Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Antipoints Quota

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    520
    I balanced mine out on the sub7 dude... This really hurts me... Btw some people have been dumping me with loads of negs...

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    852
    you have to wonder why...
    RiOtEr

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,785
    automatic thread closure, heh, well there's something worth pissing everybody off over! like it wouldn't work with out this new so called feature. What happened to moderators?
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    145
    Got a problem with being balance as well . I tend to give away positive points most of the time . But well, I guess it's time for me to start reviewing the threads again to keep the balance

    ------ A Blessed Day to All---------------

  5. #15
    AntiOnline Senior Member souleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Flint, MI
    Posts
    2,883
    I gave up giving out antipoints, I didnt want anyone to think I was abusing the system, especially after the deal with Focmaester. Now I have to meet a quota of negative antipoints?
    If you are not giving out antipoints, then you still don't have to. You will have that message on your screen when you log in, but that will be the only difference. "Balancing" just makes your antipoints worth more...to my understanding. Being unbalance doesn't make the site slower for you or anything...

    the best balance (fair) for anti points will be about 90 - 10
    I'll admit, the balance shouldn't be 50/50, but If you search back about 2 weeks, you can find a crapload of posts that could have gotten negatives without abusing the system, people just never gave them out.
    \"Ignorance is bliss....
    but only for your enemy\"
    -- souleman

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    324
    I posted this in the thread below, but it's relevant to this thread too.
    http://www.antionline.com/showthread...=&pagenumber=3
    Hmm...

    I can appreciate the logic of what JP is trying to do here. I even seem to remember a thread where the suggestion was made to have a thread point aggregate be listed alongside the thread link, so that we could see if the thread was about to waste out time and bandwidth before we clicked on it.

    If you continue thinking along these lines then an auto thread close feature is the next logical development. In the case of some recent threads, such as those by a certain Dark[Zeus], that got flamed to bits, this would enable the system to automatically close the offending thread.

    I can also appreciate why such a development would require additional fine tuning of the antipoint system to avoid the accidental discontinuation of threads. I can further appreciate why this system has to be a black box, or 'magic' if you prefer, to avoid misuse of the Anti Points system.

    Lastly, I appreciate, as a developer myself, how annoying it can be to have someone, especially someone who doesn't understand how the underlying decision model works, second guess what you're doing. So let me be clear that I'm _not_ second guessing here, but I do have some observations.

    I'm fairly careful about giving out anti-points. I only assign them under two conditions. The first condition is that I finish reading the post and think 'Wow - that was a really good/useful/worthwhile post. You desvere some greens'. The second condition is when I finish reading a post and think 'hanging is too good for this offensive moron. Eat my reds'. And without any sort of balancing at all my ratio of assigned red to green has stayed at around the 80% green 20% red mark.

    In truth I think that this is a credit to the members of Anti Online that, on good day, 4 out of every 5 articles are worthwhile and only 1 in 5 are worthless.

    So observation number one. Is the 70% positive threshold truly representative of the good post / bad post ratio on this site? Are there enough /really/ poor posts (as opposed to just not very useful posts) to go round? 70% negative seems fair, but maybe it should be slightly higher for positive.

    Observation number two. I have been looking at other peoples assignment ratios since I got the 'Miyagi' message. Thre are a lot of people with a whole ruck load of negative anti-points they have to give out to get even. This is where I feel the biggest stumbling block is. I myself had to try dumping negatives onto already banned users to try and balance myself up and /I/ wasn't /that/ out of balance to begin with . Some of the seniors are going to have real problems.

    I have even noticed that someone dumped me with a red one (a drive-by), on a post that was otherwise extremely positive this morning. As this was my /first/ red one (I'm _not_ whining about this btw) the timing seems a bit of a conincidence. Surely this dumping of red points will skew the sytem even more.

    This change is designed to have an effect on the way users assign anti-points from here on in, but it takes into account those anti-points assigned prior to the implimentation of this system. Maybe the implimentation of this system requires that the amount of points assigned by users is returned to zero so everyone starts from a 50% positive 50% negative position again.

    Observation number three. Strategic re-evaluation. Is the goal of auto-closing threads sound? Have we fully explored the possiblility of having more human moderators? Community is a two way thing (which I know you know ) - I'm sure people would fall over themselves to get involved. I would. Just a thought.

    As I said before I'm not second guessing. I have faith that 'things will turn out form the best' - they usually do IME. I am fully aware that JP will have already given /considerably/ more thought than I to these any of us and I have total faith that AO will eventually be a better site for the changes.

    My only real concern is that the short term effects of this could be negative, especially on newer users who might get a lot more reds in this dumping process, unless the appropriate actions are taken to negate these effects during the implimentation phase.
    \"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.\"
    Sir Winston Churchill.

  7. #17
    hmmm am just worried peps will get their points balanced out and then stop giving them altogether!!!
    plus am predicting a flood of negs with no names as peps just *dump* their negs on peps to balance themselves out >_<;
    /me looks at JP with raised eye brows.........u sure this is a good idea(!?)

    v_Ln

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    748
    Which brings up the point that all of this doesn't really matter. Having more or less antipoints doesn't make you any cooler, doesn't make you smell better, and certainly doesn't make you any more intelligent.

    Seems like to many people on here use this website as their only means of social interaction.

    If you have to give negative points to someone, give them to me. I really don't care, it won't hurt my ego.

  9. #19
    Antionline Quitter..Srsly
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    457
    no they dont mean whether u are smarter or anything but negs can get ya banned....look at me for example...shoot i had a couple Antipoints but i got negged really badly i maybe wrong but just cuz the thread sounded kiddy script like, my post simply was to show that once u get an ip of the user there is not much u can do....my post can be found at
    http://www.antionline.com/showthread...610#post527610
    yes i know i cant spell ...but the point is my post did nothing to deserve negs...maybe i was just a victim of neg dumping?....bah w/e now with a big neg by someone i could get banned :/
    \"\"A weak mind is like a microscope, which magnifies trifling things but cannot receive great ones.\" — G.K. Chesterton, 19th-century English essayist and poet\"

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    1,100
    Greetings All:

    There really is no need to have multiple threads started for this same subject. Let's keep all conversations about this issue here:

    http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=229911

    thanks. thread closed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •