>>105965524 (OP)If I can only apply rules: Ban commercial use of the internet.
If I can administer: I would ban boring, centralized websites. A set of rules cannot be derived to decide when this occurs, so it will have to happen at my whim.
People blame moderation a lot and imagine the problem to be censorship and the answer to be freedom of speech. They're wrong. What's needed is not freedom of speech, It's freedom to be interesting. If you're posting something uninteresting, something we've all seen and heard before, your rights mean nothing. I don't care if it's left wing, right wing, or outright incomprehensible. You can post whatever commu-nazi screed you want so long as it's fun to read, but if it's not fun to read you get the chair. The purpose of the system is to be interesting.
People imagine that the problem with the internet is with the users: It isn't. It's with the websites themselves. Take good forum posters, good imageboard posters, take certifiable geniuses and put them on Twitter and the result will be slop. The solution, then, is to ban twitter, or to interfere with its layout and moderation practices until it becomes interesting. This is a principle you should apply to your own websites: If someone is making the place worse, ban them. You don't need a rule. If someone is really funny, but breaking a rule, let them stick around - unless it would be funnier and more interesting to ban them for a little while.