>>106366919
>>106367370
>>106367416
I thought about that before and realized it will give way more power to OP, so like the anon said: a discussion between OP and others rather than OP only starting the discussion. And that will create duplicated threads: ones with "good" OPs and others with "bad" ones.

So instead, staying with the idea of making OP responsible for his thread, we can give him soft power, like the ability to hide instead of delete/ban, so people aligned with his judgment and the opposers can use the thread.

And ideally, make it a p2p system: Instead of a website we have a tracker of threads, and people can start a thread and attach it to a tracker. Threads can be seeded to keep them alive, instead of hosted on a centralized server. That's Cheap to host and provides a proper way for people to vote for good threads instead of upvotes.

Users can have an identity if desired by signing posts with their private key using some asymmetric authentication method.