I say go for it, Intmon. If it turns out to do more harm then good, change it back.
P.S. Another reason I like this idea is that I don't have to keep signing my name, the system will do it for me. Sorry but I'm lazy when it comes to this.
Printable View
I say go for it, Intmon. If it turns out to do more harm then good, change it back.
P.S. Another reason I like this idea is that I don't have to keep signing my name, the system will do it for me. Sorry but I'm lazy when it comes to this.
I think adding the username to the AP assignment is definately a good idea.. However I'd object very much to having my IP attached to the assignment. If you want to log my IP feel free to, but I don't want everyone I assign APs to to see my IP. My IP changes as seldom as possible and I host several services on my box, I'd rather not neg a script kiddie/packet monkey for a stupid question and then find out they're packing my box or attempting to exploit one of my services. I just don't think it's the greatest idea for a security related site.
Finnally this happens..
But i for damn sure dont want my IP to be displayed. Most of my Antionline surfing is done from the Network Operations Center for Rackshack/Everyone's Internet, I dont want my Admin IP address displayed to everyone and the dog. I suppose, If you go through with posting IPs, then I can surf via our proxy server, but i dont want to do all that. Thank you and goodnight. Just my 2 cents
I doubt they are seriously considering tagging APs with IP addresses, it just doesn't make any sense for the person to see your IP address. Logging them for administrative purposes is a good idea though.
I agree with what souleman said that if all ap's are tagged then people will probably feel more inclined to give greens to those that give them greens, which encourages alliance-type behaviour. I think that maybe tagging all negs is the best way to go and then giving people the option of whether or not they want to tag their greens.
Will be interesting to see how it works out.
Am I going to be banned because I use a friends computer? Mine is not working very well right now and we are all working on it to fix it so for now iv been using a friend's. actually while were there all of us check our mail and stop by to see whats going on and listen to music and have some fun....i just dont want to be accused of anything because my computer isnt working right now so like a hundred people use the same one. :(
I have to agree with HTRegZ, DrToker, et. al, that the IP should be logged, but not displayed. By showing who is doing the negging and and showing their IP you are trying to battle people who are acting childishly, which IMHO is a noble effort; however, the people responsible for 'drive-by neggings' have already proven themselves childish and immature and for this reason, I would have a problem with my IP floating around. While I am not particularly worried about my security posture, I wouldn't want to draw any more attention from all the maliciousness on the net than I already do and I feel that showing the IP's could have a very negative impact...Quote:
I realize it's not a perfect solution, but right now it's something that can help fix the current AP problems. If it doesn't work out, nothing is written in stone, so we can always change it later down the road. Thoughts?
Thanks,
intmon
With that being said though, I would think that tagging point assignments with names would help with the current state of things and might even end some of the nice blank assignments and unhelpful things that float around in the anti-point messages; afterall, if your name is tied to what you say, I think that would be a good impetus to behave yourself in what you say and provide a constructive criticism.
IHMO, I think the benefits would outweigh the possible negative effects of people seeking retribution. The only time I would be very concerned about retribution is in regards to people without many AP's, after all, a senior member is much more able to absorb a massive AP assignment (> 50 AP's), where a new member would be facing banishment from it...
/nebulus
I sign most of my AP's so I wouldn't care one way or the other..
And luckily I havn't been targeted by any aliances as their victim-of-the-day/week/month
As prettymuch anyone who cares I'll have to agree on intmon's conclusions.
I'm very happy knowing there's actually some folks behind the scenes really working.
Thnx Big Brother....
By displaying a name next to the assignment you beat about the purpose of the antipoint system. Noone likes to get neggs and they'll all think it wasn't for the right reason they got them (most of the time). You'd better scrap the negative side of the antipoints then. I'd believe very few (if not no) people who ould not take revenge in some way. I know antionline to long for that. I think it's right to watch the system a bit, especially for the ganging up etc. Unfair neggs wil stay, I think. The fear for them is worse then the things themselves really. Like imo so many things of life, you'd live alot happier if you just ignore them intentionally. The gangin up can be reported and it will be dealt with, that's enough for me to know...
Point well taken about the IPs....we'll just display the username next to the area where the comments are.
As far as the display of the username defeating the purpose of the AP system, those folks who are abusing it are already seriously defeating the purpose of the system, and making it almost useless, as well as causing too many folks to have to waste time dealing with it. We're just trying to bring things around enough that the AP system can work as it was designed again...
Thanks,
intmon
Out of curiosity, when will we see this change go into effect?Quote:
Originally posted here by intmon
we'll just display the username next to the area where the comments are.
/Edit Also, will this change be retroactive, or only apply to new antipoints given out?
What was the purpose of the point system ? People could see how much one was respected... you only need positives for that ? The negatives came to also punish people. Ye could attach an anonymous message, so you could say why it has been send (very few people do that on a neg, ime) AND to avoid flamewars and bullshot posts in a thread. I personally expect some giant decrease of negs being assigned and increased PM's and posts bitching about them. The alliances will stay for the positive side because (almost) noone is going to whine if they get a giant ammount of those at once. Antipoints as some anonymous flame thread aren't nice, but JP had reasons to I guess (?). There's much more attached to it imo... Every situation with antipoints has it's pros and cons.
Whatever, I don't really care whatever is going to happen.
I agree with neel I think.
Antipoints need to be anonymous otherwise you would take a way the whole meaning of the system. You can better get rid of it then assigning names to the antipoints. I never sign my name to antipoints because I don't feel a need to do it. (Nor on pos nor on negs).
If there is abuse then get to it and ban the members that abuse the system.
Let's keep that in mind.Quote:
The AntiPoints System is a way for you to weed out the bad users from the good users, while at the same time building your own reputation in the AntiOnline Community. In general, users who are respected as posting userful information, being friendly, and who answer other's questions, will have a high number of AntiPoints. Users who spam, flame, harass other members, or post misleading information, will have a low or even negative number of AntiPoints.
To get on about the abuse part. Like neel said the alliance would not go away if there is a name assigned to the points. Who bitches about positive points ?
I heard some people talk somewhere that they even feel uncomfortable with their many antipoints cuz when they assign the post immediatly goes either extreme positive or extreme negative. I personely find it a good idea to get some sort of balancing in there.
Then you would be able to assign for example 25% or 50% antipoints to a thread. Or balance it even.
just my two cents.
+ newbies won't dare to assign any negs to anyone with over 11 dots...
banning or tracking using IPs is a very ""BAD"" idea.....why??? becoz lets say in my work place we have abt 10-12 persons members of AO and we all work bhind same proxy sever.....so how are you going to distinguis us??? any ideas..yoyu will have same IP for all of us until you resolve X-FORWARD also....
what about a cookie. I know it sounds kinda dumb but i remember when the whole mettalica napster thing happened isnt that how they kept the people who were banned from napster from coming back? I dont really remeber so feel free to corect me if im wrong. But even if it wasnt along those lines coudlnt we do something similar?
i think the showing the username next to the assigment is a great idead ...at least users will not be able to assign Negative Antipoints with some one elses name and so put their points in danger ... i mean i dont care ... if i want to assign negativer antipoints to someones i will give a godamn good reason too ... i wont give negs with sayin " you go on my nerves"... if i already give them neg's they should know why and try to do better next time in their posts.... so it is a good temporary solution till we come up with something better ...i for now have not thought of a solution ... but i'm tryin ... anybody got something to add please do :)
I think that you should have your name automaticaly tyed to the antypoints u give. then ppl arnt going to be as inclined to give out negatives for rediculice resons, eg som1 gave me a neg and there reson was "You scare me." now what has it got to do with the poste i made that it was given to????
automaticly having your name placed there like what happones with posts would stop alot of it, it being anonomus is just coursing problems.
Well, we'll just have to test it and see. I will from now onwards put my name on any neg i give out for a short period of time. Let us see what awaits me for that. I will include a screen shot of it aswell as the results arising out of it. (I hope i dont get fuxored to bad) :p
Sincerly,
AO's new test pig.
im full with instronics
AO's test pig # 2
count me in as number 3
I guess someone couldn't understand the meaning of this thread....
Why don't you come on by and I'll tell you..... BWAHAHA ... Whoever you are ...Quote:
Will ya always be a licker ?
You just made my day by giving me the greatest laugh !!!
*** Edit *** I don't mind giving signed negs --> Piggie Nr.4
Apologies for coming into this late, but I haven't been around much lately. Lots o'stuff keeping me tied up these days. :D
I have to disagree with my two esteemed colleagues on this one. (Crap, I sound like a Senator or something....) I don't see this issue as anything different than what has already been happening here for a long time now. I think it's safe to say that the majority of users here - probably a vast majority, but I can't prove that - already sign their positives and leave the negs anonymous. At least that's what my AP Center reflects most of the time. I can't think of any reason to do that except that people are fishing around for some reciprocation. All we would be doing is automating what people are already doing anyway.Quote:
Originally posted here by powertoad5000
I agree with what souleman said that if all ap's are tagged then people will probably feel more inclined to give greens to those that give them greens, which encourages alliance-type behaviour. I think that maybe tagging all negs is the best way to go and then giving people the option of whether or not they want to tag their greens.
I know I have engaged in this practice before, but with a couple of exceptions, I stopped signing all my assignments quite some time ago because I realized it was hypocritical. I'm of the opinion that if we're going to put names, let's put names. And if they're going to be anonymous, they need to all be anonymous. Either way is fine with me, but let's pick a standard and stick to it.
My only concern is that newbies and juniors will be afraid to neg anyone with 11 dots showing, no matter how justified, for fear of retribution. I think that's a very real problem with this new system, but I don't know that it's any worse than the problems we have now, either. I guess it's a case of "pick your poison."
Just as a general statement of principle that has little bearing on the topic at hand, I have long been a defender of the current AP system on the grounds that, for all its flaws, it's an accurate reflection of the world we live in. Life is often unfair, and there will always be people who abuse the system (whatever "the system" may be). It's human nature. In many cases those people will hide behind positions of power or otherwise be unaccountable for their actions, and you just have to roll with the punches and go on. I don't see life at AO as being any different than real life. I am not saying that nothing should be done about the alliance problem, just that it's a fact of life.
All that being said, I'm not opposed to trying something new, so let's see what happens. :cool:
i believe that the antipoint system is designed to indicate those who are/are not, knowledgeable and helpful.
unfortunately, it seems that sites with point systems are only running popularity contests for the most part.
what may alleviate this problem is having unbiased mods keep an eye out for true undesirables and take action on warnings and bannings.
yes, this will be more work but it all depends on what the priorities are in regards to the point problem.
That sounds good on paper sn4k3 but how we gonna find an unbiased moderator and keep him unbiased? Nothing personal to MsMittens and Negative but mods are people too and they will eventualy form opinions about certain people. And anybody that tells you difrent is on crack
Okay, so if you feel there could be possible retals with the new system there's a time limit before you can hit people back, because I'm not so sure people wouldn't either. But for example, say another member negged me and I wholeheartedly disagreed, and being a jerk of a senior (*LOL*)...I decide to tag them back for it...I have more weight anyway but when I go to click the assign button, instead of it saying "You have assigned too many AP's today" it says something to the effect of "Since the person recently assigned you AP's you cannot assign any back for X amount of time. Try again later." NOW, what's cool about something like that...is if people are playing around with the buddy system, slapping eachother on the back with greenies to make it on the top 10, that's going to put a damper on that too, or at least delay it to the point where it would be more of an annoyance to go about it that way, and maybe the crap would stop. You get to know who's assigning, and that would lessen the abuse of retalling because of a name appended to the AP's. Any thoughts?
It's a greally good idea, but there are legitimate times where someone coincidently gives APs to another person and they give some back a little bit later. Sometimes you just go to give points to a good post and at the same time that person is giving points to a post that you made....
Plus how much work are we gonna end up making for JUPM? These littles things would take some coding to pull off, especially with a site this size, and there's always the possibility of it just leading to bugs that make it more difficult for us to browse the site. I like the idea of the name being attached and IMHO the best thing to do would just be to try that and see how it goes, if their are problems after that then try and fix them. But why fix problems that don't exist yet?
It is now live! If you check your antipoints center, you'll be able to see exactly who posted APs to you.
Thanks,
intmon
I have to agree here....this may work out, but it may not be a good thing....Quote:
Originally posted here by neel
+ newbies won't dare to assign any negs to anyone with over 11 dots...
edit: I'm not sure what this will accomplish, now that I know who sent me negs/greens. All this proves is that the same person has negged me over and over...do I care? Nope. It's a little green dot or grey or red...big freakin deal. neg me if you must....but I know many of you feel the same way.
Private messages commencing in:
3...
2...
Heh heh, no joke, kinda nice to see who gave me negs for stupid stuff like opinion posts. :rolleyes:Quote:
:D I already sent my one and only. It was gratifying just to be able to send it ;)
why send "thank you" notes when you can just sit back and let them wonder when the shits going to hit the fan :)
Here we go....Let the games begin. ;)
Cheers:
Quote:
Originally posted here by ZomBieMann77
why send "thank you" notes when you can just sit back and let them wonder when the shits going to hit the fan :)
Because it was sexist, rude and suggested I suck another members dick :) Regular bs comments I don't care about...this one was way beyond that, and I wanted the member in question to know that I didn't appreciate his blatant disregard for common decency. ;)
I'm not sure about you guys, but this sure as hell answered alot of the questions i had. It also proved some of my theories wrong aswell. Like i posted in the addicts forum: no pain, no gain.
So far, I'm happy with the way things are. It was nice to see who was giving me those needless comments thinking they were slick, and they got a pm sent to them. I'm not out for revenge, but it's NICE to be able to at least know who's giving them to you, to let them know to knock it off, it's not appreciated and you're not going to get away with ignorant AP statements that have nothing to do with your post and are just mean and hateful.
I mean, enough is enough and I have faith that this will stop a lot of the crap that has been going on around here. *crosses her fingers*
Where's Ennis now? The poor lad was one of the first victims of handle abuse. He has to see this ;)
Yeah, Ennis hasn't been around in a while.
He last was online on 1/4/03.
http://www.antionline.com/member.php...o&userid=20094
IIRC Ennis was doing a degree or exams or something... I remember he'd be away for about 6 months (as in active participation here). He might be just checking for the occassional PM or some such.