Discussion that doesn't burn out its moderators.
Reddit leans on a few unpaid volunteers for spam, abuse and every argument about the rules. Commonts takes that load off them, and puts the rules where they can't be changed against the people who use them.
A district garage is fine in principle, but who pays for it?
Disagree without burying anyone.
Disagreeing never moves a comment down. It tells other readers the room is split, and that is all it does.
Same numbers, different rooms. Helpful and Disagree are separate buttons, so we can see who pressed both — people who disagreed and still found it useful. That earns a label, never a boost.
Juries, not a single moderator.
A report goes to five members drawn at random, not to whoever happens to be online. Penalties fade, and every finding can be appealed.
- Random and screened. Jurors never took part in the thread or know the people involved.
- Four of five, or it escalates. A split panel goes to nine fresh jurors instead of a coin flip.
- Nobody is banned in one click. Marks fade over months; only repeated findings add up to a cooldown.
- Appeals go to a new panel. And every outcome is in the public mod log, with the vote count.
Contempt loses its audience.
Say what you think, as bluntly as you like. Just don't make it about the person.
When a post goes after people instead of the point, it isn't removed and nobody is penalized. It goes behind the civility curtain: most readers don't see it by default, and nothing behind it earns reactions.
Before anything is posted, you see a private note and a version that keeps your point. Reword it, and you're heard. Post it anyway, and it waits a few minutes behind the curtain.
Abuse is different. Degrading someone, threats, harassment, doxxing and spam are still reported, judged by a jury and removed.
Anyone who thinks a garage fixes this is an idiot.
One person. One account.
A verified phone number, never stored, only a one-way fingerprint. Bot farms, spam waves and ban evasion stop being cheap.
The rules can't be changed against you.
Comments, in a commons: a place that belongs to the people who use it.
commons noun · a shared space that belongs to everyone who uses it, not to whoever runs it.
The logo is a Roman arcade, the colonnade around a forum where people met to argue in public. The name draws its two m's the same way.
Platforms change their rules whenever it suits them. On Commonts, verified members hold a lock: changes to content principles, privacy commitments and how ranking works need their vote.
Moderators keep the part only they can do.
Everything else is handled by structure: who can post, how disagreement works, and who decides when something crosses a line.
One person, one account
Every account is a verified phone. Bots, spam waves and ban evasion mostly disappear, which is most of a moderator's day elsewhere.
Disagree freely
There's no downvote. Disagreeing never buries anyone and never moves a comment: it only shows other readers that people disagreed.
Juries, not one-click bans
Reports go to a random jury of members. Penalties are graduated, fade over time, and can be appealed to a fresh panel.
Contempt loses its audience
Posts that attack people rather than ideas go behind a civility curtain. Nobody is punished. Reword it, and you're heard.
Every action in public
Moderator actions and jury findings are logged where anyone can read them, with reasons.
Members hold the lock
Changes to content principles, privacy commitments and ranking need a vote of verified members.
Bring your community to the commons.
We're looking for a few subreddit mod teams and forum admins to shape Commonts before it opens. Click around the demo, then tell us what your community would need at contact@commonts.com.
Both sides are describing the same street at different hours. A shared garage plus no minimums gets the housing built without betting the shops on it.