Community building is the most noble project on the Internet, and this is a unique attempt to organize it further. Communities, not software or commerce or entertainment, is what the Internet was motivated from in the 90's and will be the most remembered aspect in 50 years, so it is important to create experimental community harbors like these to possibly incubate future massive projects.
However, I am curious why you chose two features from which to derive your community software.
Voting: This has been demonstrated by major websites to form "mob opinions", hide individuality, and discourage of unpopular/unoriginal ideas. It is somewhat agreed by Hacker News members that voting should represent quality of comments. But as the size of a website approaches infinity (like Reddit, or Facebook comments with "liking"), this type of culture breaks down, so voting is eventually only used to game the system to promote comments that follow your personal opinion. Differing opinions are a beautiful aspect of humankind, and they are lost when a comment's score is used to make it visible in an unequal manner to other comments. Additionally, voting has little correlation with the effort that goes into a comment. A one-word reply is just as likely to have the same score as a wiki-like hand-typed article and will therefore be artificially promoted to the same level. I believe that if you're running an online news website, sure, absolutely promote "top" content. If it's a community forum, give people an equal voice.
Threading/hierarchy: Human conversation has not and will not change as a result of Internet community software. Hierarchy is unnatural, chronology is natural. If the goal of a community is to generate "answers" to "questions", sometimes this unnatural feature is necessary, but use caution and don't over-hierarchy-ize the organization. Having a "Support" and "Not support" feature like in your video demo adds to the paperwork of posting an answer while not offering much benefit, and it seems a bit O(n^2) to me.
However, I am curious why you chose two features from which to derive your community software.
Voting: This has been demonstrated by major websites to form "mob opinions", hide individuality, and discourage of unpopular/unoriginal ideas. It is somewhat agreed by Hacker News members that voting should represent quality of comments. But as the size of a website approaches infinity (like Reddit, or Facebook comments with "liking"), this type of culture breaks down, so voting is eventually only used to game the system to promote comments that follow your personal opinion. Differing opinions are a beautiful aspect of humankind, and they are lost when a comment's score is used to make it visible in an unequal manner to other comments. Additionally, voting has little correlation with the effort that goes into a comment. A one-word reply is just as likely to have the same score as a wiki-like hand-typed article and will therefore be artificially promoted to the same level. I believe that if you're running an online news website, sure, absolutely promote "top" content. If it's a community forum, give people an equal voice.
Threading/hierarchy: Human conversation has not and will not change as a result of Internet community software. Hierarchy is unnatural, chronology is natural. If the goal of a community is to generate "answers" to "questions", sometimes this unnatural feature is necessary, but use caution and don't over-hierarchy-ize the organization. Having a "Support" and "Not support" feature like in your video demo adds to the paperwork of posting an answer while not offering much benefit, and it seems a bit O(n^2) to me.