Suggestion: opt-in moderation review before a post goes public

{quoted}

Only post in Gameplay+, problem solved! :P

That only applies to creating threads, and good luck understanding why your thread was rejected, if you actually care about posting it. And yet I would prefer such a system if it meant not having to deal with a mod scolding me every few weeks.

{quoted}

The problem with this is that there would be massive delays with posts making it to the Boards. Although it may not affect you, this could affect others wanting immediate feedback. There are exceptions to this of course (Gameplay+). Generally, if your post does not break any of the Universal Rules, it should be fine.

That is why I said "opt-in."

The Universal Rules aren't an exhaustive list that a mod can point to and say "see, you violated that right there." The following paragraph basically says that inappropriate discussion topics are not appropriate:

Inappropriate discussion topics may be subject to escalated punishments, depending on the content in question.

It doesn't explicitly refer to the paragraph above it, which gives some examples of inappropriate posts. It stands on its own. If a mod thinks something is inappropriate, it's against the rules, plain and simple. And I'm okay with that being a rule! But, since I'm not a mod, I cannot determine what's appropriate, and we don't have enough tools to reliably determine what a mod would think of any given post (clear rules). Therefore, the mods should take on an active role in ensuring appropriate posts - before we post something inappropriate. I want to follow the rules. As a programmer, I'm good at following rules, and even figuring out unwritten rules from time to time. However, the documentation on these rules is too sparse, and the error messages are unhelpful (basically "your post was bad and you should feel bad; go read these unhelpful rules").

{quoted}

If a post seems to tip between breaking the rules and not, they are brought up with other Moderators/Board-Specific Specialists before being potentially removed. Moderators should not be removing posts because they are offended, it should only happen if you broke a specific rule listed in the rulebook.

It would be nice if that were the case, but it isn't. My last two mod deletions were for quoting someone else's deleted post (I was assured that it was not a warning, but then immediately told to read the rules) and for an "inflammatory" analogy (I got a copypasta caution against discussing religion/sex/politics/social issues, which I hadn't, and was then warned that if I keep breaking the rules I'll be punished) which apparently "end up derailing, leading to arguments and insults" even though my post was followed by no such things.

I just want the mods to help me follow the rules instead of standing there with a rolled-up newspaper and waiting for me to fail, which will inevitably happen.

[{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=5EMqL6eX,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-01-16T03:59:40.150+0000)

Frankly, the tech isn't there (it's everyone or no one for review-required posting) and the team isn't big enough even if it were. We're always happy to answer questions about any actions or removals though.

Discussing my rule-breaking after the fact is too late; I want to avoid breaking the rules in the first place - not only per se, but also because my last removal sounded like a definite warning, and I don't want to "oops" my way to a permaban.

https://cache.desktopnexus.com/thumbseg/483/483455-bigthumbnail.jpg

pls no noozpapr