AntiPointless forums, user profiles, front page

1. I think some forums should deny giving antipoints to any messages at all. These forums would be mainly like the Roll Call, Cosmos, Tech Humor and 'Antionline: How do I? or What is?'. Additionally only respected members (based on some white magic of the AntiPoints again ;)) could give AP's in these forums.

2. Viewing user profiles. Does it count if I view my own profile? Hopefully not. I very often do it to get to the threads I last posted to. These should be moved to the main page at the place of the top10-lists (refer to Remote_Access's latest suggestion).

I couldn't see giving AP's to a roll call, but a very clever and unique piece of material under Tech Humor could call for some recognition.

I agree zero one. The antipoint system is supposed to show who knows what they are talking about. Tech humor should never get antipoints. Neither should roll call, yet I saw one with positive points yesterday. There is only one problem. There have been a lot of times in a thread in tech humor (or any of the others) where negative antipoints were very deserved. If there were no antipoints in certain forums, then they would become a haven for people to make increadably stupid posts.

/me aplauds

Souleman, I agree I know that problem too... Let's restrict those forums to only negative points then? Positives would always show up as grey ones in them?

Auto Edit/Add: When I referred to 'Antionline: How do I? or What is?' forum I thought about a post I just saw, it was a relevant how-do-I-something -post but someone had given it a bunch of negatives, most likely because the answer would have been in the FAQ. However asking these FAQ-questions in that particular forum should be just acceptable. So perhaps giving negs to the thread starter posts there could be limited.

Actually, hey, if we just limited the antipoints to the posts that started the thread, wouldn't that solve quite much?

I was thinking the other way around. No points for the post that started it, only for the other posts. That way if someone asks a legit question, and someone answers "Go read a book you fu***ng f**ot!!!" or something like that, they could be negged. But then you have the people comming in that would ask "How do I install sub7 on my girlfriends computer so I can hack her hotmail account because I think she is having an afair with my best friends gerbil" and they would actually get away with it....

While talking to Negative one time, he mentioned that AP's in forums like chit-chat, tech humor, and other forums like that are worth a lot less than in more technical forums like tutorials. This helps correct some of the issues that your suggestion deals with. I also think that there are definitely times when both positive and negative are deserved in the forums you mentioned. If we made them "safe zones", then all the kiddies would have to do is post their stupid posts in there to avoid getting negs and getting banned. With regards to greenies in Roll Call and Cosmos (less true for the others), I've seen several posts that were truly deserving of greens. While I realize that the AP system is sometimes abused in these forums, I think that JP's system takes a lot of these factors into account and seems to be doing a good job as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by str34m3r
I also think that there are definitely times when both positive and negative are deserved in the forums you mentioned. If we made them "safe zones", then all the kiddies would have to do is post their stupid posts in there to avoid getting negs and getting banned.

---

I was going to echo something like that... I don't think we can really free a free-for-all "safe" zone, as it will tend to encourage people to start using them to harass. Though perhaps a "member" set of forums where you need to have at least like three to five greens along with "member" or maybe "jr. member" status to post there (that is, if you are going to make it "AP free").