|Well, the harder it is to post, the more likely we will have the same basic situation that we have now - that people will get discouraged and give up trying to post, and go somewhere where posting is easier.|
At the moment, it's very hard to join, and on average I'd guess about one person a day is sufficiently committed to go through the hoops of negotiating the admissions system. I am currently assumign that there are people who attempt to join and are discouraged at that point - so we never got any evidence that they wished to join, and my supposition is purely that. If somebody joins to talk about philosophy and finds that they can only talk about cute animals until some boundary is passed, I imagine that might also encourage drop-off.
So, hmmm. It seems more practical to make reactions to bad behaviour more robust than to limit every new member's ability to use the board on the grounds that they might be trolls or idiots. The way most boards get around this is by having members with the ability immediately to delete content thhat is clearly beyond the pale. If there were a small number of admins with the power to delete threads without distributed moderation, as they can ban suits without distributed moderation, then ten clearly offensive posts a day could be cleaned up quickly.
So, if that's the intention, I'd say option 3, drop the post number to 5 if 10 really feels unsafe, create admins with the power to ban users and delete posts, although actually doing either needs to be flagged in Policy, rather than an airlock system which I think will dissuade people who actually want to and have value to contribute from sticking around. Alternatively, have the airlock be Conversation, Comic Books and Temple - it will be more directly relevant to the desires of many new starters, and will give people more opportunities to contribute good posts or identify themselves as hostile nutbars.