It is very easy to do easily if you let go of a common assumption: that moderators are unbiased neutral entities that have to respect free speech. Free speech

It is very easy to do easily if you let go of a common assumption: that moderators are unbiased neutral entities that have to respect free speech. Free speech is a legal principle that allows communitieS of various opinions to appear, gather, discuss. When one wants to create a community, one needs to have stronger standards than that as some subjects will tend to focus the attention on them. We had an interesting experiment during a political shitstorm on /r/france (during the "Dieudonné affair" if you are interested): one month without political subjects. Heavy, exaggerated, broad, moderation line. Heh, it was a huge success! People who wanted to talk politics went to another sub (/r/francelibre or /r/politique) and the rest of the sub talked about lighter subjects. And enjoyed it. But also, on the technical side, as someone who was active on Slashdot, I find reddit's system primitive and much easier to game. I am surprised that in a decade no better system has emerged. Something that would use different weights for different people votes depending on your preferences. I would like setting to say "I want to see what people I find funny comment on that" next to "I want to see what people I disagree with, minus those I tagged troll, say about this".