Revolutionary idea to improve the forum

It’s certainly not some groundbreaking revolution 😁, but there might be some merit to it. Here is how I envision the system working: rather than moderators (who always seem to be) just deleting posts, they should instead mark them as invisible. Not completely wiped from existence, mind you, but simply hidden from anyone who isn't actively participating in that specific thread. This approach offers several distinct advantages. First off, you’d see far fewer complaints about moderation; it would mitigate that nagging sense of unfairness while actually giving the mods more breathing room to manage things. Secondly, discussions could become much more spontaneous and free-wheeling, since no one could accuse the site owners of hosting inappropriate content if it were effectively private and shielded from the general public. Third, it prevents that frustrating situation where people return to a thread only to find themselves totally out of the loop regarding what transpired in their absence—which, frankly, is incredibly irritating. Finally, this setup might actually nudge the lurkers into joining the conversation, as they'd finally have an incentive to engage to see the "hidden" content.

Implementing something like this would require quite a bit of backend coding and technical maneuvering, but I suspect the payoff would be worth the effort. What are your thoughts? And has anyone else already floated this idea around?

Look, if you ask me, the whole point of a forum is for everyone to actually see the discussion.
It shouldn't be some gatekept thing where you have to drop a comment just to unlock the rest of the thread.
There are plenty of people out there who might not fully grasp the topic, but they still want to read up on it.

Sure, making it technically possible might work, but we'd probably just end up drowning in a sea of useless filler posts from people just trying to bypass the system.
That’s just my two cents, anyway.

brighttinker48, I think you might have misread my point entirely. It’s not like the whole world would be watching the debate; only the actual participants would see those specific posts that the moderators—for whatever reason they deem necessary—decide to mark as invisible (along with any quotes from them, of course). I don't think we'd see an explosion of trolling, mostly because the moderators still hold the power to delete things whenever they want, and let's be honest, most people on these boards just want as many eyes on their takes as possible anyway. We could always just build in an option where users can toggle those hidden posts off if they find them annoying.

Post = A total lack of actual answers on this thread.
Discussion = Every single post in a thread that isn't marked as private.

Honestly, I feel like anything the people in this debate can see should be just as visible to everyone else reading along too.

What I’m actually getting at here is the concept of invisible subthreads—essentially, nested discussions that would only be visible to those who have already engaged with the main thread. There are quite a few ways one could spin this idea; for instance, we could block further citations of these hidden threads or even restrict participation strictly to those already involved in the conversation. Personally, I don't think such extra layers of restriction are strictly necessary, but I suppose it's up to you all to flesh out the mechanics however you see fit.

rustydrifter10, look, I’ve witnessed plenty of things on this board that ended up getting scrubbed later on. Honestly, I’m just not following your train of thought here.

I honestly don't see the point, or even any real necessity, in having parts of a discussion restricted only to the people actually participating in it. 🙂

rustydrifter10, so you're telling me not one single point I laid out actually holds water?
Could you perhaps elaborate on that? I'd appreciate a bit more substance, because from where I'm sitting, this seems like a pretty solid concept.

Bradley Morgan3 said:Instead of the moderators (always) just deleting posts, they should probably just mark them as hidden—not totally gone, mind you, but just invisible to anyone who isn't actually participating in that specific discussion thread.

Honestly, I just don't see the point here. If you have access to the forum, you should be able to see the entire discussion and decide for yourself if you want to jump in, regardless of whether you've been active in that thread before.

First off, people wouldn't complain about the mods nearly as much, which would reduce that sense of unfairness, while giving the moderators way more breathing room to do their jobs.

I'm really not sure what there'd be less to complain about, though... because at the end of the day, someone is either going to think a moderator made the right call or they aren't, and that's where the grievance comes from. In fact, if a moderator started marking text as "hidden" when other users actually wanted to see it—or vice versa—people would probably just find even more things to whine about!

Secondly, discussions would feel much more spontaneous and free-flowing. Plus, nobody could ever accuse this site of hosting inappropriate content since it would effectively be private and tucked away from the general public eye.

Look, if content is truly inappropriate, it shouldn't be on an American forum in the first place.

Thirdly, it would prevent those situations where people jumping into a thread feel totally out of the loop because they missed everything that happened while they were away (which, by the way, can be incredibly frustrating).

But it's not just about missing the stuff that shouldn't have happened; they'd also miss out on all the genuinely useful information being shared.

Fourthly, this system would actually encourage lurkers to start participating since they'd get a peek at the hidden content.

Oh, maybe they'd join in once they saw something interesting was hidden, but how am I supposed to know there's a fascinating debate happening that I'd love to join if I can't even see it? 🙂 Just having some vague hint somewhere that someone might be mentioning something I care about isn't nearly as motivating as actually being able to read the thread and follow along in real-time.

I fail to grasp the logic behind why everyone needs to have eyes on everything. The whole point of deleting messages is precisely so that not everyone sees every single thing.

Personally, I certainly wouldn't be complaining if my posts were just marked as "invisible" instead of being scrubbed entirely—and frankly, I don't know anyone who would. If we consider that there would simply be fewer deleted posts and more hidden ones, the total number of complaints would likely remain roughly the same, while simultaneously reducing the volume of what I just wrote in my previous sentence.

I am confused by your implication that inappropriate content shouldn't exist on a forum at all. As I’ve already pointed out, anything falling into that "gray area" shouldn't be visible to the general public. It's much like American television; they broadcast content that isn't meant for everyone, which is exactly why you see those rating icons in the corner of the screen late at night.

There is often plenty of interesting, informative substance tucked away in deleted posts. Frequently, entire discussions branch out from those very comments, leaving people who didn't see them completely lost as to what is actually happening.

Under the current system, such an "invisible" discussion would most likely just end up being deleted anyway; and if it wasn't deleted, then there wouldn't be any reason to hide it.

Anyway, thanks for the exhaustive response. 🙂

Bradley Morgan3 said:I honestly don't get why everyone feels entitled to see everything. The whole point of deleting posts is to ensure that not every single thing is out there for everyone to see.

Look, deleted posts aren't just floating around in the ether; they're only visible to the site admins. And even then, it's strictly for handling potential appeals so they can actually look back and see what triggered the removal.

Personally, I really wouldn't be filing an appeal if my post was just hidden from view instead of being totally wiped out, and I don't know anyone else who would either! If we consider that we'd end up with fewer deletions and more "hidden" posts, the total number of appeals would probably stay pretty much the same—plus, it would save us all the headache I just mentioned.

But listen, just because *you* wouldn't complain doesn't mean someone else won't. People post on forums specifically because they want to be seen and read by anyone who drops by the site.

There’s actually a lot of interesting and useful info tucked away in those deleted posts. It happens all the time where entire discussions branch off from them, leaving people who didn't see the original content completely lost as to what's even happening.

The bottom line is that stuff gets removed when it breaks the rules or when moderators decide it's better to pull it to stop a thread from spiraling. For example, if someone throws an insult at another user, that person is going to jump in to snap back, and suddenly you've got two people getting warnings. If a moderator had just stepped in and deleted the initial insult, only one person would have been flagged. 😁 As for the fact that someone might have included something smart or insightful in that same post? Well, they should have thought about that before they hit send.

rustydrifter10, it isn't just the admins who see deleted posts; plenty of other forum users catch them before they're actually scrubbed.

I mean, isn't it pretty logical to assume people would prefer their posts be marked as hidden rather than completely wiped out? It’s kind of like saying a soccer player would rather take a yellow card instead of getting tossed with a red one. 😁

Moderators pull posts for all sorts of reasons—that's not really the issue here. The problem lies in this rigid, black-and-white system we're working with. I'm simply suggesting we add some nuance, maybe a "gray area" category. Black stays black, white stays white, but we need something in between. I think there's more than enough merit in that idea for you all to consider it.

Bradley Morgan3 said:Moderators delete posts for all sorts of reasons. The issue isn't the deletion itself, but this rigid black-and-white system. I’m just suggesting we add some nuance—maybe a gray area. Black stays black, white stays white. I think there's enough cause here to at least consider it.

So, basically you're suggesting moderators take on even more work while users get a free pass to ignore the rules. 😬

You mentioned that users see a post before it gets nuked. Sure, that’s true. But fewer people see it compared to if it stayed up permanently, which means less chance of someone retaliating against an insult or derailing the thread further. I guess I wonder if you're suggesting rule-breaking posts should only be hidden from those not participating in the thread, without issuing a warning? That would just stop active participants from responding to content that shouldn't even be there in the first place, right? They might end up breaking rules themselves just by replying. Not to mention, we'd probably just end up with spam posts meant to test what's being hidden from non-participants. Or maybe you mean these posts stay visible to thread participants but still get sanctioned? Then we're back to square one: someone snaps at an insult, gets a strike, and ends up banned.

Another thing—some users hate off-topic clutter and trolling because it buries the actual discussion. If they could still see those posts just because they happen to be part of the thread, nothing changes. We'd still have messy threads filled with low-quality junk. And honestly, some people don't care about a strike as much as they care about seeing their post deleted, so they'll keep pushing boundaries just to make sure their target sees them.

In principle, I’m on the same page as rustydrifter10 and Michelle Phillips54, but there’s another angle we need to consider:
this forum is an open space meant for everyone. Unless someone is actively misleading people or breaking specific rules—the ones clearly laid out in our guidelines—we don't have the right to just exclude them simply because we think they're talking nonsense... (not that most people even agree with that assessment, anyway 😉).
That's why the rest of the participants in this thread are here—to call him out and prove his claims are baseless.

Besides, readers need to see exactly what isn't tolerated here. Otherwise, how are they supposed to know the boundaries before they decide to jump into the conversation? There are plenty of lurkers who read everything without ever becoming official members.
If and when the forum leadership decides to change how we handle this, we'll adapt accordingly.

Michelle Phillips54, you’re essentially echoing the same sentiment as brighttinker48—as if having a flood of mediocre posts is somehow a good thing. If you actually took the time to read my response to them, you'd see where I'm coming from.

The moderators would only have more on their plates if there were actually more posts to deal with, and I suspect that's exactly what the site owners want—more traffic, more engagement. However, we can't let that come at the expense of keeping threads readable and decent. I've already brought up several different configurations and tweaks that could balance things out.

Besides, wouldn't you moderators (and the folks running Reddit, for that matter) prefer it if the users didn't despise you quite so much? You know how many people end up getting heated when their posts get nuked. Though, I suppose that's secondary to the actual content. We lose far too many insightful, interesting discussions whenever someone hits the delete button.

Now, I'm going to pivot into something that sounds like a total conspiracy theory. After one particularly intense debate, I received an email from a user claiming there's an actual clique of moderators here running a specific agenda, and that this rigid, black-and-white enforcement policy suits them perfectly. What do you all think? Is there any water in that claim? 😬

Bradley Morgan3 said:Michelle Phillips54, you’re basically echoing what brighttinker48 is saying—that we just want to avoid a flood of useless posts. I guess you should read my response to them.

But you didn't actually say whether you think posts that break the rules should still get a warning or a ban when they're hidden.

The moderators would probably just have more work if there were more posts, and I assume that's exactly what the site owners want. The main thing is making sure the threads don't lose their clarity or quality. I've already mentioned a few different ways we could tweak the settings.

I'm hoping some regular users chime in here too. Lately, people have been telling me there's way too much off-topic chatter and trolling, making the threads messy and boring, which buries the good stuff. It's funny; they're the ones asking for quality over quantity and pushing for stricter moderation. Who would've thought. 😁

Don't you moderators (and the staff at the site) prefer it when the users don't hate you as much? Some people really get upset when you delete their posts. But maybe content matters more than that. Too much interesting info gets lost in the deletions.

I don't really feel like people hate me. Very few people react badly when I pull a post down. There are some, I guess, but they're definitely in the minority. Most people are actually great about it; we'll chat via PM about why I removed something or what the sub-forum rules are, and I haven't felt any resentment.
What I have noticed is this—lately, since we've been moderating more leniently (not deleting everything we used to, or only flagging things we'd normally ban), there's been a bit more pushback from users who weren't around during the "strict" era. Not a ton, but it happens. When we were strict, there was no issue because everyone knew what broke the rules and what got deleted. Now, with the lighter touch, we're seeing rule-breaking that people expect won't be sanctioned at all. I don't want to be misunderstood—it's not everyone doing this, mostly just those who don't realize how things used to be. The long-time users who know the rules still follow them like always, and I honestly have to say they're great to work with.

Now, I'm going to say something that sounds like a conspiracy theory. After a heated debate, I got an email from a user claiming there's a moderator clique running a specific agenda and that they prefer this black-and-white system. What do you think? Is there any truth to that? 😬

I’m not really sure what kind of policy you’re talking about or what you mean by a black-and-white system. It’s pretty hard to comment on something that vague, I guess. Could you maybe clarify?

Bradley Morgan3 said:It’s not exactly a revolution 😁, but maybe it works. Here’s my pitch: instead of moderators (as usual) just nuking posts, they should just make them invisible. Not totally gone, just hidden from anyone not actually participating in that specific thread. Think about the perks... First, people would stop whining about the mods, and that sense of injustice would fade while giving admins more breathing room. Second, discussions would be more spontaneous and free—nobody could accuse this site of hosting inappropriate content if it’s effectively private and shielded from the general public. Third, you wouldn't have users jumping into a thread blind to everything that happened while they were away (which is incredibly annoying, by the way). Fourth, it might actually bait lurkers into joining in since they'd finally see the "hidden" stuff.

Of course, implementing it would require some serious hacking, but it feels worth it. Thoughts? Or has someone already thrown this out there?

I don't get the whole "invisible message" thing. What happens when a post has 10 visible replies and 100 hidden ones? I reply to one of the 10, and then suddenly 100 messages pop up and change the entire context?
First off, people always complain 🙂
Second, those threads wouldn't be spontaneous, they'd be pure anarchy
Third, whether it's hidden or not, nobody would know how to navigate the conversation anymore
Fourth, why would anyone bother posting if they think there aren't even any messages there?

Bradley Morgan3 said:Okay, it’s not exactly revolutionary 😁, but it might actually work. Here’s my pitch: instead of moderators (always) just nuking posts, they should just flag them as invisible. Not totally gone, just hidden from anyone who isn't actively part of that specific thread. There are tons of perks to this... First, people would stop whining about the mods and there wouldn't be that constant sense of unfairness, while giving the mods way more breathing room. Second, discussions could be more spontaneous and loose, and nobody (Reddit) could accuse you of posting inappropriate content since it would basically be private and shielded from the general public. Third, it prevents people from being totally lost when they jump back into a thread after being away (which is incredibly annoying, by the way). Fourth, it gives lurkers a reason to actually join in because they'd get access to the hidden stuff.

Of course, implementing this would take some serious coding hacks, but I think it’s worth it. What do you guys think? Has anyone else thrown this idea out there yet?

Through all seventeen posts, nobody has asked the real question, and the OP has skillfully dodged it.
Everywhere—even here on this forum—inappropriate crap gets deleted: swearing, harassment, threats, derailment, trolling. Why on earth would we leave that on a forum as (semi-)visible? That would mean abandoning basic rules, creating extra busywork for already overworked mods, and basically giving a free pass to every spammer, jerk, and troll on the internet.

Plus, this just degrades certain users.
For example: I post on US news sites and ESPN, but I love reading the local newspaper where I don't participate. As a forum member, I want to see everything posted in the Religion section, and the fact that I don't write there shouldn't stop me from seeing it. This is a public forum, and there is no place for "invisible" or semi-visible posts here.

Bradley Morgan3, explain that bolded part of your opening post. What exactly do you consider "private" on a public forum? And what good do you see in hiding inappropriate content from the "general" public?

rustydrifter10 said:Deleted posts are only visible to the admin team, primarily so they can review any potential appeals.

We scrub anything that violates forum rules or anything a moderator decides is better left off the thread to prevent further derailment. For instance, if someone insults another user, the insulted party might snap back, and then both end up with a strike. If the mod had just deleted the initial insult, only one person would have been penalized. 😁 As for having some smart insight buried in the same post, you really should have thought about that before hitting send.

The current approach leaves the user whose post was removed feeling isolated, which is just an invitation for emotional outbursts. Under the system being proposed by dtk, there could actually be a comparison made—allowing mods to act on impulse if necessary or to clear the air properly. It would result in more facts and less drama. The current setup doesn't allow for that, as I’ve experienced firsthand here.

View on reddit

Frankly, I don't care if the admins read it or not, other than the fact that it just felt like extra humiliation from the mod who deleted my text.

Michelle Phillips54 said:But you didn't actually answer whether you think posts that violate rules should still get a strike even if they are hidden from view.

I'm hoping for some input from the general users here. Lately, it's the same people telling me there's too much off-topic chatter and trolling, making threads messy and boring. They claim they want quality over quantity and demand stricter moderation. Funny how that works. 😁

I'm not sure what policy you're referring to or what you mean by a black-and-white system. It's hard to comment on something so vague. Could you clarify?

In my humble opinion, the idea is solid, but we should consider implementing a consensus model for "hidden" texts (specifically regarding that consensus thread).

☕