There are obviously bad posts that any reasonable, serious person would agree should be shut down, and posters banned.

So now, in order to have the forum at all, we need a moderator, someone to physically make those decisions, even know the law, and press the ban or accept button. (And hopefully to defend their actions with the people banned).

I wouldn’t want to moderate this forum. Not because I wouldn’t or couldn’t make good decisions (I once moderated a board maybe 20 years ago), but respectfully because it takes time and work, and committment.

I’m just happy there is any forum as busy as this one. Some quality posters and new blood always around.

So all that said, if any topic you were cut off from discussing is one that you believe begs further appropriate attention, maybe make a thread that makes the case why some presently unspeakable topic needs to be discussed before discussing the content of that topic. Maybe this flirts with a line too much? Or maybe not.

It is what it is, because it always was what it always was, a bunch of judgment calls I’m happy leave to someone else and their rules.

It always was a dictatorship. All we can do is hope for reasonableness. Particularly on a forum for reasoning.

(There is probably a foundational wisdom to be learned in this particular prompting of “it is what it is.”)

I have contributed my small donation of support to TPF, and I hope it remains a place that is self-aware of the fragility of our freedom of thought. Not just speech, but freedom of thought. And freedom of association (and freedom to discuss the ideas of associations we don’t belong to).

That said, I obviously have no idea what you or @Johnathanrs were trying to discuss.

You talk about UK/EU rules - I hope we survive these times as a robust purveyor of free speech and bold thought. I want to know all thoughts, and know the people willing to discuss all thoughts. But then, maybe I’m asking too much of the moderators.

It all remains a tightrope walk in public though doesn’t it? Rules, rules, rules. And their associated rulers, and our attempts to navigate it all. And mistakes all around.

It can be tough to test our own tolerance levels. Takes both bravery and vulnerability, so people get hurt sometimes. That’s people for you, hurting and being hurt.

Glad to see you back.

1 Like
7

You’re not really claiming rules, rules, rules, from where I stand you are claiming tolerance, tolerance, and more tolerance. As for the king or kings that may be lurking, don’t forget a golden rule that some of us do follow, you are trapped in a prison of your own making. Long live the king.

8

Yep. A shame, imo. But it is what it is and I understand Jamal’s constraints (i just cannot, for the life of me, understand why he behaves like an he literally doesn’t know what he’s doing when talking about his administrative activities - that’s kind of what hte warning to OP was about, rather than bemoaning the situation).

Thank you mate - really appreciate it. For all my misgivings, I don’t get this anywhere but at hte Uni, and that’s far more restrictive in that you can only get conversations going on the course topics, or Club topics rather than range around finding cool like avenues to get into with other weirdos.

LMAO. Yeah, it’s just not that serious on a forum like this. Took me a bit to let me back down when treated, inarguably, unfairly.