ASM
Chieftain
Most message board systems on the net are reminiscent of monarchies or oligarchies. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with this. Monarchies and oligarchies work very well when the people in control are just. I would just like to propose a fun alternative, based on the Athenian democratic system. I think it could work.
I'll go through all of the major points of the Athenian democracy and then show how it could be implemented in a message board system.
I. THE ASSEMBLY
In ancient Athens, the assembly consisted of all male citizens above the age of 18 who wanted to attend the sessions that were held about once a week. At the sessions, anyone at all could speak up and voice their mind on the issues at hand. The assembly was the group of people who voted on all of the decisions.
On a message board, this could easily be handled. Any poster who has acculumated more than x number of points (points being a measure of how many posts and the quality of the posts) is allowed to vote on how many points any post receives. To encourage objective voting, anyone who posts in that certain thread would not be allowed the vote on any posts in that thread. Voting on a post involves this:
-checking a box on whether the post should remain visible or become invisible
-rating the post on a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 being the lowest and 5 being the highest
-checking a box saying whether the voter "agrees", "disagrees", or "isn't sure" with the post.
The rating of the post will add into the total number of points the poster has, unless there have been more votes for "invisible" than for "visible", making him/her more eligible to be a voter.
These people would also vote on changes to the forum, such as increasing or decreasing x. This would be done in a manner similar to the Athenian method, with a thread attached to a poll where people can voice their opinions and debate the matter at hand.
II. OSTRACISM
In ancient Athens, on a set date, voters could write on a piece of clay the name of a man who should be banished from Athens. If one man received a certain number of votes, he was banished.
Once every y days, a box would appear on the website asking the voter to type in the username of someone who should be banned. Very simple.
III. THE COUNCIL
The council in ancient Athens was a group of people over 30 who were randomly chosen once a year to head up and administer the votes. Nobody could serve two years in succession.
In a message board, this would equate to the webmaster. z people with more than m (m > x, hopefully, but that can be voted on) points could be chosen to be the webmasters, who would put up all the polls and the ostracism boxes.
Of course, at the start, noone would be eligible to vote, and noone could vote on any posts to increase people's eligibility. So, until about 100 people are eligible, it would have to be like the current system of message boards. With message boards that already exist but just want to change to this democratic system, though, this wouldn't be a problem.
What say you?
I'll go through all of the major points of the Athenian democracy and then show how it could be implemented in a message board system.
I. THE ASSEMBLY
In ancient Athens, the assembly consisted of all male citizens above the age of 18 who wanted to attend the sessions that were held about once a week. At the sessions, anyone at all could speak up and voice their mind on the issues at hand. The assembly was the group of people who voted on all of the decisions.
On a message board, this could easily be handled. Any poster who has acculumated more than x number of points (points being a measure of how many posts and the quality of the posts) is allowed to vote on how many points any post receives. To encourage objective voting, anyone who posts in that certain thread would not be allowed the vote on any posts in that thread. Voting on a post involves this:
-checking a box on whether the post should remain visible or become invisible
-rating the post on a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 being the lowest and 5 being the highest
-checking a box saying whether the voter "agrees", "disagrees", or "isn't sure" with the post.
The rating of the post will add into the total number of points the poster has, unless there have been more votes for "invisible" than for "visible", making him/her more eligible to be a voter.
These people would also vote on changes to the forum, such as increasing or decreasing x. This would be done in a manner similar to the Athenian method, with a thread attached to a poll where people can voice their opinions and debate the matter at hand.
II. OSTRACISM
In ancient Athens, on a set date, voters could write on a piece of clay the name of a man who should be banished from Athens. If one man received a certain number of votes, he was banished.
Once every y days, a box would appear on the website asking the voter to type in the username of someone who should be banned. Very simple.
III. THE COUNCIL
The council in ancient Athens was a group of people over 30 who were randomly chosen once a year to head up and administer the votes. Nobody could serve two years in succession.
In a message board, this would equate to the webmaster. z people with more than m (m > x, hopefully, but that can be voted on) points could be chosen to be the webmasters, who would put up all the polls and the ostracism boxes.
Of course, at the start, noone would be eligible to vote, and noone could vote on any posts to increase people's eligibility. So, until about 100 people are eligible, it would have to be like the current system of message boards. With message boards that already exist but just want to change to this democratic system, though, this wouldn't be a problem.
What say you?
