Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, I've vouched for it too, mainly because it would be nice to have the option on HN to simply ignore the flags for those who feel they can handle it and don't need to be told by others what they can and can not discuss. It would be a pretty simple affair software wise, those that need it can have their safe space and those that don't can discuss whatever they want without being shouted down. Seems like the optimal…
The thing about no moderation spaces (above and beyond legal requirements) is that they become tools of organized trolling efforts (harassment campaigns and the like). Having an unmoderated space on the internet is basically the social equivalent of having an open smtp relay. But if this "ignore flags" version of hackernews were to have any moderation at all to prevent the above, it would basically mean forcing extra…
I highly doubt that. Typically a normal discussion (such as this one) is underway and the suddenly the whole thing is killed. That's rude, to put it mildly and I see absolutely no harm in letting those discussions continue with the normal 'up/down' vote mechanism taking care of the moderation. Flagging just affects the ordering of the stories and does not have anything to do with the comments within those stories.
Note that there is no reason that you would not be able to discuss this site and yet the discussion is flagged so the majority of HN will never see it. I don't like that, I think it puts too much weight to the flags in relation to the upvotes.