Topic: Rules of Self-Moderated Threads (Read 1072 times)

There are obviously pros and cons to self-modded threads. Obviously scammers and unscrupulous people will abuse them, but they're also useful for honest thread-starters who just want to keep trolls and shitposters out. I would prefer there be more options for self-moderated threads where the OP can either blacklist users from even posting there in the first place or bar entire usergroups from posting and this would cut out Staff having to be involved which is better for everyone. As an example, you could choose to block newbies to stop people from just creating a new account to continue trolling or if you wanted to create a giveaway thread but only allow it to Seniors or Heroes and above or whatever you could do that too.

There are also negatives to creating a self-modded thread though as many people either tend not to post in them or look upon them with suspicion, but I guess that's up to the OP to weigh up the pros and cons but if they're unhappy with the moderation here and want to do it themselves I think that should be their right to do so.

I'm okay with the way it's working right now.I tend to have no-tolerance over some of the Yo-Bit signature posters ,expect a few good ones.I can simply add a warning that members with Yo-Bit signature and low quality posts are not allowed to comment on this thread,your replies may get deleted if I find them spammy.Nothing wrong with that I feel.

I beg to differ. If a user derails your thread even after repeatedly asking him not to post in the thread, you can get a mod to interfere. Nothing wrong with that.

I can't stand self-moderated threads, and I avoid them like the plague.  Why take a chance that what you spent time writing is going to get deleted?  And it could be deleted by a moderator, too, so there's that.  I always associate those types of threads with scammy and gatekeeping behavior.

A user who blacklists someone from their thread must notify them. A moderator can be an intermediary I suppose, I've actually done so before when explaining self moderated rules to both parties, but it can't be a secret blacklist.

If someone is banned from posting in a thread, they can create their own thread. By general forum rules, if someone has their posts deleted but they repost them, they are banned. The same applies to self moderated threads.

Anyone posting on a self moderated thread who's been here a while knows the score. That's why so many altcoin threads are dissed when they're self moderated. If you've got the nads then you don't bother starting one.

Last week I was informed of the rules of self-moderated threads by hilariousandco.  I can't find them posted anywhere, so I'm hoping he was misinformed.  


The only official looking rule I've seen is the one you get when your post is deleted by the OP of a SM thread (which I also think needs to change):


I don't think it's  ok to give anyone the right to dictate who can and can't post in the main forums.  
All users who post in self-moderated threads should be expected to follow forum rules and local rules if any are posted in OP.

It get's worse....

According to hilariousandco, users who start self-moderated threads have the right to privately black list any user without saying a word about it in the thread or to the black listed user.   All they have to do is inform a mod they don't want a user to post in their thread anymore.  The mod then informs the blacklisted user that they will be banned if they post again in the thread.  Doesn't matter why or what has been posted in the past, the mod is just following the rules.

I would like to suggest that the mods/admin stop going out of their way to keep "self-moderated" thread starters happy.  Transparency is good.  Self-moderated threads are opaque. (<---does that word work like that?)

Why not just enforce the General Forum rules and leave it at that?  The fact that op has power to delete any post they want doesn't mean they should be entitled to the power of the ban hammer also.