July 8th, 2002, 06:05 AM
I've seen a lot of good threads go suicidal due to one post to the thread that was negged out of existence. I can understand the point of suicide threads for questions on like: How do I hack hotmail...etc. But what about good threads where there was a topic with a point and one person gave very unworthy input and was negged horribly and that closed the thread. Could maybe there be a way to just close that post or something similar so the whole thread doesn't have to die for one person who made a stupid post?
*LOL* I know what I'm trying to say here, and I hope I'm conveying it...
I make a post on TCP/IP and someone replies to it completely off the wall and gets negatives to the point where MY thread is closed due to someone else's stupidity. I'm suggesting that maybe the whole thread shouldn't be closed, maybe just that post. That way, if someone makes a mistake in posting something stupid, they don't get banned for posting to just one thread.
July 8th, 2002, 06:21 AM
And most eloquently put .... guess that what I was trying to say in mine - but sometimes its a man thing to get the words a little messed up and come out looking like a complete idiot - should have paid more attention to that English teacher
July 8th, 2002, 06:23 AM
this might need to be in a post by itself - but it correspondes with your example. considering there is now the possibility for a thread to kill itself - would it be beneficial to have a thread have the ability to revive itself, too. ie. you could still assign ap's to a thread after it's death; maybe they aren't refelected to the user tally, but to just the aggregation of the thread.
if and when a thread's aggregate total get's out of the red, it regains its open status. this might not even be feasible based on the current point assignment model - i don't know.
July 8th, 2002, 06:25 AM
Actually, I think this "Anti-point" system should've never been here. I post a thread on the Unhackable Hotmail like yesterday, today, it've gone was shutted down because of this. My thread was there in the first place trying to tell script kiddies to give up hacking hotmail, stop doing something's that's wrong, invading someone's pravicy. Then for some reason, it went bad, then to positive, then a few hr. later, it was shutted off.
Would anyone mind to explain why the Negative Anti-points?
July 8th, 2002, 06:26 AM
I am not sure if that idea might work. I was thinking that maybe the threads could be reactivated instead, perhaps by JP or a mod. And that when the thread was reactivated the post with all the negs could be either hidden or deleted all together.
July 8th, 2002, 08:59 AM
I thought that maybe you could just neg a post off a thread or something, make just the singular post to that thread disappear or close off from getting antipoints, sort of automatically contract, I don't know how you would go about doing it or whatever, but those are my thoughts. I wanted to comment to Negative's bomb thread, but it was already closed due to one post in the thread. I think a thread should only be killed if maybe 2 or more posts in the thread go suicidal, something like that. That's how the "I Am American" post started, because the previous thread on the Pledge of Allegiance being changed became suicidal because of one person.
Or maybe the thread can only close by suicide if the person who started the thread gets negged to death, that would actually prove the thread to be pointless because the first post pretty much determines the content of the rest of the thread. That way if someone makes a stupid post to the thread and gets negged to death, the thread won't close, but if someone asks how to hack hotmail by starting a new thread, that one can be closed by the suicide option.
EDIT: I can see a downside to reopening threads. I think negs can be thrown around carelessly. I like the idea of the limitation that the one bad post can receive as far as negatives, that way a person cannot be banned due to one comment that someone didn't like. Everyone has a chance to redeem themselves, if it continues, then it should be straightened out with the antipoint system, which it usually is. I'm also afraid that if a post reopens, since it's been closed due to that specific post that got negged to death, that it will just turn into a complete flame thread, and I KNOW that all forums have flaming, as AO does, but keeping it to a minimum keeps it more community friendly and a better place to learn without getting bashed for one bad post.
July 8th, 2002, 09:50 AM
Apparently mods cant reopen suicide threads. If they could it would increase their workload. GG's idea sounds the best. IMO
July 8th, 2002, 12:30 PM
JP did say that he's got "a TON" of things to check that the thread doesn't do suicide for nothing but I've also seen rather good threads go suicide because of one stupid post... I wonder if JP's algos count the number of negged posts in a thread, that would solve something.
Also if AP's could given to an entire thread, not single posts, users could balance threads they think are too negative. Those AP's would then actually fall into a black hole affecting NOTHING but the thread.
Q: Why do computer scientists confuse Christmas and Halloween?
A: Because Oct 31 = Dec 25
July 8th, 2002, 01:59 PM
Or what about if the thread starter carried the weight of the AP assignments, so therefore i the first post was negged into oblivion the thread would be closed because, chances are, it's something like 'how can i hack into my girlfriend's email account?' if it's been blasted that much. But if the other posts are negged, that just affects the person who posted it, instead of compromising everyone else? I've noticed as well posts can be negged because of bad phrasing or the suggestion of a lack of consideration; perhaps it would also make people less critical if they know negging a post for minor reasons could kill a potentially useful thread [i.e. sometimes questions are asked badly or stupidly but the threads come up with some great answers and useful information]. So to summarize:
1) Thread started getting negged gets the post closed, since that's most likely to contain the concept and content of the thread
2) Other posters just get their own status into the red
Just a thought...
[gloworange]The Owls Are Not What They Seem[/gloworange]
July 8th, 2002, 02:03 PM
I think what ZeroOne meant was that those points would only go towards the thread, not the people in it. Sort of a way to judge a perfectly good thread or not, and in addition to personal antipoints the the individual posters will receive, will create more fairness in keeping valid threads open.