If the "aim is to put the responsibility for moderating into the hands of the community" what is to stop an impetuous group of passionate posters turn on a post that is unpopular (might support the WTS actions, or Creationism ) but does not really violate the posting rules? At least the mods are selected & trained to be impartial. Rule by the crowd can be unjust.
There will always be checks and balances to protect against people trying to game the system. I can't go into details because it would take too long to explain but the basic premise is that you rate the ratings - if someone appeals against an action and it's found to be incorrect then it diminishes the reputation of those who actioned it. Nothing to concern regular posters who may get odd things wrong but if a group is following some agenda then you make sure that the pattern is identified and becomes a downgrade for them rather than others as they were intending.
The flagging is for violation of the rules, not for what people like or dislike (separate buttons for those). If someone is flagging things that are not violations then at some point that becomes a violation.
Also, any chance of a spell check signal - pleeze?
Most browsers have this built-in now.
Wait. so does this mean the old site will close?
It will be transferred / redirected to the new site. Any old links will automatically transfer.
Once it's running OK then the old site will be archived and the server decommissioned.