How should we guard the gate?

[Eran Galor]

Before we open registration any wider, I want ideas for gatekeeping.

Not ideological gatekeeping. Not a purity test. Not a quiz where a wrong answer about a 1974 album gets you sent back into the rain.

I mean something much duller and probably more useful: how do we avoid admitting people whose main social skill is making every room worse?

We want eccentrics. We want obsessives. We want people who know alarming amounts about one narrow subject and absolutely nothing about six others. What we do not want is somebody whose entire online life consists of arriving, provoking strangers, and then explaining that everyone else is too sensitive.

So, suggestions please. Invitations? References? A probation period? A short application? Human review? Something else?

The goal is to keep the door open without removing the hinges.

[Bookish92]

Invite-only would keep the noise down, but it would also turn us into a club that slowly forgets how new people arrive.

[Tool-Rider]

A waiting period could filter drive-by trolls, though it might mostly filter impatient normal people. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Garden In Order]

Yes, from me. we could require one existing member to vouch for someone. Member referrals are useful context, but requiring them would close the door to genuinely new people.

[SixString74]

A short application is fine if it asks about interests rather than demanding an autobiography. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Coffee-Kriti]

I’d rather judge behavior than opinions. Rotating volunteers seems healthier than one permanent person deciding who belongs.

[Wing Chun Wrench]

I agree with the direction, though not every detail. First-post moderation is simpler than investigating people before they join.

[Choralist]

That sounds useful. a probation period might work if the rules are clear. Member referrals are useful context, but requiring them would close the door to genuinely new people.

[Type-Yogi]

Yes, especially that point. Please no personality quiz. I refuse to learn that I am a blue triangle. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Bassline]

References sound too much like renting an apartment. Rotating volunteers seems healthier than one permanent person deciding who belongs.

[Tai Chi Tiffin]

Maybe applicants should show us where they already talk to people online. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Paperback-Postpunk]

That sounds about right to me. I don’t love gatekeeping in principle, but completely open doors create their own gatekeeping when the loudest people take over.

[Eran Galor]

Useful distinction: I do not want us judging whether somebody is interesting enough. We are screening for whether they can coexist with other people, which is a much lower and more merciful bar.

[Pastry]

i agree with the direction, though not every detail. Could we admit people and limit posting for the first few days? Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one

[Civic Fish Stories]

Whatever we do should have an appeal or second look. Rotating volunteers seems healthier than one permanent person deciding who belongs.

[Tilewalker]

Do not make moderators search someone’s entire internet history. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Safety 81]

I think that is the useful distinction. I’d prefer a small human judgment over an automated score.

[Radiorook]

A recommendation from a member should help, but not be mandatory.

[Quiet Stacks]

What about a rotating committee of three volunteers?

The applicant gives us a few examples of places where they already interact with people publicly online. The three volunteers look at ordinary social behavior, not opinions: can this person disagree without making it personal, can they answer somebody instead of performing at them, do they ever show curiosity, can they stop when a conversation is finished.

No digging into private accounts, no politics test, no hunting through ten years of somebody’s life. Just enough public material to see whether they seem capable of sharing a room with other humans. Two out of three can approve. If the evidence is thin or mixed, ask the applicant for more rather than inventing a personality from six posts.

It is slightly ridiculous to have a Welcoming Committee of Three Veterans, which may be exactly why I like it.

[Tomas on Tour]

The important part is writing down the standard first. Polite enough to coexist, interested enough to contribute, capable of stopping an argument.

[Lentil-Seamstress]

Yes, especially that point. A rotating committee sounds less dangerous than one permanent gatekeeper

[Choro Radio]

This handles the main risk better than a waiting period. Time does not magically improve someone’s manners.

[Marginalia]

Right, and I’d add one thing. Public posts are useful evidence because they show how somebody behaves when disagreed with. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Record-Courier]

I was going to argue for probation, but this is cleaner. Probation makes every new member feel like they are posting with a clipboard behind them.

[Ringside And Rescue]

Three people is the right number for me. One person can have a bad read, two can lock into the same mood, three at least forces a conversation.

[Prison Book Bars]

Two out of three also feels better than unanimity. One volunteer should be allowed to say ‘I don’t know’ without blocking somebody.

[Glitchboy]

Public posts can show one useful thing: what someone does when another person tells them no. That is probably more informative than a polished application.

[Strata Field Reader]

I agree with the direction, though not every detail. Do not turn eccentricity into a negative. That would destroy half the membership. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Breath-Breakfast]

I’d volunteer for a rotation. Emphasis on rotation. I enjoy all of you but not enough to become border control.

[Wrench And Jab]

Yes, especially that point. I like the idea of three volunteers because one person’s bad read should not decide it

[Raga-Docent]

Could the committee simply return ‘need more information’ when the sample is too thin? That seems better than guessing.

[Bug Report Fiction]

Majority approval plus an alternate route for people with no social-media history seems fair.

[Artifacts]

Fine. Three veterans. I reserve the right to laugh every time we call them that.

[Barroom Radio Nights]

The applicant choosing the public examples solves most of my privacy objection. We do not need to become amateur detectives.

[Absurd-Adjuster]

Right, and I’d add one thing. If this works, the process should stay boring. Boring gates are usually safer gates. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Noodle 92]

I would support this if people without social accounts can do a short conversation with the same three volunteers instead.

[Masala Soil]

I agree with the direction, though not every detail. I worry about people performing politeness for five selected posts.

[Briefs And Books]

Three volunteers, limited evidence, majority decision. Boring enough that it might actually survive contact with humans.

[Tofu-Tails]

yes, and tell applicants what the committee is looking for. Secret vibes are how little institutions become weird.

[Quiet Stacks]

Works for me if we keep the evidence public and volunteered. No searching private names, family, employers, any of that.

[Prison Book Bars]

This is probably as close as we get to screening for ‘can share a room’ without pretending we can measure character.

[Marginalia]

Yes, especially that point. Yes to human judgment, no to secret vibes. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Fermenter]

Yes to this, especially the ‘no ideology test’ part. I care whether someone can disagree without turning cruel, not whether they share my opinions.

[Civic Fish Stories]

Right, and I’d add one thing. A waiting period could filter drive-by trolls, though it might mostly filter impatient normal people.

[Breath-Breakfast]

This is much better than a quiz. A quiz selects for people who are good at quizzes, which is not currently one of our social goals.

[Eran Galor]

All right, the three-person review idea is clearly collecting the most furniture around it. Keep pulling at the weak points, especially privacy and what we do with applicants who have no public posting history.

[Motorcity74]

Yes. Look for patterns, not one stupid post from 2018.

[Garden In Order]

The important part is writing down the standard first. Polite enough to coexist, interested enough to contribute, capable of stopping an argument. People should know the standard before they apply.

[Type-Yogi]

This is probably as close as we get to screening for ‘can share a room’ without pretending we can measure character. Two-of-three approval would reduce the risk of one person’s bias becoming policy.

[Prison Book Bars]

This is much better than a quiz. A quiz selects for people who are good at quizzes, which is not currently one of our social goals. Member referrals are useful context, but requiring them would close the door to genuinely new people.

[Marginalia]

I agree with the direction, though not every detail. A recommendation from a member should help, but not be mandatory.

[Motorcity74]

Could the committee simply return ‘need more information’ when the sample is too thin? That seems better than guessing. any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Bookish92]

That sounds about right to me. Two approvals out of three might be enough.

[Bookish92]

The applicant choosing the public examples solves most of my privacy objection. We do not need to become amateur detectives. people should know the standard before they apply.

[Bookish92]

Yes, and tell applicants what the committee is looking for. Secret vibes are how little institutions become weird.

[Afrobeat]

We should be screening for social behavior, not ideological compatibility. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive

[Fermenter]

Maybe let applicants choose which public profile or posts they want reviewed. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Folklore]

i’d rather reject obvious chaos before it becomes everybody’s weekend

[Wok-Dough]

If somebody has no public social history, there should be another route. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Motorcity74]

Keep records of decisions, but not dossiers. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Ritual-Notes]

A decline should not necessarily be permanent.

[Baghar]

I’d volunteer occasionally, but not every week. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive

[Philip-BlueNotes]

Social posts will not tell us everything, but they can reveal whether someone treats strangers like targets. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Bookish92]

Please make ‘enthusiastic’ optional. Some excellent people sound like tired librarians.

[Briefs And Books]

Whatever system we choose, let us test it on ten applications before writing scripture. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Tool-Rider]

No problem with that. i’d rather judge behavior than opinions.

[SixString74]

A probation period might work if the rules are clear. Rotating volunteers seems healthier than one permanent person deciding who belongs.

[Coffee-Kriti]

Please no personality quiz. I refuse to learn that I am a blue triangle. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Wing Chun Wrench]

That sounds about right to me. References sound too much like renting an apartment.

[Choralist]

Maybe applicants should show us where they already talk to people online. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Bassline]

Could we admit people and limit posting for the first few days? Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive

[Quiet Stacks]

Yes, I think this would help. whatever we do should have an appeal or second look. Member referrals are useful context, but requiring them would close the door to genuinely new people.

[Briefs And Books]

Right, and I’d add one thing. Do not make moderators search someone’s entire internet history. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Fermenter]

I support the idea. if the process takes three weeks, we will accidentally select only people who enjoy bureaucracy. Member referrals are useful context, but requiring them would close the door to genuinely new people.

[Civic Fish Stories]

we should be screening for social behavior, not ideological compatibility. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one

[Breath-Breakfast]

I think that is the useful distinction. New people need to know what they are being judged on. Rotating volunteers seems healthier than one permanent person deciding who belongs.

[Briefs And Books]

Public posts are useful evidence because they show how somebody behaves when disagreed with. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Prison Book Bars]

I would not ask for private accounts or messages. Rotating volunteers seems healthier than one permanent person deciding who belongs.

[Marginalia]

Yes, especially that point. Maybe let applicants choose which public profile or posts they want reviewed. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Fermenter]

I would separate two issues here. the standard should be basic: can this person disagree, answer, joke and stop when asked. Member referrals are useful context, but requiring them would close the door to genuinely new people.

[Quiet Stacks]

Could we have a trial membership instead of a hard yes/no? Rotating volunteers seems healthier than one permanent person deciding who belongs.

[Prison Book Bars]

If somebody has no public social history, there should be another route. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive.

[Bookish92]

That is the part I agree with. A short conversation with three members might work for people without social accounts. Member referrals are useful context, but requiring them would close the door to genuinely new people.

[Quiet Stacks]

Do not turn eccentricity into a negative. That would destroy half the membership. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Briefs And Books]

I think that is the useful distinction. We need to distinguish strange interests from hostile behavior.

[Quiet Stacks]

That seems sensible. rotation matters. Otherwise the committee becomes a tiny monarchy with a spreadsheet. Member referrals are useful context, but requiring them would close the door to genuinely new people.

[Briefs And Books]

I agree with the direction, though not every detail. Keep records of decisions, but not dossiers. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Bookish92]

Applicants should be told why if they are declined. Rotating volunteers seems healthier than one permanent person deciding who belongs.

[Quiet Stacks]

Yes, especially that point. A decline should not necessarily be permanent.

[Bookish92]

I mean, maybe the committee can approve by majority and flag uncertain cases for a second trio. Member referrals are useful context, but requiring them would close the door to genuinely new people.

[Quiet Stacks]

I’d volunteer occasionally, but not every week. Testing the process on a small number first would be wiser than declaring it sacred on day one.

[Bookish92]

that sounds about right to me. Make committee duty temporary or nobody sane will volunteer twice. Rotating volunteers seems healthier than one permanent person deciding who belongs.

[Bookish92]

If this works, the process should stay boring. Boring gates are usually safer gates. Any review system should be quick enough that normal people do not lose interest before they arrive

[Eran Galor]

I think we have it. Three rotating volunteers, public material supplied by the applicant, behavior rather than opinions, two of three to approve, and an alternate short conversation when there is no useful public history. I am naming this the Welcoming Committee of Three Veterans, against my better judgment.

[Author]

Posts