Antipoints

[stflook]

Yea, it probably was you. I remember you suggested that the last time I complained about this. I can credit you for it in the first post if you want.

[Kezil]

Names may not be such a good idea, REASONS yes, but names can have bad side effects such as: you give negative antipoints for a post, but the person you gave them to is extremely vengeful and thinks their god almighty, and unfortunately your name was required with the message...Next thing you know, your down x amount of antipoints.
Now a question: anyone have any good ideas how to make a requirement to give reasons work? Someone could just press a few keys or put in jibberish and it could get past. Maybe a penalty if the recipient complains? Then again, someone would have to sift through all the complaints.
Thanks for your time.

[stflook]

The antipoints system is supposed to weed the good users from the bad. The policy is that anybody who is caught abusing the antipoints system will have their account deleted without question. Jibbersih comments could be used to weed out such antipoints abusers, and have them brought to justice without 10,000,000 complaints first, then a massive manhunt. Right now, I am not aware of any way to stop the antipoints abusers. Comments like "You're a nerdy whore." would also constitute gibberish comments. At least they should in my opinion, since it would be even worse than "skgj;askgjsdklh". Does that sound good to you?

[xstonedogx]

Requiring names would have the undesirable side effect of less users utilizing the antipoints system. Of those users who continued to utilize the antipoints system, they would be less likely to give negative antipoints. It would skew the results in favor of positive antipoints. This would result in an inaccurate representation of one's prestige. An anonymous system will provide the truest representation.

I fully support the idea of requiring comments. In fact, I had already determined I would not give a user antipoints without an explanation, even before I discovered this thread.

Requiring comments would be a boon to the antipoints system. While this would also likely have the same side effect mentioned above, in this case it would be a positive change. It would greatly increase the quality (worth) of the antipoints in two ways. Firstly, it would give the user feedback, aiding the user in self-improvement. Secondly, it would prevent the "casual" gifting of antipoints. If a user cannot put in words why he feels a user deserves antipoints, what meaning do the antipoints have? None.

[Eating_Scarlett]

This has nothing to do with antipoints, but the gold and purple 'theme' colours of this site are horrible. The yellow looks like the spit up of a new born baby, and the purple reminds me of the wiggles.

I do believe the person who chose these colours is either on drugs, or colour blind.


PS. utramp rocks.

[Eating_Scarlett]

Seriously though, stop your ****ing whining and get over it.

[stflook]

If you don't like my suggestion, that's fine. You could at least try to be a decent person about it though.

[DISLEX]

I would just like to say that I am with everyone on the "You MUST have a comment' for when giving either good OR bad AntiPoints.


Nerdy Whore,

[Flack]

I am new to AntiOnline, and I was wonderng if any one thatreads this would help me out. I have no i9dea what these Antipoints re for or how you become a "membr" or "senior member". Would sme one pleaseexplain?

Thanx

[stflook]

0-29 posts = Junior Member
30-99 posts = Member
100+ posts = Senior Member


The purpose of AntiPoints is to separate the good users from the bad. If you have meaningful things to say, then theoretically, users will give you positive antipoints. If you post things that are harassing, insulting, offensive, etc., users will theoretically give you negative antipoints. Generally, the more positive AntiPoints you have, the more respected you are.

Does this answer your question?