New Features For 06/09/2002

[JP]

Greetings All:

A couple of new things to take notice of:

1. Each thread now gets an AntiPoint Rating based on assignments made to posts within that thread. This will manifest itself with the "The Overall AntiPoint Status Of This Thread Is" that appears at the top of each thread made AFTER this went into effect. Threads made before this feature was added will all be marked "even".

2. You are now required to attempt to "balance out" the antipoints that you dish out. Not too many negative assignments, not too many positive assignments. If the system detects that you're "not balanced", you'll receive a notice explaining things on the main site page.

[JRoc]

Awesome... I have a notice though about assigning too many positives!

[jaguar291]

Kool JP!

[str34m3r]

I understand the need to give negatives to discourage people from posting stupid things. But, there's a lot more good posts here than bad posts. So this new rule now means that if I tell someone they're doing a good job, I also have to tell someone else their post is crap to stay even. People are just going to start handing out negs left and right to make that warning go away. And a lot of people who don't deserve negs are going to get them anyway. And some of the people who started off with a bad post or two, but are now cleaning up their act are going to get blasted back into the negatives by people searching for something to give negs to. It will be a red storm around here for the next few days.

[alittlebitnumb]

I agree with str34m3r...

[ArmyOfOne]

I strongly disagree with this, I sign more positive antipoints, than negatives.... not like I can help it. I do assign negative antipoints to all lamers, but not people with opposing views. Now I have to randomly assign negatives, just to get the message to leave? Hmm...

PS: I agree the str34m3r.

[{P²P}Apocalypse]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by str34m3r
I understand the need to give negatives to discourage people from posting stupid things. But, there's a lot more good posts here than bad posts. So this new rule now means that if I tell someone they're doing a good job, I also have to tell someone else their post is crap to stay even. People are just going to start handing out negs left and right to make that warning go away.

I say, I have to agree. As of now. I hand out 76% pos and 24% neg which I feel is a good ballance for myself. As the good posts ounumber the bad posts. I don't want to slam people with negs just so I can be even and to make the message go away. It's just that a 50/50 ratio is very unrealistic. Ask yourself. Are half of the post you make crapy and deserve negs. Nope. So would'nt it be more fair to set it so that if your positives stay between the range of 65-85% you'll be OK. That seems for fair than me having to give out undeserved negs just to ditch the warning. Geeez, I thought I was a bad person for giving out 24% negatives.

[geepod]

Well i am new to AO but so far have enjoyed my presence here. The only niggle I have is the Antipoints as i have already in my 3 day membership been warned that i might soon be banned just for things like using exclamation marks , i didnt quote a source and so it seemed cos i mentioned the word hacking ! I am not too bothered by this as i wil just learn to go with the flow and do what I have to do to remain a member but surely these new proposals will make things worse ?
Is it not possible to just have moderators assign the points or just moderate and not have any points at all ?
instead of chatting,learning etc i seem to have spent most of my time dealing with having low points already and having to go and assign points to toher posts just to get rid of messages on home page ?

[TechieChick]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by {P²P}Apocalypse

It's just that a 50/50 ratio is very unrealistic. Ask yourself. Are half of the post you make crapy and deserve negs. Nope. So would'nt it be more fair to set it so that if your positives stay between the range of 65-85% you'll be OK. That seems for fair than me having to give out undeserved negs just to ditch the warning. Geeez, I thought I was a bad person for giving out 24% negatives.

Do we know for certain that it's 50/50? Maybe that's part of the "magic" that we've not seen yet.

If not..I'll agree completely, I just don't see enough negative posts to qualify for that many points.

[JRoc]

wow... TechieChick.... ur ratio is 93% pos and 7% neg!!! You got alot to dish out lol...

[uraloony]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by str34m3r
I understand the need to give negatives to discourage people from posting stupid things. But, there's a lot more good posts here than bad posts. So this new rule now means that if I tell someone they're doing a good job, I also have to tell someone else their post is crap to stay even. People are just going to start handing out negs left and right to make that warning go away. And a lot of people who don't deserve negs are going to get them anyway. And some of the people who started off with a bad post or two, but are now cleaning up their act are going to get blasted back into the negatives by people searching for something to give negs to. It will be a red storm around here for the next few days.

I agree with this. I don't think a 50/50 ratio is a good ratio. Maybe a 80/20 or a 75/25, but a 50/50 is unrealistic IMO.

[draziw]

Hmmm... well I agree with the rest o' ya... I tend to assign mostly greenies, though there have been a lot of kiddies here as of late and I've thrown a couple of reds at them, too. I think 50/50 is pretty unrealistic, both based on the way I read posts and what sort of things I just "ignore." That is, I will often look to see who started a thread before even thinking about reading it (and, you guessed it, I only tend to read things of people that I think have a tendancy to post worthwhile stuff - and that's doubly true when I don't have a lot of time to spend here).

But, what happens when you get an overly positive balance? So far I've not seen the notice... does it mean your positives start counting for less or something? Or is it just an annoying message?

[TechieChick]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by draziw
Hmmm... well I agree with the rest o' ya... I tend to assign mostly greenies, though there have been a lot of kiddies here as of late and I've thrown a couple of reds at them, too. I think 50/50 is pretty unrealistic, both based on the way I read posts and what sort of things I just "ignore." That is, I will often look to see who started a thread before even thinking about reading it (and, you guessed it, I only tend to read things of people that I think have a tendancy to post worthwhile stuff - and that's doubly true when I don't have a lot of time to spend here).

But, what happens when you get an overly positive balance? So far I've not seen the notice... does it mean your positives start counting for less or something? Or is it just an annoying message?

Therin lies our answer boys and girls....Mr. Wizard is at 69% positive and doesn't have the balance message.

It's kind of like pixie dust at Disney...ya just have to believe. :D

[sumdumguy]

JP.. when you have a moment, I do hope you'll explain things a bit more..

Like what draziw said.. are there any ramifications to being unbalanced beyond the notice ?

[TechieChick]

If you're getting the notice it says this at the bottom...


If you ignore this message, and continue to be unbalanced in the way you assign AntiPoints, the system will reduce the impact that your assignments have on people.

[sumdumguy]

yeah.. stupid me.. i should of just read the main page (and JP's last sentence in the post)
still, if i want my points to mean anything to anyone else.. i'll have to hand out negs which
for the above reasons stated makes me feel uncomfortable..
here we are trying to build/maintain a community, not a police state where we all have to look over our shoulders...

oops. did i say that ?

[jehnx]

lmfao, look at mine. I given out negs before, but I assign so many positives all the time and they count for so much more now than when I gave out the negs, that it says 100% positive. Jeez, I'm really gonna have to start getting on the lamers, I guess. I don't really like this new feature. ::shrug::


EDIT: Well, it was 100%. I gave out a neg, hehe.

[Tedob1]

i think it sucks. if i disagree with something someone says, i have to hurt them? i prefer to tell them what i think. lame shit heads are one thing but just giving neg points to keep a balance just aint right.

[ammo]

With all due respect JP, the balance thing sucks...
I'm fine with unbalanced in the negative, but too much positive??!
Now we've got to like stinking cops and hand out negs because we have a quota to fill??
Why not just stop giving APs all together??!

Ammo

[cgkanchi]

I think that the balance thing isn't really a good idea. As a responsible member, I'd only like to give out negs when a person posts something seriously wrong. However, I think that the balance thing could work if it's only implemented for people giving too many negs.
Cheers,
cgkanchi

[Tedob1]

yeah, it was good to know we could get rid of some butthead by assigning neg points but this... it will do nothing to develop respect between members and IMO will cause disharmony.

[bquine]

I agree with what most people are saying here. I don't think people should be compelled to hand out negatives for the sake of balance. Especially now with auto ban and everything.

[JP]

Greetings All:

Ok, I think people are missing the "Big Picture" stuff here.

First off, the system only starts to "bitch" when you're 70% in either direction. Either 70% positive or 70% negative. From viewing the site logs, that's about the way I think it should be, too.

Secondly, you don't become "balanced" by just giving out negative antipoints needlessly. You also become "balanced" by not giving out positive antipoints to stupid little 1 sentence posts just because the person's your friend and you want to kiss ass (which happens a LOT).

Also, as with all other things related to the AntiPoints system, things aren't just black and white. The system looks at how you're assigning points compared to others, and if things appear to be "balanced" in that respect, you won't see the message either.

First you saw the auto-ban user feature, then the "The Overall AntiPoint Status Of This Thread Is", which means that the "Auto Closing Stupid Threads" must be soon to follow...... In order to have that, the system needed some more checks and balances to be sure that the overall flow of AntiPoints wasn't 1 sided in the "positive" or "negative" direction............

[ammo]

Still, some senior members have some major catching up to do and that'll be a mess...

Ammo

[GreekGoddess]

I feel like I'm in a high school popularity contest...
Ack.

[Tedob1]

your karma statement made it that way so now you expect me to do go against my nature just to have the anti-points i earned through hard work and not by posting jokes and articles mean something? i earned them, dosn't that mean something?

[GreekGoddess]

I'd rather my greenies mean less than giving out reds to make up for any balance....I don't like to flame, I don't see the point. It doesn't accomplish anything. I'm just here to learn, if I find a good post, it's going to get my greens, if I find a post that wasn't something to brag about, I'm going to keep on going. There's NO need to be cruel.

[GreekGoddess]

In fact, the flames that go on here are exactly why my signature is the way it is. I don't know what gets older....the s'kiddies or the people who take the time to acknowledge them with a flame. *shrugs*

[alittlebitnumb]

I feel like I'm in a high school popularity contest...
Ack.

Hehe, good one. I guess I'll never make it now :drink:

[smirc]

You are now required to attempt to "balance out" the antipoints that you dish out. Not too many negative assignments, not too many positive assignments. If the system detects that you're "not balanced", you'll receive a notice explaining things on the main site page.

I don't think this new feature is a good idea for all the reasons already stated above by a number of people. If you compare the AO forums to forums at other sites, we are still remarkably flame-free. We don't need this new feature. I've never given out a negative point and I never will. If you want to take away my share of the little green beans, go ahead. It was never about about "winning" points anyway. The whole AntiPoints thing is getting out of hand.

[micael]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by GreekGoddess
I'd rather my greenies mean less than giving out reds to make up for any balance....I don't like to flame, I don't see the point. It doesn't accomplish anything. I'm just here to learn, if I find a good post, it's going to get my greens, if I find a post that wasn't something to brag about, I'm going to keep on going. There's NO need to be cruel.

I agree with GreekGoddess and many other who have made their voice heard in this thread.

IMHO many of the senior's AP's are worth to much and this can mean that some users will get unfair neg's since it's aint that many post's worthy a neg. assignment and the few threads who deserves neg. AP's will probably be "overloaded" :(.

[BlazeTech]

I realize that my antipoints are low enogh as it is and this will probobly get me kicked off but this is an online community so i'm going to speak my mind anyways. I dont really agree with The new system because you are getting reduced in the way you can make your opinions about things. in my Opinion it is almost a form of censor ship.

[Terr]

I think we'll see what happens as it happens, but I would just like to play devil's advocate and suggest that it might be bad if it causes people to give out needless positive or negative points (which they might not give otherwise) in order to keep giving what they DO want to give.

[gstudios]

I really don't see a problem. Not with the system itself. Sure, the balancing act will suck right now, seeing as how, many people give out only postive anti-points, including myself.

And no one is saying that you can't give anyone antipoints. :) Don't give people antipoints (either one), just for the hell of it, or because they say they are "turning themselves into a new person", etc. As JP stated earlier in this thread.

Personally, I will now, only give the posts, that I think really deserve them, positives. Same goes with negative.

Sadly, that type of thing, isn't so common among the masses. And they tend, to think "OMG, I'm way off scale, i better assign a lot more posts some negative anti-points", regardless of the quality of the other person's post. Instead they could have just skipped giving out ANY points and going on to the next post. :)

This will definently help show who is the most knowledgable, if not abused. Which can happen quite easily. It could very well turn into another Popularity Contest.

[ntsa]

Hmm...

I can appreciate the logic of what JP is trying to do here. I even seem to remember a thread where the suggestion was made to have a thread point aggregate be listed alongside the thread link, so that we could see if the thread was about to waste out time and bandwidth before we clicked on it.

If you continue thinking along these lines then an auto thread close feature is the next logical development. In the case of some recent threads, such as those by a certain Dark[Zeus], that got flamed to bits, this would enable the system to automatically close the offending thread.

I can also appreciate why such a development would require additional fine tuning of the antipoint system to avoid the accidental discontinuation of threads. I can further appreciate why this system has to be a black box, or 'magic' if you prefer, to avoid misuse of the Anti Points system.

Lastly, I appreciate, as a developer myself, how annoying it can be to have someone, especially someone who doesn't understand how the underlying decision model works, second guess what you're doing. So let me be clear that I'm _not_ second guessing here, but I do have some observations.

I'm fairly careful about giving out anti-points. I only assign them under two conditions. The first condition is that I finish reading the post and think 'Wow - that was a really good/useful/worthwhile post. You desvere some greens'. The second condition is when I finish reading a post and think 'hanging is too good for this offensive moron. Eat my reds'. And without any sort of balancing at all my ratio of assigned red to green has stayed at around the 80% green 20% red mark.

In truth I think that this is a credit to the members of Anti Online that, on good day, 4 out of every 5 articles are worthwhile and only 1 in 5 are worthless.

So observation number one. Is the 70% positive threshold truly representative of the good post / bad post ratio on this site? Are there enough /really/ poor posts (as opposed to just not very useful posts) to go round? 70% negative seems fair, but maybe it should be slightly higher for positive.

Observation number two. I have been looking at other peoples assignment ratios since I got the 'Miyagi' message. Thre are a lot of people with a whole ruck load of negative anti-points they have to give out to get even. This is where I feel the biggest stumbling block is. I myself had to try dumping negatives onto already banned users to try and balance myself up and /I/ wasn't /that/ out of balance to begin with :(. Some of the seniors are going to have real problems.

I have even noticed that someone dumped me with a red one (a drive-by), on a post that was otherwise extremely positive this morning. As this was my /first/ red one (I'm _not_ whining about this btw) the timing seems a bit of a conincidence. Surely this dumping of red points will skew the sytem even more.

This change is designed to have an effect on the way users assign anti-points from here on in, but it takes into account those anti-points assigned prior to the implimentation of this system. Maybe the implimentation of this system requires that the amount of points assigned by users is returned to zero so everyone starts from a 50% positive 50% negative position again.

Observation number three. Strategic re-evaluation. Is the goal of auto-closing threads sound? Have you fully explored the possiblility of having more human moderators? Community is a two way thing (which I know you know ;)) - I'm sure people would fall over themselves to get involved. I would. Just a thought.

As I said before I'm not second guessing. I have faith that 'things will turn out form the best' - they usually do IME. I am fully aware that you will have already given /considerably/ more thought than I to these issues and I have total faith that AO will eventually be a better site for the changes.

My only real concern is that the short term effects of this could be negative, especially on newer users who might get a lot more reds in this dumping process, unless the appropriate actions are taken to negate these effects during the implimentation phase.

[draziw]

Well, I must say that at first I was against this system... but, as Terr says, we'll see what happens. One of the things that caught my eye in JP's explanatory post was that "the system will try to see how you're assigning points based on the behaviour of how everyone else is assigning points and adjust from there" (paraphrased). This basically means to me that, if overall, most people are assigning positive points, the system won't hold you to the 1-in-4 negs for long... it will slowly slip to 1-in-5, then 1-in-6 and so on. So folks... perhaps JP has once again surprised us with a great new feature. And again as Terr said, only time will tell (and, knowing JP, if it's not right, he'll fix and/or adjust it)

[ZeroOne]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by ntsa
Observation number two. I have been looking at other peoples assignment ratios since I got the 'Miyagi' message. Thre are a lot of people with a whole ruck load of negative anti-points they have to give out to get even. This is where I feel the biggest stumbling block is. I myself had to try dumping negatives onto already banned users to try and balance myself up and /I/ wasn't /that/ out of balance to begin with :(. Some of the seniors are going to have real problems.

You obviously didn't read JP's message very well:

Originally posted here (http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?threadid=229911#post531795) by JP
Secondly, you don't become "balanced" by just giving out negative antipoints needlessly. You also become "balanced" by not giving out positive antipoints to stupid little 1 sentence posts just because the person's your friend and you want to kiss ass (which happens a LOT).

And about seniors having problems? "the system will reduce the impact that your assignments have on people" aaww, how scary! You're in deep shit now, huh? I'd rather have mafia knocking on my door than getting my ap's too positive! The balancing doesn't even have to happen in this week or even in this month. You'll have infinite time to balance your account, you won't get banned if you give out too many antipoints. They, at least the positives if they were the ones going off the scale just then stop affecting anything which I think is a good new feature.

[Und3ertak3r]

Ok I am reconsidering my opinion...
I am concerned about those who think they will have to give out negs just to get "Balanced" while balanced appears to not be 50/50 but around 70/30(?) My fear is that some will balance their accounts on a noobs mis worded post..

ie: Hacking Hotmail: by leo_wank3r
How would you hack a hotmail account?

instead of asking:

Hacking Hotmail: Ican_comunic8
I have heard that Hot mail accounts are easily hacked/cracked. I would like to know if this is true.. (Yes or no Answer)

Ok Given that we read the posts people put and not post AP's on the Subject line.. and we do READ what the person is asking and not what we think they are saying..
which of the above posts would recieve the Negs and/or which would we passover and/or which would we give green .. My personal approach passover the first , and answer the second and forget the AP's
I dont think I am coherant.. nees sleep sry guys I hope I am able to be clear on my point..

Cheers

[Guus]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by ntsa
(...) In truth I think that this is a credit to the members of Anti Online that, on good day, 4 out of every 5 articles are worthwhile and only 1 in 5 are worthless.

So observation number one. Is the 70% positive threshold truly representative of the good post / bad post ratio on this site? Are there enough /really/ poor posts (as opposed to just not very useful posts) to go round? 70% negative seems fair, but maybe it should be slightly higher for positive. (...)

I have to agree with ntsa here. I also don't think the math works out. imho, if you state that at least 50% of the antipoints being spend site-wide should be negative, you're saying that 50% of the contents of these forums is so bad that it deserves negative points.

[ZeroOne]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by Guus
I have to agree with ntsa here. I also don't think the math works out. imho, if you state that at least 50% of the antipoints being spend site-wide should be negative, you're saying that 50% of the contents of these forums is so bad that it deserves negative points.

I think JP is basically saying that 1/5 deserve negative ap's and only 1/4 of the rest 4/5 (that's 1/5 of the posts also) deserve positive ap's. 3/4 of the posts wouldn't get antipoints at all.

[Guus]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by ZeroOne
I think JP is basically saying that 1/5 deserve negative ap's and only 1/4 of the rest 4/5 (that's 1/5 of the posts also) deserve positive ap's. 3/4 of the posts wouldn't get antipoints at all.

Then you're still saying that there are as many posts that deserve positive points as there are that deserve negative posts ( one-fifth compares to one-fifth as fifty percent compares to fifty percent). I simply do not think that's true. 75/25 (or, 1/5 - 1/15) is more realistic.

Also, keep in mind the consequenses: if you keep the balancepoint at 50/50, there will be as many members banned as there will be members reaching (approximately) 3 greenies. (I'm assuming here that antipoints within 3 greenies plus and 3 reds are distributed evenly. JP might have taken this in consideration in his implemention of the system, in which case this alinea was a total waste of time ;) ).

[Specter6]

At first I was against the idea of "balancing", but after JP posted his clarification, I really see no problem with it -- now that we know the "balance" isn't 50-50. I think most of us would agree if you go back over some of the more recent posts we've had by our infestation of s'kiddies, we could easily hit a 70-30 split on APs.


Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by BlazeTech
... in my Opinion it is almost a form of censor ship.


And I don't see it as censorship, I see it as a way of JP putting responsible members in more of a position to make this community "self-policing". Assign -APs to the goofs and get rid of them. That way we keep those who are interested in contributing to the community and "kill off" the bad seeds.

IMHO

[zigar]

hehe..this whole thing reminds me of the uproar when they brought in a cat licensing bylaw here...people up in arms...on both sides...biggest response the city ever had to any bylaw...over something that was so irrelevant....just proof that ao is a true community....people here care about what happens here...

congrats jp...

[ZeroOne]

Who gave zigar those AP's? Why? The post wasn't very helpful or anything... Isn't that what JP just suggested should be left off?

I think antipoints pull other antipoints near them by creating some strange magnetic field... In other words, if you already have many (positive or negative) ap's, people will give them to you even more... It's the same with single posts and individuals (users).

[GreekGoddess]

It's an overrated feature. I'm sure if some of the regular people here started losing 75% of their green lines, there would be a furious uproar. You can say whatever you want when you're at the top and posted on the main page as a top antipoint earner. Like I said previously, I'm not giving out reds. If that means my greens don't mean as much, the person will get my message saying that I enjoyed their post with my name attached, if greens don't really matter, then the effect of my positive points shouldn't matter either, since they're of lesser value if you don't balance out your assignments.

I'm not really worried about it. It's pointless anyway.

[ntsa]

The post wasn't very helpful or anything
Well I'll apologise now, because here's another post that isn't going to be very helpful either (unless there is a FAQ somewhere that says that I'm only allowed to post tutorials) :(.

/I/ gave them. And here's why (not that I feel the need to explain myself but I will anyway):

1. Timliness - Zigar's comments injected some much needed perspective into the thread at a point where opinion was polarising fast.
2. Good use of analogy - In this instance the analogy is used the reflect the relative insignificance of the argument by focusing on a nice little story about cat licences. This allows the reader to re-evaluate their own arguments objectively, without being drawn back into the argument.
3. Having used the stylistic device of analogy to get the reader to step back from their arguments zigar gets the reader take an objective look at the bigger picture, which is that all the people that have posted to this thread have done so because people really do care about what happens here.
4. zigar finished the piece with the upbeat comparison of the Anti-Online community and that of a small town Canadian community for whom their community ideal is worth enough to argue over. This made me smile.

As I said before - I don't hand out points needlessly. But a post doesn't have to be the length or 'War and Peace' to be relevant or of merit. Keep them coming Zigar (you write 'em - I'll do the literary criticism ;)).

[ZeroOne]

Eh, ok, good enough explaination. :)

I'm starting to get bored to this subject already... :rolleyes:

[ntsa]

You're not the only one, my friend. The thread subscribers are thinning out fast.

At the end of the day we've all had our say - as zigar said: it's only because we care. I feel safe in the knowlede that JP can weigh the merits of these arguments for himself, and, as I said previously, I have every faith that AO will be the better site for whatever course of action he decides to take. After all it /is/ his site.

Can we go back to discussing security again now?

Thread closed?

[JP]

Greetings All:

Well, after 24 hours almost, it looks like this new part of the AntiPoint system is working perfectly. The algos. have already "realized" that the initial ratio that I assigned for "balance" wasn't appropriate, and has changed to between 60% negative and 80% positive.

Many of you had worries about users getting auto-banned that shouldn't be, and in the last 24 hours, only 2 users have been auto-banned, and if you check, they definately deserved it.

Keep the faith, heh.

[ntsa]

I think you could call that a pretty strong vindication of my last post.

:thumbsup: JP - you the man.

[ZeroOne]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by JP
Greetings All:
Many of you had worries about users getting auto-banned that shouldn't be, and in the last 24 hours, only 2 users have been auto-banned, and if you check, they definately deserved it.


Maybe you could change their status to show "Auto-Banned" instead of just plain "Banned"..?
And by the way, I hope you have some algos working on not counting ap's given to banned users?

[Terr]

I agree with ZeroOne. Auto-banned users should be distinguishable from the manually banned ones, because auto-banning is (arguably) less reliable than banning done with a thinking mind behind it... unless the algorithms are sentient.

[JP]

Greetings:

Ok, the system will now list "Banned" if they were manually banned, and "Auto-Banned" if they were banned by the AntiPoints System.

thanks for the feedback guys.

[str34m3r]

JP,


2. You are now required to attempt to "balance out" the antipoints that you dish out. Not too many negative assignments, not too many positive assignments. If the system detects that you're "not balanced", you'll receive a notice explaining things on the main site page.


I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong. From reading your original post, I thought you were trying to move us all to the 50/50 mark, which wouldn't have been possible without serious pain for some people. I underestimated how complex you had made the system - even making it self-correcting (very nice). I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction.

[{P²P}Apocalypse]

Thanks for the change. The ratio now represents a more realistic outlook of the posts in the forums. Regardless of the large number of idiot's that have been posting lately. The good informative posts still outway the stupid ones. Thanks for listening to us.

A side note to the idiots: See this is how AO works. The group as a whole posted their opinions on this topic in a nice way. JP looked at it and made his changes accordingly and did'nt "ban" anyone over it. He does listen to nice and coherent posts. Nobody wants to hear hell raising. It's gets you nowhere.

[gold eagle]

I don't like the "feature". Since I don't read all the threads in all the forums, I must obviously miss most of the morons. If there was 15- 25% of all posts that really required a negative response from us senior members I would not waste my time on the site.

Besides, most of the time others have beat me to the response that the knaves so richly deserve.

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by JP
Greetings All:


2. You are now required to attempt to "balance out" the antipoints that you dish out. Not too many negative assignments, not too many positive assignments. If the system detects that you're "not balanced", you'll receive a notice explaining things on the main site page.

In the interest of my thoughts, which are strong on this topic...read this thread...http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=229995

I'm not balanced, apparently...go figure.

O

[ZeroOne]

Originally posted here (http://www.AntiOnline.com/showthread.php?threadid=#post) by JP
Well, after 24 hours almost, it looks like this new part of the AntiPoint system is working perfectly. The algos. have already "realized" that the initial ratio that I assigned for "balance" wasn't appropriate, and has changed to between 60% negative and 80% positive.


I still have to post to this thread...
What does the warning message tell now? Is it still telling that ap's should be in 50/50 ratio? Hopefully not? I guess it also notices the number of ap's posted, I can imagine that a newbie with only few antipoints assigned would'n appreciate the system if it starts "bitching" to them?

[bquine]

I still don't know if I agree with this new balancing system, but if it seems to be working then I stand corrected. I'm glad that your keeping us updated with the status of the system JP.

[detector]

an odd way to be balanced, indeed. "forced" to give out certain points or else? hmm

[PhirePhreak]

I'm not going to say that I'm against this system or for it. It has both it's advantages and it's disadvantages. But I will say that based on my own observations, this whole AntiPoint system has gotten out of hand, and also has been more trouble than it's worth.

Everyone pretends that they don't care about AP's, but honestly, they do. We all do. We all like to know that people approve of us. Couldn't this be accomplished just as easily with PM's? The only reason that I assign so many positives is because clicking that link is easier than composing a brand new PM. I'm almost jealous of the newbies and others who have so few AP's that their assignments count for nothing. I'd really like to be able to quickly let someone know I approve/dissapprove without causing them to receive public recognition for it. If I dissapprove, that's between me and them. Others don't need to know that "ooh, someone doesn't like this guy's posts. He needs more negs".

Lastly, I don't care about the new system. I'm going to keep on trucking as I've been doing. If I see a post that obviously has a lot of thought put into it (even if it's a post I don't agree with), greenies are assigned. Likewise on the negs.

Just my not-so-humble opinion.

--PhirePhreak

[totallycurious]

Phirephreak i totally agree with you!! Well said.