AntiOnline Quick Form Released(testing)

[MrLinus]

Interesting idea. One question however: what stops someone from posting a script that claims to do X when in fact does Y? What is the risk to JUPM and AO?

Maybe scripts are to be tested before they are allowed for review and updating by a specific group?

(FYI: I've brought this thread to the attention of JUPM for them to consider it. This doesn't necessarily mean it will happen, though. I just think it's worthwhile for them to look at..)

[dopeydadwarf]

Originally posted here by MsMittens
Interesting idea. One question however: what stops someone from posting a script that claims to do X when in fact does Y? What is the risk to JUPM and AO?

Maybe scripts are to be tested before they are allowed for review and updating by a specific group?

I think that with the large amount of honest members here, the discussions would be self ruling. I mean there are enough people here that know more than enough for the discussions to be self contained. Making a group to do nothing but read code would have to be a voluntary position. I mean I am sure that JUPM doesn't want to pay some people to make sure the code is clean.

The best route would be to simply post a sticky thread as a disclamer. I mean that maybe an easy way to pass the buck, but as I mentioned a moment ago, the people here will surely point out false codes. Thereby banning the perpetrators.

Besides, If JUPM has no problem carrying viral code ready for assembly, they shouldn't worry much about some code on a board.

[RoadClosed]

If you need more... I vote "Aye"

[Tiger Shark]

Hoss:

That brings up an interesting question. Should it be an earned site benefit?

No... That would make it the same as addicts or the private discussions we looked at - the content is automatically diluted. It should be strictly moderated but it should also be made quite clear on every access to the forum that you D/L and run code entirely at your own risk. I don't think you can put all the responsibility on a moderator/a few moderators since who knows what code would come in? They can't be expected to test everything on their own. Plus, making moderators test the code first before release to the forum kind of places some liability at JupM's door. If the moderator misses a little "feature" then the fact that it was "checked and released" puts the onus on AO..... That won't fly up there at JupM, I'm sure.

After a little longer thought.... Can this be set up so that the people who can provide code are "authenticated" to JupM.... They can verify who they are, where they live, where they work etc. thus making it hard for skiddies etc. to post bad code with no possibility of repercussion yet let anyone can download anything "at their own risk". That would be better.

Talking from my own experience here I have dl'ed scripts etc. and uploaded scripts. When I upload I ask that someone who understands scripts post that they have reviewed it and it is not malicious, (though no-one ever did.... ). When I d/l scripts etc. I only do it when I recognize the user and have a level of trust in them that they have created over time.

Making the poster give JupM solid identification up front allows freedom to post code to be tested, thus allowing the code library of tools that would help make the site more useful, coupled with the disclaimer that you "d/l at your own risk", thus giving JupM their "way out" would make this idea a good one that could work nicely for all involved.

I'm all for it.... The details need to be "ironed out"......

[White_Eskimo]

yeah i aggree that the idea does have some rough edges but it is a great idea and i think that it would be a good improvement to the site. I think that we should make it so that you have to be at the antionline addict level or some semi-high level to be able to review the scripts because it shows to the rest of the community that you are trustworthy. Most members here are trustworthy, but i dont think that someone should just be allowed to sign up and then be able to post evil scripts...it is like hiring an employee without doing a background check and then giving him the root password i guess and asking him to help you fix some of your problems. you should at least know that the employee has been working in your company for some time and is loyal to it. Anyways, also it kinda gives other lower-level users something to look forward to besides the addicts forum. I would be very intrested in seeing some cool scripts that make being on a computer easier. i dunno just my $0.02

[MrLinus]

Perhaps newer users could see comments and such but could not submit or download the scripts until Addict status is achieved (and this would be based on posts in forums other than AGG and Cosmos)?

[str34m3r]

While I agree that it might be useful to make people earn the right to upload code, I don't see much use for controlling the download of code. If I ever have some code that I thought might be sensitive, I could still post it in the addicts forum to keep it out of easy reach. I know that still doesn't protect the code from unscrupulous post whores, but hey, it's a start.

[Tim_axe]

I like the idea and would love to see it. As for implementation...

Right now it seems that there would be two main groups of people, the code producers and the testers or consumers. The code producer (intent of their code doesn't matter) wants their code to be tested by as many people as possible. So from the producer / poster's view point there should be no restricted downloads of code. The original code producer would love to get some feed back and possibly even some improvements from the testers. But they don't want bad feedback nor bad "improvements". Since ease of creating this forum is concerned, it isn't feasable to program in a way to distinguish the two. The simplest way would be to disable this handy quick reply feature in that forum to get people to at least think of what they are posting. As for distinguishing good contributors from bad contributors, perhaps there could be a "Scripts Posted or Improved" counter much like the "Posts" and "Tutorials Posted". The moderation could be left up to the AP system, but there is still the issue of the unlucky person who was the first one to run "not good code."

Now I made the other issues seem pretty simple, but this part right here would need some work... There could be a warning message with a threat-assesment type message. It would consider the AP standing of a member and the number of Scripts they have improved or otherwise contributed, their total posts, tutorial posts, and possibly even how long they have been a member. So, if a member just signed up last night and posted code saying that this was the feature that they have waited for to join AO, the threat assessment would throw heavily to a big read "Suspecious" sign, since they have no AP, this is their first script, first post, no tutorials, and they just signed up. On the other hand a more elder member who would probably have a few AP, a tutorial or two, about 100 or more posts, no scripts yet, and have been on AO for a year would be a more neutral balance, but there would still be a warning page. And it could still say that it is based on past behavior and may not apply in the current case. At your own risk.

So, to sum it up, a Threat Assesment page could be used before download of scripts, a warning page before uploading them or uploading improvements. The threat assesment would consider:
1) AP
2) Scripts Posted
3) Total Posts
4) Tutorial Posts
5) Membership Length
These values would be weighed and failing in a single one of them would throw heavily to suspecious and be careful with their code.

Comments?

-Tim_axe

[GreekGoddess]

I love the idea. I can share some of the things that I've written and projects I'm working on for review, which makes it handy for me as a developer to get the features I need/should have in there before a final release. I don't get a whole lot of time with everything going on to program, but I have a few programs that I haven't gotten around to finishing, and a huge project (client management tool) in the works.

[RiOtEr]

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=234202