Printable View
Maybe you could change their status to show "Auto-Banned" instead of just plain "Banned"..?Quote:
Originally posted here by JP
Greetings All:
Many of you had worries about users getting auto-banned that shouldn't be, and in the last 24 hours, only 2 users have been auto-banned, and if you check, they definately deserved it.
And by the way, I hope you have some algos working on not counting ap's given to banned users?
I agree with ZeroOne. Auto-banned users should be distinguishable from the manually banned ones, because auto-banning is (arguably) less reliable than banning done with a thinking mind behind it... unless the algorithms are sentient.
Greetings:
Ok, the system will now list "Banned" if they were manually banned, and "Auto-Banned" if they were banned by the AntiPoints System.
thanks for the feedback guys.
JP,
I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong. From reading your original post, I thought you were trying to move us all to the 50/50 mark, which wouldn't have been possible without serious pain for some people. I underestimated how complex you had made the system - even making it self-correcting (very nice). I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction.Quote:
2. You are now required to attempt to "balance out" the antipoints that you dish out. Not too many negative assignments, not too many positive assignments. If the system detects that you're "not balanced", you'll receive a notice explaining things on the main site page.
Thanks for the change. The ratio now represents a more realistic outlook of the posts in the forums. Regardless of the large number of idiot's that have been posting lately. The good informative posts still outway the stupid ones. Thanks for listening to us.
A side note to the idiots: See this is how AO works. The group as a whole posted their opinions on this topic in a nice way. JP looked at it and made his changes accordingly and did'nt "ban" anyone over it. He does listen to nice and coherent posts. Nobody wants to hear hell raising. It's gets you nowhere.
I don't like the "feature". Since I don't read all the threads in all the forums, I must obviously miss most of the morons. If there was 15- 25% of all posts that really required a negative response from us senior members I would not waste my time on the site.
Besides, most of the time others have beat me to the response that the knaves so richly deserve.
In the interest of my thoughts, which are strong on this topic...read this thread...http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=229995Quote:
Originally posted here by JP
Greetings All:
2. You are now required to attempt to "balance out" the antipoints that you dish out. Not too many negative assignments, not too many positive assignments. If the system detects that you're "not balanced", you'll receive a notice explaining things on the main site page.
I'm not balanced, apparently...go figure.
O
I still have to post to this thread...Quote:
Originally posted here by JP
Well, after 24 hours almost, it looks like this new part of the AntiPoint system is working perfectly. The algos. have already "realized" that the initial ratio that I assigned for "balance" wasn't appropriate, and has changed to between 60% negative and 80% positive.
What does the warning message tell now? Is it still telling that ap's should be in 50/50 ratio? Hopefully not? I guess it also notices the number of ap's posted, I can imagine that a newbie with only few antipoints assigned would'n appreciate the system if it starts "bitching" to them?
I still don't know if I agree with this new balancing system, but if it seems to be working then I stand corrected. I'm glad that your keeping us updated with the status of the system JP.
an odd way to be balanced, indeed. "forced" to give out certain points or else? hmm