>It wouldn't be groups at all, it would be that people would be established as being good actors or not. Is there not already such things here? >Think of reddit, do you trust powermods? no, but those are the people with the largest following (maybe). Mods here moderate subs they create. >So you don't trust them, but do you trust go1dfish? yes, and he trusts people as well. Well, I have no idea who that is and I really don't care either, this is not Reddit. >when a branch gets cancerous you can remove it. Again, this is only for you, no one else (unless they rely on you for a branch, and then you are removing a bad branch for both). There are plenty of tools here already to do that sort of thing. You can block users or subs and simply ignore either like an adult. >Yes, this would promote echo-chambers if people were censored based on this, and you trusted occupy democrat users only, but if you trusted people based on your interactions with them being productive, then you wouldn't be in an echo chamber; it would be completely up to each user. So you want a solution to something that is not a problem here and already has things in place to do what you want? >What currently happens is that (again, poal isn't large enough) people get censored by shitheads and there is nothing the users can do about it.Or think about wikipedia, if you want the version that hasn't been (((curated))) then you would just not trust those telaviv users. What are you talking about? Who is "censored" on Poal? This is not wikipedia either.