Most community moderation systems suffer from groupthink and the tyrrany of the majority however. It'd be an interesting experiment though.
Well... isn't groupthink, to some extent, part of what makes a community?
Not so much thinking in exactly the same direction, but at least being brought together by a set of factors the community members have in common.
Most of us, for example, are here because we're interested in MS in some way. Some of us work for the company, others want to, others don't but would like to see inside, and so on.
That's going to lead to some insularity. It's like joining a Harley club or getting together on poker night. There's that common bond that brings you all together.
It's just the glue, though - as you learn after joining a group, you eventually start having conversations outside the domain of the reason for which the group was created (like the Coffeehouse).
But the initial binding factor is still present - some people wouldn't have met if it weren't for a common interest in Harleys or poker.
Even within the vertical communities that are created by people coming together for a set of very specific reasons, there will be discord among the members over topics of discussion. But, hopefully, that discord remains a difference of
opinion, and not the lead-in to three pages of ad-hominem attacks as we've seen here.
There's nothing wrong with dissent - without it, there's actually little reason to continue a conversation. It's what creates the conflict and drama that makes discussion lively. The challenge is to keep the discussions at least remotely on topic, and
about the topic rather than becoming mud-slinging exercises in which members post inflammatory vitriole in attempts to derail the conversations.
How do you do that without some kind of a system? The "Please Don't" approach doesn't seem to be working.
Any ideas, anyone? Alternatives are always welcome...