Another AP modification (seriously again!)
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Another AP modification (seriously again!)

  1. #1
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164

    Another AP modification (seriously again!)

    I'll probably be ragged on because this would make my 2nd ap-modification thread on here in three weeks or so, but it's something I feel is pretty important.

    DISCLAIMER: this is not a whine thread nor is it a bitch session.

    We already know that names won't ever be hardcoded into AP assignment. That's fine with me. What I think could be an improvement would be the number of points given/taken on a post depending on whether or not the name is in the comment field.

    Based on the 1% rule (which is more than likely wrong) of a 500 AP level:

    Code:
    $comment = "j00 suXX0rz --Vorlin";
    
      if ($comment =~ m/$username/) {
        # give or take 1% of AP level from receiver's AP level
      } else {
        # give or take .5% of AP level from reciever's AP level
      }
    Based on the above, if my comment was $comment, I'd give out 5 of 500 points either positively or negatively. Otherwise, if my name was not in the comment field, regardless of positive or negative, my AP assignment would only be worth .5% instead of 1%. It's the same way with AIM's warning methods. They tell you when you're assigning a warning that anonymous warns are worth less than telling the end-user who warned them.

    Of course, this has some holes in it based off of my example such as people putting other people's names in place of theirs to alter point levels, etc etc...but those problems have always been around.

    Another thing that might be worth adding would be a checkbox by a post that does not allow positive points to be assigned. Reason I say this is because I've received points in the past on posts that I felt were just my opinions or whatnot and I didn't want pos. points for it.

    Laughable? Doable?
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.

  2. #2
    Shadow Programmer mmelby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Ft. Myers, FL
    Posts
    291
    The names might not be a problem as you already know who is logged in and you could just have a checkbox that says use name instead of a name field to fill in.
    Work... Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints...

  3. #3
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    Oh, the thing is, the comment field currently in use is the only thing that would be checked.

    In perl, all you'd have to do is assign the comment field to a variable ($a for example) and regex it:

    Code:
    $ perl -e '$a="j00 suXX0rz --Vorlin"; printf "%d\n", $a =~ m/Vorlin/ ? "1" : "0";'
    1
    This just serves as clarification that I wasn't saying to make another name field box. Thanks for the reply though!
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.

  4. #4
    Old Fart
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,658
    A good idea to be sure, although I'm not sure I agree with the way it penalizes you if you choose to remain anonymous. All the same, I'd still like to have the ability to designate what portion (25, 50, 75, or 100%) of my AP's I assign. Once you build up mucho AP's, you begin to realize that you have to be very careful of the assignments you make. Giving negs at full force to a newbie who just made a stupid mistake is kinda like shooting a squirrel with an Elephant Gun in some cases.
    Al
    It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...

  5. #5
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    Well, it's not really 'penalizing' because you shouldn't have your full "weight" thrown around if you're not going to sign your name. Example: I got another negative point assignment on this thread and the comment was 'ahh very confusing'. Outside of the anonymity, it counted for two points. If this were in place, since it's only a percentage, the lowest it could go is 1 point if your AP level isn't high enough, otherwise it'd be normal weight.

    allenb1963: that's a good idea...portioning your AP assignment would be pretty good and it'd be up to the person assigning points to determine how good/bad it should be. More control that way. Of course, I'd also add in the AP screen whether it was high/medium/low so that the person could see what they got.

    To the person who gave negative points, I can't help it if you aren't code-savvy enough or can't understand basic principles like this that're explained in well-enough detail. But that's just my opinion.
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    281
    I understood this very well. I think this is actually a fairly good idea. I would be interestested to seeing this implemented.
    You\'re either a 0 or a 1, alive or dead

  7. #7
    Old Fart
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,658
    Vorlin: Point well taken. However, to keep the system balanced, signing positive AP's should WEAKEN them, if signing negative AP's strengthens them. That way the 'back scratching' with positive AP's would have less impact. The following is for your amusement...

    This is me:
    A good idea to be sure, although I'm not sure I agree with the way it penalizes you if you choose to remain anonymous.
    What a *****ed up place this can be...I get crapped on and the reason is this??:
    people should be allowed to give anonymous antipoints without getting penalize, you gave negative antipoints and not sign your name , thats quite hypocritical of you to say that
    WTF???

    lets see..you negged me and yet by your comments you agree with my above objection...so who is the hypocrite here? Yes, I've given negatives and not signed my name...and have I yet seen negs given TO ME with a signature...I think its safe to say that everyone here has given negs without signing at least once, INCLUDING YOU as evidenced above. So put your money where your whiney mouth is and post your objections in the thread.
    Al
    It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...

  8. #8
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    Allenb1963, I hope you're not thinking I posted negative points to you because if I *had*, I would've signed it --Vorlin. If you want, I'll even send you a screenshot of my "last points given" screen. I agree with your points, and I stated it as such however where you think I gave you negative points with a hypocritical message is beyond me.
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.

  9. #9
    Old Fart
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,658
    heh...Vorlin, I'd say you would have hit me a LOOOOT harder than -4...and it's not the AP's, just the hypocrisy of the comments that got me!
    Al
    It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    108
    I like this idea, I really do. Considering that I can't give out aload of antipoints, I think it would be cool to be able to control how much you give. However, concerning the AP signing, from what I know, AntiPoints are supposed to be anonymous. I was told that they "should" be anonymous and that's it. So, that's that. C_E

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •