muscular_engineer
Add /nazbol/ #MakeSoybooruGreatAgain
I recently had a discussion with @Turrican who wanted approvers to be rarer and more active. In his opinion, the role is "so over-saturated that it becomes glorified trusted", which he seemed to think was a bad thing. IMO, he was missing the point:
As a moderator I would create an approver-centric policy.
Trustworthy grey users would be directly given approver rank. "Trusted" rank would basically only exist for users that fail the approver test (or reject posts for no reason, etc.)
Approver tests would be common to pen test site security.
"approver wagers" would also be allowed (A variation of approver test signed by name, where if approved the approver is demoted, however, if they catch it in the queue the user who signed it is demoted). Winning approver wagers would give bragging rights, this would cause approvers to be highly vigilant and paranoid which would increase site security and it would also be really funny to watch.
@cobblestone @Warrior-Z @Quote @Broot @custard @andyverse @Rot @Coemskong @Toilet-G @MazelTV @Peter @Nabbv @deuterium @Zonky @soynorth @SoyNorthropF5 @quiddy @MenstrualCykill @HOTDOGHEAD_ADMIN @JimboClittyLeakageArchive @soysneed @Funnybenny18 your thoughts?
- The point of the approval queue is to filter illegal/unwanted content.
- An approver can post illegal shit without it being checked.
- A trusted user can also approve illegal shit without it being checked. They have the same capacity for mischief.
- There is no cost to having 20 approvers instead of 5 (They do it for free)
- Having more approvers reduces the approval queue time (Older users will remember when it would take multiple hours for your post to be approved).
- The only difference between trusted and approvers is that if they fail the approver test, they will unknowingly let illegal shit on the site.
As a moderator I would create an approver-centric policy.
Trustworthy grey users would be directly given approver rank. "Trusted" rank would basically only exist for users that fail the approver test (or reject posts for no reason, etc.)
Approver tests would be common to pen test site security.
"approver wagers" would also be allowed (A variation of approver test signed by name, where if approved the approver is demoted, however, if they catch it in the queue the user who signed it is demoted). Winning approver wagers would give bragging rights, this would cause approvers to be highly vigilant and paranoid which would increase site security and it would also be really funny to watch.
@cobblestone @Warrior-Z @Quote @Broot @custard @andyverse @Rot @Coemskong @Toilet-G @MazelTV @Peter @Nabbv @deuterium @Zonky @soynorth @SoyNorthropF5 @quiddy @MenstrualCykill @HOTDOGHEAD_ADMIN @JimboClittyLeakageArchive @soysneed @Funnybenny18 your thoughts?
Mymykiller1488
PISS OFF SOMALIANS I WANT TO KILL AND RAPE ALL OF YOU WELFARE FAGGOTS
5 days ago#891388
Approvers are buckbroken whore twinks not muscular
weakspaget
I like bait, how could you tell?
5 days ago#891403
I like the approver wages thingI recently had a discussion with @Turrican who wanted approvers to be rarer and more active. In his opinion, the role is "so over-saturated that it becomes glorified trusted", which he seemed to think was a bad thing. IMO, he was missing the point:
- The point of the approval queue is to filter illegal/unwanted content.
- An approver can post illegal shit without it being checked.
- A trusted user can also approve illegal shit without it being checked. They have the same capacity for mischief.
- There is no cost to having 20 approvers instead of 5 (They do it for free)
- Having more approvers reduces the approval queue time (Older users will remember when it would take multiple hours for your post to be approved).
- The only difference between trusted and approvers is that if they fail the approver test, they will unknowingly let illegal shit on the site.
As a moderator I would create an approver-centric policy.
Trustworthy grey users would be directly given approver rank. "Trusted" rank would basically only exist for users that fail the approver test (or reject posts for no reason, etc.)
Approver tests would be common to pen test site security.
"approver wagers" would also be allowed (A variation of approver test signed by name, where if approved the approver is demoted, however, if they catch it in the queue the user who signed it is demoted). Winning approver wagers would give bragging rights, this would cause approvers to be highly vigilant and paranoid which would increase site security and it would also be really funny to watch.
@cobblestone @Warrior-Z @Quote @Broot @custard @andyverse @Rot @Coemskong @Toilet-G @MazelTV @Peter @Nabbv @deuterium @Zonky @soynorth @SoyNorthropF5 @quiddy @MenstrualCykill @HOTDOGHEAD_ADMIN @JimboClittyLeakageArchive @soysneed @Funnybenny18 your thoughts?
>Older users will remember when it would take multiple hours for your post to be approved
And it was good
Also stop inflating the approver population
weakspaget
I like bait, how could you tell?
Kaiser
美好的日子终会到来
5 days ago#891415
Trust me, I've seen some posts not being approved for minutes at a time for obvious reasonsMight be impossible without being super invasiveShow quoted text
I'd make a system where it logs which approvers looked at which pending posts, really to just see who's not doing their job
And if you're going on the MPA page then you're going to be approving stuff
yeezyyeezy
What would you do if you got sent to Auschwitzs...
yeezyyeezy
What would you do if you got sent to Auschwitzs...
5 days ago#893467
ok
Log in to reply to this thread.