Gatekeepers: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

By J. W. Zarek

“The most dangerous phrase in the language is, ‘We’ve always done it this way.'” – Grace Hopper

GATEKEEPER RABBIT HOLE

“One of the most important things you can do on this earth is to let people know they are not alone.” – Shannon L. Alder

I joined an author forum with ‘support’ in its title, expecting to learn and share. Instead, I encountered six gatekeepers in rapid succession—each one determined to guard the gates against… questions.

The first gatekeeper posted a long rant: new members asking ‘basic’ questions were embarrassing themselves as authors. They should search Google first before bothering the forum.

I could actually hear the word Hrumph scream through my laptop speakers… every time I re-read their post. Which made me think – wow, this forum’s incredible, with sound effects and everything.

The teensy-weensy glare-in-your-face problem is if someone searches Google and finds their answer, they’d never come to the forum in the first place. So, problem solved for the gatekeeper.

Gatekeepers exist everywhere. But finding them on a forum with ‘support’ in the title, where existing members attack new members for asking questions? That’s beyond farcical.

Noah: History’s First Gatekeeper

Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible nine times – in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Job, Psalms, and Isaiah. The Bible also mentions Noah, who built an ark to house two of every kind of animal.

But did unicorns make it onto the ark?

No..!?

Why not?

According to research, Noah was so happy after finishing the ark that he and his ark-building crew celebrated with too much wine.

And in their celebratory state, they tried to mount what they thought were Clydesdale ponies, mounting them backward – repeatedly.

You can imagine how that ended. Sharp horn, lots of screaming. You get the point, only not the way Noah and his crew did.

And that’s how and why unicorns were kept off the ark by Noah – the world’s first gatekeeper.

It’s true, I 100% completely made up this obscure Bible fact. It’s entirely fabricated and farcical. But what’s not – real-world gatekeepers have been keeping people (and mythical creatures) out since the beginning of recorded history.

The Man, The Dog, and The Pearly Gates

There’s an old story about a man and his dog walking down a dusty road after they’ve both died. They come upon a magnificent place with gleaming marble walls, golden streets, and pearly gates. A robed figure greets them warmly.

“Welcome to Heaven,” he says.

“Wonderful!” replies the man. “My dog and I are parched. May we come in for some water?”

“Of course you may enter,” says the gatekeeper. “But I’m sorry – dogs aren’t allowed in Heaven.”

The man looks down at his faithful companion, then back at the pearly gates. “If my dog isn’t welcome,” he says, “then I don’t belong here either.” And he turns away.

They walk further down the road until they reach a simple farm with a white picket fence. An older man in denim sits under a shade tree reading a book.

“Excuse me, sir,” the traveler calls out. “My dog and I are terribly thirsty. Might we have some water?”

“Of course!” the man replies. “Come on in, both of you.”

After they drink their fill, the traveler asks, “What is this place?”

“This is Heaven.”

“But… the man back at those pearly gates said that was Heaven.”

“Oh, that place? That’s actually hell. And that fellow screening visitors out? He’s doing us a favor. You see, God would never want anyone in Heaven who’d be willing to abandon their best friend. That sign serves as a test – and you passed.”

This story is adapted from ‘The Hunt,’ a 1962 episode of The Twilight Zone written by Rod Serling.

The Helpful Gatekeeper

At my first command in the military, I shared a room with a roommate who went away for the weekend. He had a VCR and TV, and I asked him if there was anything I should know about his side of the room – anything off-limits, anyone who might stop by. He said no, wished me a good weekend, and left.

Minutes later, someone I didn’t know banged on the door. When I opened it, they tried to barge in. Their neck met my arm blocking the doorway.

“Excuse me, this isn’t your room.”

“I’m just borrowing So-and-So’s VCR and TV.”

“No, you’re not. I don’t know you, and I specifically asked about his stuff. He didn’t mention you or give anyone permission to borrow anything while he was gone.”

They left empty-handed.

On Monday, I asked my roommate about our neighbor. “Can he borrow your stuff when you’re not here?”

“No. Absolutely not.”

Turns out I was a gatekeeper – but for the right reasons. I denied someone who didn’t have permission to take my roommate’s property.

The Bureaucratic Gatekeeper

When my wife and I moved to the Washington DC area, she needed a license from a DC government office to work. The day she went to get it, she came home in tears. The person at the licensing office had given her the runaround.

That didn’t sit well with me.

The next day, I went to the office with all her paperwork. I held up the form and asked the person behind the counter, “Who’s supposed to approve this?”

They gave me the doctor’s name. A quick online search located the doctor’s office – on another floor of the same building. I went there, got the signature, found a copier, and made a copy of the signed form.

Back at the licensing office, I approached the counter with the signed form. “How much is the license fee?”

They told me the amount. I handed them the exact cash and the signed form.

“How did you get this signed?!” Their eyes ping-ponged between me and the form.

“The doctor signed it. Right there.” I pointed to the signature.

They accepted the paperwork and my money, stamped everything, and gave me a receipt.

When I got home, I asked my wife, “Would it make you happy if you never had to go back to that DC office?”

“Yes. That was awful.”

I handed her the approved license. “Nobody messes with my wife.”

Ironically, DC changed their process after that. But my wife never had to deal with that office – or that bureaucrat – again.

The Digital Gatekeepers

These stories perfectly capture what I’m seeing in online author communities. It’s happening in Facebook forums, Reddit threads, and Discord servers across the internet. And frankly, it’s killing communities that are supposed to support new authors.

Let me be direct: I’m talking about gatekeeping.

The Author Forum Gatekeeping Problem

Here’s how it typically unfolds:

A new author joins a “support” forum and asks a basic question like, “How do I format my manuscript?” or “How do I publish….?” The actual question doesn’t matter.

Instead of answers, that new author who’s never been to the forum before get the following responses:

“Why didn’t you Google this before coming to the forum?”

“This has been asked ad nauseam.. Why didn’t you search the forum to see if someone posted the question before.”

“You need to stop embarrassing yourself as an author and do your own research before asking questions here.”

I found that gatekeeper’s lengthy rant absurd. The word ‘support’ appears right in the forum name.

Other gatekeepers joined in to add their two cents. So I suggested creating a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) to address these repetitive questions.

Predictably, the forum administrator shut it down. “FAQs don’t work because they get too bloated and people don’t read or search them anyway.”

Wait. Let me get this straight.

You won’t create an FAQ because “people don’t read them.”

You won’t provide search guidance because “no one’s done it.”

You won’t organize resources because “it’s too much work.”

But you have endless energy to complain about new people asking questions.

See the problem?

What the Research Actually Shows

I’m a federal adjudicator with over 40 years of experience in forensic psychology and behavioral assessment. I don’t rely on feelings – I rely on data. So, I looked up what research actually says about online gatekeeping.

Here’s what I found:

Research with over 7,500 participants found that people who exclude others from groups are perceived as less likable but more committed to the group’s values. Translation: Gatekeepers genuinely believe they’re protecting the community, even as they destroy it.

The correlation is undeniable: As deletions and hostility increase, community activity decreases because people don’t feel welcome. This isn’t theory – it’s documented across multiple studies of online communities.

About 40% of all internet users have faced some form of online harassment, with nearly one in three teens experiencing cyberbullying. The problem is pervasive.

Here’s the part that should concern every forum administrator: Toxicity is contagious. It often starts with one or two people using aggressive language under the guise of being helpful. If tolerated, it quickly becomes the norm, derailing healthy discourse and alienating new members.

And the most damaging finding? Newcomers asking basic questions are often met with condescension from self-appointed “experts,” creating environments that intimidate learners and reward showmanship over constructive discourse.

The Fundamental Absurdity

Let’s examine the logic of “Google it before posting here.”

If someone finds their answer on Google, they won’t need the forum at all.

So what exactly is this support forum for?

Is it to answer questions? No, because we’re told not to ask them.

Is it to provide organized resources? No, because an FAQ won’t be created.

Is it to help newcomers? No, because basic questions are criticized.

Is it to build a supportive community? Hard to say when new members are attacked for asking questions.

If the expectation is that people should already know the answers before posting, then this isn’t actually a support forum – it’s a club for people who’ve already figured things out.

The Three Types of People Who Show Up

In my experience monitoring these forums, I’ve identified three distinct groups:

The scammers and predators – offering subpar services, trying to exploit new authors. They’re pervasive, and despite platform safeguards, they persist to a troubling degree.

The perpetual pessimists and Debbie Downers – stuck in chronic negativity, unable or unwilling to find any goodness in their own lives or anyone else’s. They drain energy from every conversation.

The genuine learners – people who come to ask questions, which may be newcomers to experienced authors – as there’s always something new to learn.

And here’s what gets me: The most energy gets exerted to stop and shut down that third group. Not the scammers. Not the chronic complainers. The people asking honest questions.

That pattern gets old too quick.

My Personal Experience

“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” – Mahatma Gandhi

Throughout my career, I’ve created FAQs at every organization where I’ve worked – typically spending two or more years building and refining them. I wrote answers in my own voice and addressed common questions the way people actually wanted them answered.

Someone in leadership would discover the FAQ webpages and take them over to add their own two-cents. They’d rewrite everything with corporate-speak, and the once-popular FAQs became useless, with leadership clueless why anyone complained.

The irony? People would come back to me for copies of my original FAQ, which I kept updating privately – just not on the organization’s hijacked website.

It’s the same pattern in online forums. Those in charge won’t adopt real solutions. They’ll either reject them outright or sanitize them until they’re useless. They don’t want problems fixed – they want the ability to complain.

What I Continue to Do

Provide helpful, detailed answers with sources to anyone asking a genuine question – especially new authors trying to figure things out. Because that’s what a support forum should actually do: support people.

When gatekeepers in that forum attack question-askers, it’s a good reminder to share the administrator refuses to create an FAQ or any other solution, which makes it impossible for anyone to claim “you should have known better” when there’s no system in place to help people know better.

If this forum won’t create the infrastructure to help people find answers, then it’s unreasonable to criticize them for not finding those answers. Because it’s not possible to expect people to navigate a system that doesn’t exist.

And if the real expectation is that people should Google everything before coming here, then we should be honest about what this space actually is: not a support forum, but a place for experienced authors to demonstrate what they already know.

The Real Cost of Gatekeeping

Here’s what research confirms about the consequences:

Gatekeeping reduces diversity and inclusivity, creating homogeneous environments where everyone looks, thinks, and acts alike.

It stifles creativity and innovation. When people feel they need to conform to rigid standards or fear being judged for their ideas, they’re less likely to think outside the box.

The most common cause of community toxicity is the absence of clearly documented guidelines and consistent moderation practices.

Toxicity accelerates when moderators turn a blind eye to bad behavior from prolific posters.

The pattern is documented across industries, from federal agencies to Facebook forums. Someone identifies a problem. Someone builds a solution. The solution works. Leadership sanitizes it into uselessness. People quietly return to the original creator.

That’s been my whole career: building systems that actually help people, watching those systems get corrupted by people who care more about control than function, and continuing to help people anyway – just through different channels.

What Support Actually Looks Like

“Life’s most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Real support means:

Creating and maintaining resources that help people find answers

Responding to questions with patience and detail

Providing sources and references

Modeling the behavior you want to see in the community

Protecting new members from predators AND from toxic veterans

Building infrastructure instead of just complaining about its absence

Quality isn’t enough. My picture books have the same professional quality as my bestsellers – same illustrator, editor, production standards – yet without marketing they remained invisible. Quality opens doors, but active support gets you through them.

The same is true for community building. You can have the best intentions in the world, but without infrastructure and consistent, supportive moderation, it’s just another place where new authors get beaten down.

The Bottom Line

“Never be a gatekeeper, always be a tour guide.” – Unknown

Research is clear: Gatekeeping behavior damages communities, drives away the very people you’re supposed to help, and creates echo chambers where only the “worthy” get to participate.

I’ve spent over 40 years helping people navigate complex systems. I’ve built resources, answered thousands of questions, and watched gatekeepers try to control access to information that should be freely available.

And I’m going to keep doing what I’ve always done: providing detailed, sourced answers to anyone who asks. Because that’s what support looks like.

Not complaints.

Not barriers.

Not moving goalposts.

Just help.

And I never helped anyone by telling them to Google or search other online search engines.

I helped them by actually helping them.

And I’ll continue doing the same in author communities.

What about you? Have you experienced gatekeeping in your creative community? How did you handle it? Share your story in the comments below.

______________________________________________________________________________

About the Author

J.W. Zarek is a Wall Street Journal Bestselling Author with seven #1 bestsellers out of nine published books. He is a Federal Senior Adjudicator with over 40 years of combined military and federal service, serving as a court-qualified expert witness with expertise in forensic psychology, statement analysis, and behavioral assessment. His picture books for children ages 4-8 feature Slavic mythology and focus on his “I am enough” mission.

Learn more: www.jwzarek.com  

______________________________________________________________________________

Sources and Further Reading

Weingarten, E., Gershon, R., & Bhattacharjee, A. (2025). The interpersonal consequences of community gatekeeping. Research with 7,549 participants.

Hawk, S. (2022). Dealing with Toxicity in Online Communities. Research on online community moderation.

Sibai, O., & de Valck, K. (2024). Why Moderators Can’t Protect Online Communities on Their Own. Harvard Business Review.

Welbers, K., & Opgenhaffen, M. (2018). Social media gatekeeping: An analysis of the gatekeeping influence. Journalism Studies.

Various studies on online community moderation and toxic behavior from peer-reviewed journals (2019-2025).