Create a community-driven post approval system to moderate topics

[AwesomePossum212]

Background

Recently, the state of the entire DevForum has declined drastically. Previously, closed-off areas of the forum were only accessible through post approval. However, over the past few months, categories that were once partially accessible have either been completely opened or absolutely locked down.

Having a small post approval team was effective when Roblox had a small DevForum. With the recent explosive growth, it is necessary to create a more scalable solution. Thus, creating a decentralized system of community moderation would limit low-quality content without restricting access to more commonly abused categories.

Solution

* implies that this value may be subject to change
In order for members to post a topic, 1 credit must be used. 1 credit can be earned by reviewing 5* topics (1/5* credit per topic). When a post is sent to approval, it will be reviewed by 5* different people. To start, everyone* will receive 1* credit, and the maximum amount of credits any one user can have at a time is 5* credits (which prevents people from hoarding credits to spam). Credits are private and serve only as a utility to control the flow of posts, not as a cosmetic forum stat.

For accountability, every user who reviews a topic and approves it is liable for any moderation action inflicted upon the original poster. This ensures that reviewers don’t just approve every topic to get posting credits. In addition, the queue would be strictly first-in-first-out to stop people from using alts or friends to falsely approve posts. To prevent changing a topic immediately after approval, editing will be restricted for 30-60* minutes depending on the category (i.e. #development-discussion would be less; #bug-reports would be more).

Depending on the outcome of the approval process the poster will either receive the anonymous feedback of the community members who reviewed the topic or a message stating the topic had been approved. However, no matter what the outcome, the posting credit is still consumed (i.e. you don’t get a refund if your topic fails). Also, as seen above, flagging an inappropriate unposted topic would be quick and easy, and doing so preemptively prevents the bad content from spreading to the wider Roblox community.

After a certain amount of topics correctly approved/successful posts, the member can be promoted to regular and not be subject to any posting limits. This framework provides a structure for members to police their own posts as well as advance to regular status and graduate from the system.

This system would be made possible by a custom plugin, similar to the bug report wizard or the old community post approval system, but with the addition of credits.

Arguments

This section will be updated as replies are added to the topic.

Pros

• Opens up formerly closed sections of the forum
• Provides a new system for promoting members to regulars
• Creates a sustainable cycle that discourages posting for the sake of posting
• Decreases workload for DevRel of moderating the current deluge of low-quality topics
• Increases the quality of posts by preventing bad content before it can be posted as opposed to trying to retroactively flag the bad content.
• Spreads the workload among thousands of users rather than a small group of volunteers.

Cons

• Requires significant work to set up
  • Counter: DevRel has already shown they are willing to start large projects to improve forum quality. If they are in the research stages of such an undertaking, now is the time to suggest it before plans become more solidified.
• Depends on members being able to understand the rules
  • Counter: Anyone who incorrectly approves or declines a post that successfully appeals will receive moderation action. This means that if a reviewer incorrectly approves/denies a topic, they will receive the appropriate moderation action (i.e. feedback → temp suspension → perm suspension).
  • Counter: Posters who submit low-quality content will still receive feedback, but now from the community before the topic is posted rather than from the moderators after the topic is flagged.
  • Counter: The number of reviewers can be increased for greater accuracy if necessary. However, at 5-10, a majority should still have some grasp of the rules. In addition, learning by reviewing is much less destructive than learning by doing.
• Creates a new credit system that could be confusing.
  • Counter: The new system will be implemented in such a way that it will be obvious how to use posting credits. Here’s what it could look like:
    
    
  • Counter: The tutorial could be updated to include information on posting. As players and now developers on Roblox, members should be familiar with virtual currency systems.
• Friends could approve each other’s posts to bypass the system
  • Counter: Whoever incorrectly approves a post that gets taken down will receive moderation action in addition to the OP.
  • Counter: The chance of having 5* friends who would be able to refresh through the queue to find and approve your post is unlikely. With 1.2 topics being posted on average every minute, that creates a window of around 15 seconds where the topic has not been reviewed by anyone yet. As more legitimate users pull the topic from the queue from review, the lower the saturation of false reports.
  • Counter: Measures could be added to prevent this sort of abuse, such as by limiting users to one topic pulled for review every 2-5 minutes. This also has the added benefit of decreasing the incentive to speed through reviews, because you would have to wait for the next one anyways.
• May expose normal users to offensive or inappropriate content.
  • Counter: Malicious content already appears on the DevForum with the current system. Implementing this system would decrease its reach by limiting the audience to 5* reviewers. This may not completely eliminate harmful content but will represent an improvement.

Common questions:

What about regulars?

Regulars would not be subject to the post-approval system. Members could advance to regular through repeated successful posting in the system.

Why credits?

A credit system can operate on its own without having to burden a small team of volunteers, and has the benefit of being more sustainable.

Is there any particular reason behind the suggested numbers for reviewers/credits awarded?

Yes! By making the two values inverse (i.e. 5 → 1/5), it ensures that the input of 1 credit to pay for approval only outputs one collective credit to the reviewers.

Wouldn't this be some completely new system that should be suggested to Discourse?

First, the bug report wizard shows that DevRel can add new plugins to augment posting topics.

Second, this forum is very large and encompasses a very wide range of topics. Discourse is unlikely to add a native feature this large unless there is significant demand. At the moment, a plugin would likely arrive faster and be easier to tailor to the DevForum’s needs than a Discourse feature.

However, depending on the feedback on this topic, I may consider filing a separate Discourse feature request if the community supports the concept of a posting credit system, in order to get the process started.

What about replies?

Replying would not be affected by this system, only the creation of topics.

Which categories would be governed by the new systems?

This is up to DevRel to decide. However, all of the categories have been decreasing in quality lately.

Is this supposed to be a replacement for the flagging system?

No! This new system is meant to better control the incoming flow of topics and supplement the flagging system by creating preventative measures to decrease low-quality content.

[ItsKoiske (Koiske)]

I mean that’d be cool if Post Approval wasn’t already disabled since September of last year. Besides, this could be abused with friends approving posts for each other.

[AwesomePossum212]

@ItsKoiske

I mean that’d be cool if Post Approval wasn’t already disabled since September of last year.

This feature request is intended to create a new system to approve posts, not reactivate the old post approval system (which was slow for posters and unfair to volunteers). I’ve edited the title to make it clearer that this topic is addressing the creation of a new system.

@ItsKoiske

Besides, this could be abused with friends approving posts for each other.

See this section:

@AwesomePossum212

For accountability, every user who reviews a topic and approves it is liable for any moderation action inflicted upon the original poster. This ensures that reviewers don’t just approve every topic to get posting credits.

Anyone who approved a topic that gets taken down will receive moderation action along with the original poster. So if Friend A approves Friend B’s spam topic, both Friend A and Friend B would receive the appropriate moderation action for a spam topic (i.e. feedback first time, temporary suspension with repeat offenders, etc.).

In addition, trying to use friends to cheat the new post approval system would require having FIVE friends who:

• Are willing to sift through the approval queue to get to your topic.
• Were able to find your topic in the queue before anyone else.
• Understand that they will receive moderation action against their DevForum accounts for approving a low-quality post.

[Friendly4Crafter]

I really like this idea, but it should not be put into place in #help-and-feedback but definitely in #development-discussion and #resources.

[cpguy5089]

I like the idea of this system a lot. However I feel some things about it could be worked on.

I don’t believe the credits should do anything, at least not in small amounts (a few hundred/thousand correct approvals/denials should be where they start having any form of reward as such) to fight off people from doing it just for the points and potentially brushing over posts to approve in hopes of getting free stuff. In the low ranges of points, incorrect votes shouldn’t have moderation action (because some people might be still learning the finer details of the rules, so a warn would just do fine), however if a lot of incorrect votes happen, or the user goes past a certain amount of points at any point, incorrect votes should start having action taken (because at that point the user should know full well what they’re doing)

Town of Salem has a similar system for their ingame report system, where the points do nothing, and users do reports exclusively out of their own want to clean up the game. 10 users vote on a report, and if it gets a majority guilty vote out of those 10 people it goes to a smaller, more professional team who gives the final judgement on if its guilty or not (99% of the time it’s accurate so that team doesn’t have to do much and can thusly brush through reports in seconds) - It’s proven itself to be VERY effective, so I’m 200% for this idea being implemented for post approvals on the devforum.

I think the amount of people that vote on post approvals should be a decent amount higher than 10, to fight off any potential alt abuse to approve/disapprove specific posts as well as getting a potentially more accurate result. There’s a lot of members on the devforum, so filling those spots shouldn’t be difficult at all.

Overall, I’d love to see this happen. Community driven post approval (and heck, community driven moderation when implemented correctly) is definitely an amazing idea, and would make the devforum a way better place to be.

[AwesomePossum212]

@Friendly4Crafter

I really like this idea , but it should not be put into place in #help-and-feedback

I could go both ways on this. Help and Feedback is a category where topics are often single-use (in the sense that each topic is used once, then forgotten), which means that moderating quality topics may not be as important as other categories. However, this category suffers from many repeat (particularly with scripting) and off-topic (such as Blender questions) help requests, which makes it harder to responders to find legitimate help requests. I’ll leave the final decision up to DevRel.

@cpguy5089

I don’t believe the credits should do anything, at least not in small amounts (a few hundred/thousand correct approvals/denials should be where they start having any form of reward as such) to fight off people from doing it just for the points and potentially brushing over posts to approve in hopes of getting free stuff.

This part might have been unclear. The credits will (likely*) be on a 1 credit → 1 post ratio. At any one time, the maximum amount of credits you can have is 5*. The credits will not be publicly visible and only serve to control the flow of incoming topics.

@cpguy5089

In the low ranges of points, incorrect votes shouldn’t have moderation action (because some people might be still learning the finer details of the rules, so a warn would just do fine), however if a lot of incorrect votes happen, or the user goes past a certain amount of points at any point, incorrect votes should start having action taken (because at that point the user should know full well what they’re doing)

I 100% agree that moderation should follow a scale based on prior offenses. I could definitely see how some newer members might not fully understand the meanings of some categories.

@cpguy5089

Town of Salem has a similar system for their ingame report system, where the points do nothing, and users do reports exclusively out of their own want to clean up the game. 10 users vote on a report, and if it gets a majority guilty vote out of those 10 people it goes to a smaller, more professional team who gives the final judgement on if its guilty or not (99% of the time it’s accurate so that team doesn’t have to do much and can thusly brush through reports in seconds)

Yep, this is pretty much what I am envisioning, aside from a few key differences:

• This system would be proactive and preventative (before problematic posts) rather than reactive (after problematic posts).
• DevRel would only be involved with appealing community decisions. With almost 12,000 topics posted every week, it would add a huge strain for the team to have to arbitrate all of the failed posts.
• As you mentioned, reviewing posts in the new post approval system would reward the reviewer with the ability to post themselves, while in ToS the system exist solely to clean up the game.

@cpguy5089

I think the amount of people that vote on post approvals should be a decent amount higher than 10, to fight off any potential alt abuse to approve/disapprove specific posts as well as getting a potentially more accurate result. There’s a lot of members on the devforum, so filling those spots shouldn’t be difficult at all.

Ideally, I agree that the number should be around 10. However, this would also decrease the reward for every reviewer (from 1/5 to 1/10, unless the credit input/output ratio is changed). In addition, it could complicate moderation, because rather than have to moderate the 2-3 people who incorrectly approved/denied, DevRel would have to deal with 4-5 people.

With regard to abusing alternate accounts, my previous post explains why this system naturally counters cheating:

In addition, trying to use alts to cheat the new post approval system would require having FIVE alts on which you:

• Are willing to sift through the approval queue to get to your topic.
• Were able to find your topic in the queue before anyone else.
• Understand that they will receive moderation action against their DevForum accounts for approving a low-quality post.

In addition, this is not a replacement for the flagging system, but rather a supplement. Using alts to incorrectly approve your topic would still result in your topic getting flagged, removed, and your original account getting moderated.

[rogchamp (pasta)]

Wouldn’t this potentially expose normal users to gore or NSFW who are just trying to make a topic? I’m not sure if I support having to be a “moderator” in order to post.

[Iifebit (Lifebit)]

I personally agree with this idea. I am a member and it is very frustrating not being able to express daily bugs I experience nor being able to request features to improve my development. In fact, I feel a little left out since roblox deleted the opportunity for members to attempt to speak their minds. A solution like this would help me and many other developers.

As for this solution, I think it could use some polishing before being implemented to the forum. To restrict users from mass approving posts, they should be limited to approving 1 topic per day. If any of these topics stay inactive for roughly a week, they should be instantly deleted (unless they gather up the minimum amount of approvals).

[IceTheOneAndOnly (ice)]

Oooooo this system actually seems kinda cool

[TheBristlefrost (Bristlefrost)]

Everyone here (should) be 13+. I’ve seen inappropriate content posted online many times before and I’m just 15. Not too bad (or then it’s just me who doesn’t get disturbed by bad content). Not our responsibility if someone is a little kid and uses an alt to come here and sees inappropriate content. NSFW is also rare here, I’ve not seen it on DevForum.

[colbert2677 (ImagineerColbert)]

So in short: basically the original Post Approval program but with more steps and potentially exposing many users to inappropriate content from malicious posters. No support from me.

This still suffers from the same subjectivity that single-person Post Approval did but opens it on a broader scale with enables further problems like malicious behaviour when reviewing topics and system gaming. I would trust single-person PA more because their members are carefully selected from a pool of active contributors with good standing.

Additionally, you should focus on problems rather than solutions. It seems tempting to post a proposed way to fix a problem but the solution to a problem is ultimately up to Roblox’s teams. Your only role is to raise a problem you’re having as a developer or user of the service.

I think I should mention that post approval was never a form of community moderation, only discussion control. Sages and Post Approval were still required to flag problem threads for real moderators to deal with. No community member has moderation capabilities.

I cannot, in good faith, support something that creates more problems than it resolves. The counters to the documented cons aren’t very convincing either.

[UnpalatabIe]

I mean, this is definitely better than nothing. Of course, the launch will be painful because it will take time for users to discover the feature and learn the rules, but later on when people learn the rules the system will be stable and will work as intended.
But unfortunately, I highly doubt that this will be implemented like 70% of other requests and will probably be ignored like 100% of our cries about the absence of PA replacement.

[rogchamp (pasta)]

Not sure why being 13 makes it okay to show them 18+ content before the mods can even stop it. There’s a reason it’s called 18+, not 13+. Thirteen year olds are still kids.

This would essentially place every kind of burden that moderators are paid to face onto literal children. Most of the forum is 13-17! I thought it sounded kind of neat at first glance, but no support.

[TheBristlefrost (Bristlefrost)]

I mean I’ve moderated a Discord server before. I literally had to ban people for 18+ content and I’m just 15 right now. I’ve not been disturbed by those 18+ images ever. So if you’re just moderating, it’s not that bad. Just moderate the poster and forget about it.

[AwesomePossum212]

@rogchamp

Wouldn’t this potentially expose normal users to gore or NSFW who are just trying to make a topic? I’m not sure if I support having to be a “moderator” in order to post.

Currently, users can be exposed to offensive content anywhere on the forum, particularly in development discussion with the rise of trolling attacks. This isolates the exposure and creates barriers to spamming and a clear path to sending the post to DevRel without it ever being sent to the wider community.

Hopefully, having this system in place would end up decreasing the incidence of NSFW content posted on the forum by trolls, because by limiting the audience to 5* reviewers, their goal of getting attention would be almost impossible to achieve.

@Iifebit

I personally agree with this idea. I am a member and it is very frustrating not being able to express daily bugs I experience nor being able to request features to improve my development

Yep, the goal of this system is to create a sustainable method of ensuring quality content while still giving everyone the opportunity to post.

@Iifebit

To restrict users from mass approving posts, they should be limited to approving 1 topic per day.

This phenomenon is already regulated by a few things:

• Limit of 5* credits maximum in any user’s account.
• DevForum topic posting limits (already in place)
• Shared moderation action for false approvers and bad posters.

Limiting the number of posts that could be approved to 1 post/day would mean that everyone would only be able to post every five days.

@TheBristlefrost

Not our responsibility if someone is a little kid and uses an alt to come here and sees inappropriate content.

While it definitely is not a requirement, implementing a self-moderating system can make the public categories more polished and organized for a <13 kid visiting the forums to learn to develop (as a not logged-in visitor, which is possible).

@colbert2677

So in short: basically the original Post Approval program but with more steps

I wasn’t too familiar with the later post approval system (the one with the fancy plugin and badge), but I can definitely agree that there is some fundamental overlap. However, there are also a few very important differences that make this system more effective than the last:

• Sustainable: in order for a member to submit a post a topic, they have to review a small portion of the queue.
• Self-regulating: this time, (almost) the whole community is involved, rather than a small group of forum veterans.
• Efficient: As more people want to post topics, more topics get reviewed, which ensures the topics are reviewed swiftly.

@colbert2677

and potentially exposing many users to inappropriate content from malicious posters.

As said earlier, the DevForum already has inappropriate troll posts popping up. But with this system, the audience would be much smaller (5*), which decreases the potential attention for trolls, while also situating that audience next to a report button. I’ll update the original post to clarify that there would be a well-situated reporting system for offensive content.

@colbert2677

This still suffers from the same subjectivity that single-person Post Approval did but opens it on a broader scale with enables further problems like malicious behaviour when reviewing topics and system gaming.

The subjectivity is an aspect of all moderation. This, in its very simplest form, is a preemptive flagging system. Rather than allowing low-quality content to get posted, only to be flagged and removed hours later, it makes sure that low-quality content is never posted to begin with.

If the content is deemed malicious, obscene, or otherwise offensive, the post will be sent to DevRel.

If the content is simply low-quality or inappropriately categorized, the OP will receive feedback in order to make changes to their topic as needed.

Malicious behavior with regard to failing topics is countered with a traditional admin-based moderation, through an appeal from the poster. Similar to the false-approval punishment discussed earlier, if an appeal is successful, the users who maliciously failed a topic will be punished. I’ll update the original topic to better explain this (I only included it in one of the design mock-ups).

System gaming has already been extensively discussed. Could you be more specific about how you think the system could be abused beyond alt/friend approval?

Also, after seeing this feedback, I’ve decided to remove the skip button from the design mock-up. Now, rather than being able to skip to your topic, you will be forced to review whatever is at the top of the queue. Although you could spend 30-50 minutes refreshing 5 alts, by the time your post reaches the top of the queue, it will likely already be reviewed by someone else.

(Note that it could be 2-3 hours before I have time to update the image)

@colbert2677

Additionally, you should focus on problems rather than solutions. It seems tempting to post a proposed way to fix a problem but the solution to a problem is ultimately up to Roblox’s teams. Your only role is to raise a problem you’re having as a developer or user of the service.

Just like how it is necessary to identify issues with Roblox’s team, it’s also important to identify potential changes. That’s why programs like the community sage group existed and why Roblox implemented a community feedback program. Not just to see what’s wrong, but how the community believes that it should be fixed. Please see this topic for more info:

About the Forum Features category

Use this category to request Developer Forum features and changes that would improve your user experience while using the Developer Forum. Please do not post non-forum-related feature requests in this category. See #platform-feedback. How should I write my feature request? Make sure that your feature has not already been requested! Use the search in the top-right to look for topics! Please try to follow this format when posting: Please start out by describing your motivation for requestin…

@colbert2677

I think I should mention that post approval was never a form of community moderation, only discussion control. Sages and Post Approval were still required to flag problem threads for real moderators to deal with.

Good to know! I haven’t been in post approval before, so I wasn’t sure where exactly the line is drawn between feedback from post approval and DevRel’s moderation capabilities. This new system should function in a similar way, where malicious topics are handled by DevRel while low quality topics receive feedback from the community.

@colbert2677

I cannot, in good faith, support something that creates more problems than it resolves.

The goal of this proposition is quite the opposite. By building a system of self-moderation, the community can have the benefits of the old post approval system without the unsclalablility of the legacy system.

@colbert2677

The counters to the documented cons aren’t very convincing either.

I’ll elaborate on those more. As more feedback comes in, I’ll try to update the original topic to reflect the pros and cons that have been raised.

@UnpalatabIe

I mean, this is definitely better than nothing.

That’s the goal! Even though it doesn’t necessarily resolve all of the issues, it would represent an improvement for both sides. Both those requesting greater accessibility and those seeking higher quality would get what they want (rather than the current situation, where categories are still locked down and the forum is filled with low quality threads).

@UnpalatabIe

Of course, the launch will be painful because it will take time for users to discover the feature and learn the rules, but later on when people learn the rules the system will be stable and will work as intended.

This is one of the biggest improvements promised by the system. Right now, users learn the rules by posting bad content and getting feedback. This clutters the forum and leads to low-quality content proliferating as a linearly growing moderation team tries to control an exponentially growing forum. With the new system, bad topics would never be posted to begin with, which stops low-quality content before it can start.

@UnpalatabIe

But unfortunately, I highly doubt that this will be implemented like 70% of other requests and will probably be ignored like 100% of our cries about the absence of PA replacement.

A recent post has received a reply from Roblox staff that DevRel is currently researching a major project to overhaul content discovery on the DevForum. This shows that they are open to starting major efforts to improve the Developer Forum. By creating this feature request and describing it in detail, there is hope that progress can be made.

@rogchamp

show them 18+ content before the mods can even stop it.

Under the current system, mods can’t do anything to stop offensive content before it is posted anyways (outside of a few measures like word filters). This already occurs in places like #development-discussion where trolls will spam offensive content. Right now, the community is limited to flagging the post (which still requires viewing the offensive content) and hoping it is swiftly removed before others find it. In contrast, this new system would limit the incentive for trolls by decreasing the size of the audience (and thus the attention) and give an option for community reviewers to flag the post immediately before it is broadcasted to the wider community.

@rogchamp

This would essentially place every kind of burden that moderators are paid to face onto literal children.

Moderators are paid to review hundreds, if not thousands of posts per day, and on this forum particular, few of the posts flagged are actually 18+/NSFW (in my experience). For me, the top things I flag are:

1. Off-topic
2. Specific rule violations (e.g. no posting on behalf of others).
3. Unsubstantive/spam
4. Insults/ad hominem attacks

I’ve only had to flag maybe 3-4 posts for offensive content out of the 11.3k topics and 115k replies that I have read (but this could be different for other users).

@TheBristlefrost

I mean I’ve moderated a Discord server before. I literally had to ban people for 18+ content and I’m just 15 right now.

While a few 13-14 year olds may not be mature enough to understand and take appropriate action against 18+ content, it isn’t possible to create a sustainable cycle of post approval unless everyone is required to moderate to post.

---

Thank you for your feedback everyone! Later today I’ll try to update the original post to clarify some of the concerns you brought up and add in the pros and cons that have been discussed.

[colbert2677 (ImagineerColbert)]

All forms of post approval were the exact same. The plugin and badge were only meant to automate certain tasks rather than do them by hand as well as allow Post Approval members to directly accept a thread into a category.

In regards to your differences points, no those don’t make it better. Sustainable goes against DevRel’s principle of accessibility, self-regulating isn’t convincing given the current nature of the forum and it’s not efficient either because I’m sure a lot of people share the sentiment of not wanting to review topics just to get an answer to a brief or important question in addition to the fact that this also tickles on the negative side of accessibility to the forum.

@AwesomePossum212

Just like how it is necessary to identify issues with Roblox’s team, it’s also important to identify potential changes. That’s why programs like the community sage group existed and why Roblox implemented a community feedback program. Not just to see what’s wrong, but how the community believes that it should be fixed.

The point here is that you should be focusing on the problem not the solution. This is applicable for regular feature requests as much as it is for forum feature requests. Roblox will resolve the problem in the way they best see fit. I’m not saying don’t propose a potential solution but your post’s focus should be clearly describing the problem not the solution.

Not agreeing with any community-driven “moderation” solutions. Developers should be focused on developing, moderation should be left to moderation.

[Water_Script]

The system proposed with credits and forced community moderation is just not fair for the community. I see in a reply that you stated people should just “forget” about inappropriate content. You have to keep in mind that some people are more disturbed about certain topics than you might be. The point of the DevForum is to discuss development related topics, not moderate a forum about development. DevRel has already removed the more community moderation systems due to it being unrealistic for an ever-growing community.

Buildthomas has already created a post elaborating on a more proactive method of moderation that is better suited for the growth of the platform and for future scalability. While I do not agree with everything in it, I totally recommend giving it a quick read as it presents great information on how prevention can be better than moderation.

[AwesomePossum212]

Sorry for the late response everyone! I wanted to take the time to make sure that I could provide a comprehensive and complete response to your points.

@colbert2677

Sustainable goes against DevRel’s principle of accessibility

So do CAPTCHAs (fun CAPTCHAs in particular), but both systems are necessary to prevent the spread of low-quality content on the site. No forum for discussion can be high-quality and completely open. While I agree that it is important to make sure that the DevForum is easy to use, unfortunately not everyone is willing to use it correctly. For trolls, new users, and people who post just to post, it’s necessary to add some safeguards, just like how CAPTCHAs are added to group walls on Roblox to safeguard against botting. The comparison is similar in the task itself as well. Completing a CAPTCHA is a small hassle and it only takes a few minutes.

Also, don’t forget that this system is meant to be graduated from. Once members successfully get through the system enough times (TBD by DevRel), they would be promoted to regular and have free posting capabilities. However, until they can prove themselves, this system acts as a set of training wheels for those who might not fully grasp the rules.

Therefore, by implementing the new PA system, the DevForum could be more accessible than ever, with regard to who is allowed in. Although members would have to wait 20-30 more minutes before their topic is sent to the wider Roblox community, the PA process would ensure that everyone who wants to post on the DevForum can submit their topic. In addition, by ensuring that incoming topics are of substance and quality, the signal-to-noise ratio would considerably increase, expediting the speed for support, help, and feedback (which would make up at least some of the lost time). Barriers to membership would not need to be as high because there would already be checks in place to make sure that content is good and rule-abiding.

@colbert2677

self-regulating isn’t convincing given the current nature of the forum

I do agree that there would definitely be a need for DevRel to intervene at times. The most obvious cause would be when prospective topics are flagged for moderator attention. In addition, the system is meant to be dynamic and flexible in the sense that DevRel could adjust the system as needed. If there are too few credits going around, they could increase the reward ratio from reviewing posts (i.e. instead of 1 → 5 * 1/5, it could be increased to 1 → 5 * 2/5). If the number of posts in the queue is too high, then DevRel could temporarily lower the number of reviewers to speed up the process (i.e. 4 → 5).

However, with regard to the system by itself, I was referring to self-regulating in the sense that volume on both sides would conform itself to supply and demand. So, for example, if a lot of people want to post on Saturdays, those people who want to post would have to review, which makes it were more topics can be posted.

I do think that it could be more self-regulating if whatever plugin administrates the system is built with an algorithm that automatically adjusts stats like the number of reviewers and review reward, but that seemed like it might not be feasible, at least initially, because no one knows how exactly the system would function in the wild.

@colbert2677

it’s not efficient either because I’m sure a lot of people share the sentiment of not wanting to review topics just to get an answer to a brief or important question

I already addressed some of this in the sustainability/accessibility section above. To avoid repeating myself, here are a few supplementary points:

• While regulars who can post in all categories may not want to review topics, members who make up “a lot of people” on this forum likely are.
  • The good news for regulars is that they won’t have to review topics (regulars keep free posting permissions).
    • Members can become regulars through this system.
• Members have been locked out of #bug-reports and #feature-requests for a while now, and constantly are blamed for quality problems in #development-discussion.
  • Any access would be an improvement, even if it meant creating a minor barrier to low-quality content.
  • Much more efficient than sending a message to DevRel and receiving no response or going to Customer Support and hoping they will do something about it.
• Oftentimes “brief” questions often don’t have enough substance to spark a meaningful discussion or have already been answered.
  • Currently very common in #help-and-feedback (e.g. “What is pcall”)
  • Also prevalent in #development-discussion (e.g. “Are rank purchase places allowed?”)
• Questions of importance will still be able to pass post approval
  • This system is intended to increase the prevalence of high-quality, significant, and important topics.
  • May result in better responses to significant questions, because of an increase in signal to noise ratio as fewer spam/repeat/off-topic topics are posted.

@colbert2677

The point here is that you should be focusing on the problem not the solution. This is applicable for regular feature requests as much as it is for forum feature requests. Roblox will resolve the problem in the way they best see fit. I’m not saying don’t propose a potential solution but your post’s focus should be clearly describing the problem not the solution.

While I understand the point you’re trying to make, identifying issues still isn’t the intended use of feature request categories. However, I will try to clarify the Background section to make it clearer what issues I believe this plan will solve. If you truly believe that this topic is still inappropriate for #forum-feedback:forum-features, feel free to flag it.

@colbert2677

Developers should be focused on developing, moderation should be left to moderation.

You’re right: developers should be focused on development. Not sifting, flagging, searching, waiting, sorting, and all of the other menial tasks required to use the forum in its current state. Like you said earlier with regard to post approval, normal users are the ones who forward the threads to moderation. This update would move flagging to the front of the posting queue, which allows users to flag proactively as opposed to the current reactive system (note that the current flagging system would still be around for topics that receive low-quality replies or edit the topic to include bad content). Community moderation has always been a part of this forum, but by introducing this system, it can be utilized more effectively to prevent bad content from emerging.

@Water_Script

The system proposed with credits and forced community moderation is just not fair for the community.

The current system isn’t very fair for the community either! Members are currently restricted from directly shaping the platform’s future and are facing closures of other categories as well. While I would love for this system to be voluntary, unfortunately, no one would participate if it wasn’t required for something else, which would lead to a repeat of the original PA system. The next best thing is tying the review system to posting topics, which creates a closed system in the sense that you only need to review if you want to post, and by posting, you provide something for others to review so they can post, thus making it cyclic in nature. Also, don’t forget that this new method of post approval is only required for posting topics. Reading is still completely free.

@Water_Script

I see in a reply that you stated people should just “forget” about inappropriate content.

I reread all of my replies and it doesn’t look like I ever suggested that users should ignore/forget/disregard offensive content. However, it appears that another user may have implied that. To be clear, I do not agree that repression is an appropriate solution.

@Water_Script

You have to keep in mind that some people are more disturbed about certain topics than you might be.

I completely agree that some people may be more sensitive to certain topics and content. Unfortunately, there are no effective ways to reliably analyze content without human intervention. Here are the two main points that at least partially, if not almost fully counter the NSFW content argument:

1. Offensive and inappropriate content is already present, in small quantities, on the DevForum, but is only removed after flagging, which allows it to linger for longer. This increases the range and visibility of the content, while with proactive community moderation, only 5 people could encounter it and it would be sent directly to DevRel. Just to reemphasize, community review includes incoming topics from members, NOT flagged topics.
2. Reviewing topics is not required for membership in the forum, nor posting replies. Only creating topics. If you don’t feel comfortable reviewing topics, you can still join the discussion and reply or only read. Another possible solution to this issue would be to provide activity-based credit systems, where every month* you get a free posting credit (which as an added effect would also help counter the loss of credits as people become inactive).

@Water_Script

The point of the DevForum is to discuss development related topics, not moderate a forum about development.

As mentioned above, discussing topics in replies is still freely allowed for all users, not just regulars. It would be impractical to regulate replies because these posts are often in quick response to one another. In addition, with regard to your argument about moderation, the official purpose statement of the DevForum is:

A place where Roblox’s developer community can share their thoughts about creating games and get updates from staff members.

Right now, the DevForum is doing a great job with regard to the second part: staff members are able to effectively use #updates to announce important new changes and features. However, the problem facing the forum is that a fair number of users are forgetting about (or in some cases, ignoring) the first, bolded section: their topics are not about creating games. Rather, the problems topics often include

• Posting for the sake of posting/attention (common)
• Posting non-development related topics in development categories (common)
• Posting low-effort content (common)
• Posting inappropriate content for trolling/spamming/raiding/etc (much rarer, but still important to mention)

Thus, it is necessary to create a system that makes it possible to discuss development and not all of the other things that are ruining #development-discussion and other categories.

@Water_Script

DevRel has already removed the more community moderation systems due to it being unrealistic for an ever-growing community.

If you’re referring to the Community Sage and (Old) Post Approval programs, those were hardly “community” moderation systems. Approximately 0.006% percent of the users on the DevForum were asked the voluntarily review the other 99.994%, which definitely does not involve the whole community.

@Water_Script

Buildthomas has already created a post

That post is actually part of the inspiration for this post! More specifically, the staff response resolved one of the biggest issues with my plan: the effort required for implementation.

@Water_Script

elaborating on a more proactive method of moderation

These solutions are good, but as the current member promotion system shows, all stat-based systems can be gamed. In addition, the suggested system is overly simplistic: users are either admitted or not. In comparison, this post-approval system gives more users the opportunity to create topics while still ensuring that low-quality posts are kept out. In short, the main difference is that that system moderates people, while this system moderates content.

@Water_Script

is better suited for the growth of the platform and for future scalability

I disagree. Limiting access to the forum is not sustainable and is guaranteed to be ineffective at coping with forum growth. As mentioned above, that system is focused on unscalably banning people instead of regulating content. The old community sage/regular/top contributor promotion system was similar in that it relied on a set of statistics to determine if a user was fit for promotion. It required human review over the list of prospective applicants, which didn’t make it scalable as more and more users reached the thresholds. In contrast, this feature request would scale itself to control the flow of topics as the platform and the community grow.

@Water_Script

prevention can be better than moderation.

Prevention is ideal. That is the very reason for this feature request. As I mentioned above, this is not intended for use of moderating flagged topics, but rather reviewing incoming, soon-to-be-posted topics.

This system is more efficient and fair because it focuses on eliminating low-quality content rather than the users who could post it. We could ban everyone who hasn’t used DevEx under that assumption that they aren’t developers and might post bad content, and this would result in:

• People who have used DevEx but don’t want to contribute to the discussion making low-quality posts
• People who have used DevEx creating good content on the DevForum
• People who have not used DevEx and who might’ve created a few off-topic posts being banned.
• Non-DevEx trolls being banned
• Many legitimate contributors who would be able to make quality additions to the DevForum being barred from access.

Such arbitrary measures would still allow a little bad content in and keep a lot of good content out.

I do however agree with the second goal from that post, with regard to refocusing the DevForum on development rather than being a general communication platform for Roblox. This is important to prevent the DevForum from decaying into the old on-site forums.

---

Thank you everyone for your feedback! I’ll update the main post soon with regard to the responses in the reply. Your analysis and constructive criticism is really helpful for refining my feature request!

[colbert2677 (ImagineerColbert)]

CAPTCHAs are a lot different from blocking the ability to post if you don’t review other people’s posts on many levels. This is a non-comparison and it’s irrelevant to bring up as well because this thread isn’t about CAPTCHAs or bots. Reintroducing PA but making everyone do it instead of a small group still doesn’t change the fact that this kind of system goes against accessibility.

From the start even when/before post approval was around, Regular wasn’t necessarily a goal. It simply opened up a few more categories for users to post in, one of which shouldn’t even exist. If you don’t actively use the forum then you never needed TL2. I trust Developer Relations to, with community input, come up with a solution to the bug report posting dilemma. There’s no need to overcomplicate the situation over lack of access to posting into a single category, so no, I still disagree regardless.

I’m pretty anchored on my hill when I offered my opinion: I think it’s a terrible system and don’t stand behind it. Members should not be restricted from posting simply because they don’t review topics, they should be able to post questions and get answers like any other platform’s help forum.

@AwesomePossum212

While I understand the point you’re trying to make, identifying issues still isn’t the intended use of feature request categories.

Common misconception here: feature request categories have always been about identifying problems, not proposing solutions (though examples can help as additional parts of your post). Roblox has access to data users do not in order to research and create a solution that best resolves the problem. It’s in bold as its own section in How to post a feature request. The same thread is applicable for Forum Features, the only difference is the target.

I don’t need to and won’t flag the thread because you’re misinterpreting that as me finding the thread inappropriate, which I’m not. I’m saying that your proposal is bad and you should focus on the actual problem rather than your proposed solution. I’m not finding anything productive coming from this back-and-forth about something that’s unlikely to happen in itself.

[kingerman88]

This is not a bad idea, and I think it’s really getting nessesary to do something

---

Development discussion was already being blown with off topic posts.

Take a look at any time in the day and you will see them. We already knew this lol

But now #resources is also getting off topic too

---

The devforum has capitulated into a mess of spam and makes the experience of any “actual” developer worse.