Ok, i was reviewing that other thread. Interesting so far, but IMO it's not enough to really come up with something much different than Saidit.

For example, you said:

I see no need for site-wide moderation (except for things like illegal content, porn, etc.).

Then you mention how mods would have total control over their subs... how do you reconcile these two features/ideas? In theory it's a contradiction. Either mods have FULL control and allow literally anything, or by definition they will have PARTIAL control. Where that line really is, I think is besides the point, because you will be in the same position as Saidit where someone else is telling you what is allowed in your sub. You can argue, well porn is obvious, however there is infinite amounts of gray area where the discussion could never end as to what should or should not be considered porn, depending on the sub.

In other words, if it's not the owner of the sub having FULL control, then eventually the discussion of where the boundaries are for PARTIAL control would land you more/less where Saidit (and even Reddit) is at the moment. This is the core of a lot of the problems. People disagree on what is allowed, but that's because it's almost impossible to define that line of partial control.