(This is different text than what is seen on this page, more recent)
Download the "poll_to_post_summary1-14.pdf
After spending way too many hours on bulletin boards that were supposed to be on a specific subject, I realized that the posters who were serious and capable of productive discussion were approximately 25% of the total. They were buried in compulsive expression that had no tangible product, or worse. I made this proposal you are reading on one forum for comment on improving message board performance and it was answered with. "Way beyond the capabilities of this software." So I present the concept here to those who have a reason to want a unified opinion.
What follows is the beginning proposal that could develop the largest and most functional forum to exist on planet earth. I believe those who really care know how badly this is needed.
The more I think about the moderators power, I realize that the poll feature requirement for each post is really the best way and thereby lets the posters themselves order the issues of the topic as they see fit. It needs three options to begin to serve us.
Since the diversity of topic and division of topic appears as such a force of confusion in this medium, I feel that many posters have a degree of anxiety they self treat with their expressions. There are no bad intentions in this case. Only a varyingly manifested indulgence in compulsion. This is a very human matter. It is a case of frivolity, humor, incidentals etc. My question is are we prepared to sacrifice function to empower such things and if we are not going to, what is the most fair and functional way to empower it to order itself?
Poll to Post bulletin board software:
The first of three poll options, for optimized performance seems best as, ON TOPIC?. When a person responds to that poll option they express whether or not the post they are reading is in the realm of the topic at all. The next is a rating of how relevant the post is in the order of the topic issues in the forum. In the beginning of a topic this sets the initial order of relevancy of issue in the forum, later it rates the posts for relevancy of posts in the thread.
Redundancy is the most congestive element of a topic. Posts that address preexisting issues of the topic which already have a poll majority standing indicating agreement, need to be attached to their area of agreement with a descending order as to their relevance in the issue they reply to. Relevance thought to be already known addressed with a post, could occasionally become more relevant with new information.
In order to reply to a post in the "poll to post" concept in a topic issue thread it would be required to address the poll queries in order to reply to that post. All posting is done in response to a thread topic statement or creates a thread with a distinct, unique topic in the forum. Within a thread every posts importance/relevance to the issue as well as the post content regarding currency with the development of the issues as it relates to the thread would be a product of the poll; looking something like this three digit number;
1 = ON TOPIC ( only 1 YES or, 2 NO)
4= ISSUE RELEVANCE TO TOPIC(1, more important or essential, less up to 9)
3 = RELEVANCE IN CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OF ISSUE. (1 more, or less up to 9)
After a certain number of three digit reply poll responses on a single post that looked like this, 111, would be at the top of the posts in that thread for importance/relevance within the thread and its topic rather than this, 299, which would put it at the bottom.
To limit abuses a first digit rating that goes against evidence, reason or a trend of agreement, must be backed by explanation, evidence and reason. Users agree to explain a number 2 in the first digit position. Explanation is measured in text quantity by automation then by content by users. A user must hold the first digit position as basically sacred and be able to explain their poll response in ways that are recognized by the majority as reasonable. So the trend is democratically determined by majority. Each user is responsible to detect nonsense text falsely fulfilling the automated "quantity of text criteria" required when voting 2 in the first digit position. Nonsense in the text will be spotted by the majority of users giving them reason for a disqualifying rating in the first digit position and a backfire for those abusing the required polling.
Posts within the thread would be initially sorted into common "issue"sub topics by division of the thread by the second digit, later that digit would define the posts relevance to the issue within the thread if it was further responded to. Each thread would have a maximum of nine issues. Threads would have only two layers. The topic itself and the sub topics within it. Off topic postings have no standing at the beginning of the thread and fill out the bottom of past the descending relevance topics posts below the ninth issue. If a poster gets too many 2's in their accounts first digit position, the off topic posts they have made could be deleted or automatically relocated to an unmoderated/polled forum. Further they could be disabled from posting in the thread or forumby moderators any longer.
The posts in an issue are ordered to current relevancy by the third digit and the newest post is always the second in the thread, while the most relevant post is first. This way a more relevant post to the topic of the therad can replace the first when its accumulation of low numbers by the poll response of subsequent reply exceeds, with reply quantity, while still dropping below the third digit sum total value of the top post. Postings would tend to be shorter, more focused and address the issues of the topic with far less redundancy. Posters would best describe their application of ratings in the polls to compel readers to in turn post in reply with low numbers in the second and third digits in their poll responses of their reply posts.
When visiting the thread, the user sees up to ten different posts. The first of which is the original post creating the topic. The following nine are the relative importance of the addressed issues with a descending order establishing the users perceived importance/relativity of the issues to the topic.
If they decide the order of relevancy of issues in the topic is not correct, they go down to an issue thread in the topic they believe is more relevant to the topic, post in reply to its first post, and give the ON TOPIC? a number 1 in the first digit. If the content of the post addressing the order of importance/relevance issues to the topic is agreed upon a 1 or higher number is put in the second digit position and the development aspect. the third digit higher, then address with content why the higher number was used with regard to topic position and seek reply/poll in support.
That post now rests second in the issue thread. Again, by supporting the relevance to the topic of the top post on an issue the second post gathers, by virtue of its content asserting that the entire issue is rated too low in the topics order of issues, and gathering low numbers in the second and third digit positions of reply/poll enough times, the post moves to top post in the issue. If it remains there gathering a majority of number 1's in the second and third digit positions by subsequent posts then the entire issue moves upward towards the number one issue of the topic. It is likely that this will happen quickly and opposition from higher rated issues will have to fairly justify their application of higher numbers in the second and third digit positions with posted content or risk very high numbers by those posting in reply to their posts and placing high numbers in the second and third digit positions. When issues ascend they should be fairly stable in a short time.
If issues in a topic move around too often then it is likely that the issues of the topic are actually sub topics in the forum and then could be listed immediately below the initiating topic in the forum. The main index would show the forums list, the forums the topics, the topics then the issues. Only by the issues becoming so controversial in a topic, could they by numeration of poll product, become sub topics in the forum. Of course the poll fields and accumulated total reply/poll responses with the totals for the second and third digit portions would have to be a part of the POST REPLY PAGE. It seems that the second layer of the issues and the database that crunches and orders the issues of the topic and the posts of the issues is really the only new aspect of software.
The proposal is imperfect and certainly complicated enough to justify a flow chart to eliminate confusion and refine function. The fiefdoms that tend to coalesce may still dominate occasionally, but that may make them legitimate by asserting that a majority does not necessarily need to make perfect sense but instead makes its point by showing it feels very strongly on certain issues and is capable of mounting notable opposition to a given, accepted logic. In many ways defining what maybe, a new forum.
If you think about it, the user/member will have greater trust of a board if the members themselves moderate with their polling and reasoning. If their poll ratings are negative, they better have good reasoning to support it. Good reasoning gets positive polls and supporting reasoning and more positive polls as well as reasoning. Each forum is self prioritizing as well as each thread.
The most important post in a thread is at the beginning and the most important thread is at the top of the thread cue. The newest post is the first post below the last positive supporting post and will drop if it is not supported by positive polls. Positive polls to a post place the supporting, positive post next. When there is a predetermined number of supporting posts (number set by admin.), the post supported replaces the post above it and it raises towards the top.
The thread that has the most supporting posts is at the top of the forum thread cue.
The need for sub topics:
Subjects frequently have foundation issues which must be determined before the subject can be reasonably debated to conclusion. For this reason threads should be divisible and automatically locked until the foundation issue is resolved forcing the most permanent conclusion. Dividing a thread requires a certain number of positive posts (number set by admin.) responding to the proposal to divide before the thread divides and locks waiting on resolution of the founding issue which is determined by a certain number of positive posts (number set by admin.) supporting the specific reason for dividing the thread into the founding issue and the issue itself.
When the founding issue is resolved the post proposing it falls second in the thread to the most supported post and it links to the division thread where the usual priority of agreement is seen that created the division.
The Poll to Post board will take getting used to. Skills will develop. Everyone will have to read better and create more relevant content. At some point an entire topic could be very much a done deal with a wide relative consensus. Entering into a new status altogether as an archived topic or new forum with a fully distilled set of issues that would be very educational to any one new to the site. No more controversy, settled, gone. History. Until conditions in the world change, and they will eventually.
With this kind of message board empowering free speech responsibly and logically with technology, the changes will be for the best.
Wikipedia-misinformation on the Constitution