The rules come from several years back and at least two mods esteemed by all who are now missing and who our present active mod aspires to emulate. They reflect a community desire that personal attacks be rejected across the board. TINAE decided that those few contributors who like to attack and be attacked with equal rights can be accommodated with a warning tag to indicate to the other contributors that the ordinary rules aren't in effect.
Most "free speech zones", however, are laughable exceptions to censorship of topics. No topics are forbidden here.
Have people VOTE on moderated comments and posts. Put "Remove" or "Keep" in the replies. If 75% or more of the repliers say 'remove' within 24 hours it's removed. Otherwise keep it.
To prevent sockpuppets from manipulating a binding vote count, one would need to determine who is on the approved list of contributors enabled to be counted in binding votes. Nobody here seems to like that level of control, we can hardly even get a consensus on anything except accidentally.
Interesting but a bit impractical based on timing, plus we have a regular supply of presumptive sockpuppets. Plus IMHO the regulars aren't enamored of an enumerated voting citizenry. Anyone can propose community questions anytime, so you're free to ask the community to comment more directly on your proposal.
The rules come from several years back and at least two mods esteemed by all who are now missing and who our present active mod aspires to emulate. They reflect a community desire that personal attacks be rejected across the board. TINAE decided that those few contributors who like to attack and be attacked with equal rights can be accommodated with a warning tag to indicate to the other contributors that the ordinary rules aren't in effect.
Most "free speech zones", however, are laughable exceptions to censorship of topics. No topics are forbidden here.
And the ChiComs' rules are old too. That makes them right.
Propose changes for the community's review.
Have people VOTE on moderated comments and posts. Put "Remove" or "Keep" in the replies. If 75% or more of the repliers say 'remove' within 24 hours it's removed. Otherwise keep it.
To prevent sockpuppets from manipulating a binding vote count, one would need to determine who is on the approved list of contributors enabled to be counted in binding votes. Nobody here seems to like that level of control, we can hardly even get a consensus on anything except accidentally.
Interesting but a bit impractical based on timing, plus we have a regular supply of presumptive sockpuppets. Plus IMHO the regulars aren't enamored of an enumerated voting citizenry. Anyone can propose community questions anytime, so you're free to ask the community to comment more directly on your proposal.