AP assignment control please

I know this has been discussed, pretty much ad naseum before, and I tried to find the link, but after wading through 6 pages of stuff that didn't relate, I figured I would bring it up again. Can we please have a way to weight our AP assignments? It doesn't even have to be exact, just a rough scale.

Why? For example, I tried to balance out someone's post that had gotten negged hard, and they were a newbie with honest intentions of warning about a virus/worm (although it was fairly outdated, maybe a month or so). So I give them some positive points, hit refresh and all of a sudden the post goes from very negative to very positive, and they went from a grey dot to a green one. Now, I really didn't mean to hit them that hard with the positives, but therein lies the point, I had no control over it...

Please at least consider allowing people to weight the AP assignments.

/nebulus

I agree with your point nebulus200. Maybe even if it was one of them earned site benifits (to keep abusers from maxing out the weight on them innapropriate negs and such) I believe it would help.
Me, it doesn't matter much, because over the past 2 years or so of being here as a user, I spent most of my time reading, and not posting, leaving me as a newb, so I don't mind not having control over the weight. However, you being a Senior member, and everyone else who have greatly contributed to the AO community deserve a little more control in my opinion.

just my 2 cents (which still don't weigh very much! ;) )

Dave

mayeb they should put a new Site Benefit for people over lets say 2,000 positive antipoints ....if you have over 2,000 APs you get a benefit to wage you AP assigments .....

Funny. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum as nebulus2000 mentioned, yet I came here to bring the same issue back up and found that he had already done so just yesterday.

There is all this talk abot how nobody negs anymore because the names show up in the AP's now. Speaking for myself, I don't neg because my AP's carry too much impact.

There needs to be some way of lessening the blow- positive or negative. Either set something where we can choose 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% impact of our total or just a straight point system where we can choose to dish out 5, 10, 20 points or whatever.

If not, can someone explain why we can't do something like this??

One other consideration - if this suggestion is implemented it will affect the rate at which people collect APs. Don't get me wrong, I think it is an excellent suggestion, I'm just pointing out that it will dillute the distribution of points for newer members (if given a choice, people will not give out the max number of points EVERY time they assign APs). Yet everyone who now has positive APs has thus far always received the maximum possible each time they are awarded.

Still, I'm in favor because it further refines a merit based rating system, and it avoids the sledgehammer effect mentioned elsewhere.

I think a simple implementation would be a "five star" system - with each star being 20%. I don't know though personally, because I dont' have a whole lot of experience with giving out APs. I imagine some people might prefer a simple textbox that they enter a percentage or a point total.

Quote:

---

I think a simple implementation would be a "five star" system - with each star being 20%.

---

Very good idea, although I don't know how hard it would be to code.
I can give pos/neg points now, and not help/hurt anyone with them, but you seniors hit so hard, either pos. or neg. that if it was me, I would hardly ever use them. It would have to be an exceptional post, either good or bad, to justify that kind of antipoints.

Personally... I'd also just like a way to "bring something back to zero." As often seems the case here, certain random posts seem to get positive of negative APs for no apparent reason.

For example, just yesterday (I wish I could find the post now), I came across a thread that had a single "newbie-like" question in it that had a few positive APs -- nothing else, just the question with not-a-single-answer... but positive nonetheless (rather than "even"). The temptation was certainly there to slap the post with negs to bring it back to "normal," but I know that it'd probably hit it hard, probably even take it to "very negative" or thereabouts... so, I left it alone. In such cases, it would be nice for senior members or, at least people with a given level of APs, to be better able to "bring the post back to center" accordingly.

...and yeah, this has been brought up time and time and time again.

bumping this thread as I think it would improve the antipoint system.
and it's being discussed in this thread

draziw's "bring something back to zero." at the very least.. but a sliding scale would be better

Very interesting.....

I think Dakyon has a valid point. I have seen "sr" members here that have signed up 2 months ago..yet they have 11 little green lights beside thier name. How does that happen?
Do thier post rank such merit that everyone bestows greenies to them? My question is rhetorical because I think we ALL know how it happens. I remember when the IRC server was accessable from a link on AO's main page. There was a dude always on the channel by the name of evil enchalada or something like that. He had one post to his name....and granted it was a very good one. He had 5 green lights next to his name...5!.
The antipoint system is a way to prevent site abuse by trolls and scriptidiots and such.
But you will have to admit that 500 points for one post borders on the fallacy of ad-populace!
I think Jupmed should leave the system just as it is because I have only read one or two posts
(and I read alot here..even if I don't post) from a Sr member complaining about GETTING undeserved greens for a one line post. It happens all the time. Go and check some of the posts that have massive greens on them...alot of them are one line post whoring. I like it when it happens to me. I have recieved greens for no logical reason(haha..reds also) I like it for one simple reason. it gives me a "bank" of points so I can take a couple of hits from a big bad "Sr" member if I disagree with them. I don't care about how many lights are beside my name...I just don't want to get banned for speaking my mind in a polite way. nebulus I want to ask you some questions. Did you have a problem with the system when you were being overwhelmed with greens? Did you have an issue with the system before you acheived the 11 green light status? Now all of a sudden after you get that "status" you want to change the system so you don't give undeserved greens(or reds for that matter). Let's just just leave it like it is. If you want to focus on something focus on how in the world someone can sign up for membership two months ago and have 11 green lights. I have counted 8 such "sr" members....8!! Don't you think it should take at least a year of GOOD posting to acheive that status? neg me if you want....I call it like I see it.

Simple they help people with computer problems just like I am helping you right now and other members reward them with positive points and there were ap alliances those members have been banned that were involved in it but that was before you could see who gave you positive or negative points. And another thing if I get positives from a member it is because they learned something from my post or they got a laugh from it hell I wouldn’t complain if I got positive points :D

You do have a point DeadAddict. I don't have an issue with someone who has a lot of greens after 574 posts...sheesh you EARNED it by posting that much. As a matter of fact i don't have an issue with someone who has 11 green lights after 2 months either. Some people love the boost..they probally log on just to see if they have more greens....they probally anticipate making the "top ten antipoint earner" list also. My point is don't try to change the system when you have used said system to achieve your desired status. I would rather be a good Network Admin than have 11 green lights with a "SR" status label. I use the site to learn things. Perhaps I am guilty of not contributing enough. I actually don't have the time at this point in life...and I don't believe that I even have anything original to contribute anyway.
At least in the way of security. Anything I post could probally be articulated better by someone else. IMHO we should just leave the system as is. If you want to balance out a post that's been hit unjustly just consider your extra weight in greenies a reward for the poor slob that got negged. I wan't talking about a good post getting greens. However some of the post I've seen with massive greens are one line posts such as" I agree" or "I like that also"
Situations like those are clear cases of a antipoint cabal or alliance at work.
But I don't really care..it's no biggie to me. As long as AO has good security info I'll be around......lurking::hide-beh

Although LarrySmith has a point, I still think there should be something to put limits on the number you assign. I propose that on the window that pops up for assigning antipoints they have choices like this:
I strongly approve
I approve
I slightly approve
I slightly disapprove
I disapprove
I strongly disapprove
All of those being different amounts of antipoints being assigned. I know that this will most likely never be implemented which is ok, I have very few complaints about the system as it is. My points count very little whereas others with more points to give count more. Therefore, I don't really have to worry about hitting anyone too hard.
I think my proposed method would give a clear method for implementing antipoint assignments. For example, you would probably only assign the I strongly approve choice for a really good tutorial, where you might use the slightly approve for the good one line post. And just do the equal and opposite for negs. I'm probably crazy for posting this but I feel that my method might work if implemented properly. Plus this way would sort of keep the old method just with different levels. Comments are appreciated, flames are tolerated.

Thank you H3retic for getting the thread back on topic. AP alliances, people with points who don't deserve them, etc are all outside of the point of my original post. The whole point of my original post is simply this, there have been many times where a good answer has been given; however, I chose not to give the poster AP's simply because I knew roughly how many they would get for it and I felt it wasn't deserving of that kind of a tilt (taking the post from even to extremely positive for just one 'i approve'). Conversely, there have been times where I didn't feel that the post was helpful, or that it was abusive, or that it was flat wrong, and have held off assigning negative AP's for the same reason, the poster didn't deserve to have their post go from even to extremely negative.

I am not asking to be able to assign exact AP's, I am only asking that I be given more options that just 'I approve' or 'I disapprove', and I strongly agree with h3retic's categories. I for one would certainly be more likely to assign AP's to a post, given that extra degree of control, and I would suspect so would other senior members.

/nebulus