I nearly replied above to @investigate1999's remark that people should only be able to post with a 'good reputation', so it is in this context I reply. (I would have made two responses, but the posting of even comments is so restrictive I fear I may use up my allowance.)

Well, how does this kind of idea work? One has to build a reputation. How do you suggest they do that if someone can't contribute? I'm new to VOAT, but have been investigating in the area and have some background in strategic thinking and setting up 'random groups of bloggers' into something like an effective organization (within months), so - what are the hoops that one must jump through to attain a 'good reputation'? I didn't see Rule 4 previously to getting 3 posts banned, and then I ran into issues with being unable to post 'too many' per day? Can't send a message, can't post, can't upvote. It's constraining.

My goal is to focus on group goals and a vision and for targeted effectiveness. I'm still trying to find a way in as none of my posts could be shared due to my ... not being senior enough in some way. So, it's amazing I'm still here -- I am working some other groups, because this effort at prosecuting the guilty (or simply 'getting the word out', which I think is highly over-rated as a priority), is unorganized. Of course it is, it is new and there is enthusiasm. To not lose the momentum, we need a nucleus of Actors, with specifics that the bulk of people can provide their good services to in targeted ways. I need lawyers - legal minds - who can pro bono their way up to a discussion of what is prosecutable here, and the community needs to decide their vision -- is the goal to get 'everyone', or 'a few kingpens', or run of the mill pimps, etc.?