Issue: Interaction of Suicide threads and AP dumps

[Joey_Batch_File]

Originally posted here by souleman
One good thing about suicide is that a newbie can not be banned from one post (the thread will suicide first). If that thread was brought back, more people could (and would) give that newbie negative points, and he would get banned.

That is the nail in the coffin right there. The only solution would be:

Originally posted here by Joey_Batch_File

I think if this is such a big problem, people should read the thread, and consider the state of the thread and the content of the thread as a whole before quickly dropping thier negs. If it is a good thread, but one nonsense post. If it was nonsense and you see the individual was hit once or twice you take in consideration of the overall status of the tread before tagging the person yet again. I think alot of this is up to us to make work.

[Terr]

Hm. Arrg. Cyclical human problems. Hmm. I think that's a better idea, Allen, to have non-AP votes, it would at least inhibit Soule's resurrect-neg-die cycle problem. Hm.

Here's a trickier idea for dealing with 'homicide' threads, with it's own set of problems...

What if, when calculating how close to suicide a thread is, neg AP assignments from people who participated on the thread are more important than those made by less-interested observers?

[THE RADICAL]

Wow, I came home today to view the thread that I posted and it turned suicidal. I'm glad you started this thread Terr because you were one of the people that got negged for no reason at all. I'm not posting to give any suggestions about how to deal with the issue, I think you guys have done a good job with that topic. I am posting to express my disappointment in the outcome of the thread How do YOU learn. To my knowledge I think the best thing that you can do is try to contact the user that negged you if you haven't already done so. Even though they probrobly won't respond. I do thank all that posted there for their responses, it was very intresting to see how some people learned their computer science, etc. -Peace-

[ZeroOne]

Uhm, the one giving reds for my last post with comment "This has nothing to do with the discussion at point....", you and similar persons are the reason for my profile intro to have just that quote from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I was trying to explain that I do find the thing Terr explained here to be a problem sometimes and it could be solved if one person could assign antipoints to only one or two messages per thread at a time.

[JCHostingAdmin]

Welp, I never really looked at this thread untill now, so here it goes. First off, if I commit suicide, do you really think I can come back? Lol, seriously tho, I'm sort of against the idea only because there are people who would abuse this just to bann someone they either hate, or a newbie. I agree mostly with souleman and if he didn't post it, more than likely, I would have posted the exact same thing because I agree with it. As for the people who group up and ****, I would highly object if they did it to bann a newbie or if they did it for anything else. Again, I agree with souleman's post. Terr> it would be a good idea IMO if people couldn't abuse it and sadly, they can.

[allenb1963]

Originally posted here by Terr
What if, when calculating how close to suicide a thread is, neg AP assignments from people who participated on the thread are more important than those made by less-interested observers?

Am I glad I came back and read this. Terr, what if that rule applied to ALL AP's regardless of the status of the thread and was true for positive AND negative points? That way the fate of the thread is MAINLY determined by those who choose to PARTICIPATE in the discussion, and is less vulnerable to 'drive-by' negs carelessly tossed about by those seeking balance. JMHO

[Terr]

Allen: Well, interesting, but it would be hard to implement and would probably backfire in certain cases.

Just a note to the 'STFU this is a security site' people... This is SITE SUGGESTIONS... I haven't seen you guys giving any suggestions on the *security* of the site lately.

[vanman]

Well Terr,I think it is generally a good idea.Ihave had this experience not so long ago where the thread I made a quick post to, went suicidal within about twenty minutes after it was posted, and it wasn't a bad post.

regads
v/man

[(V)/\><]

i just put this in its own thread, but since something similar was discussed already i have moved it here. i have now read this thread to find out that it wasn't fully discussed or resolved. the thread just ends. is this it with this topic? has there not been enough member intrest? or is it just that hard to implement? please do feel free to comment on my dual thread view although i suspect that this would be impossible to implement by comparison to the other problem, which seems easier to integrate from the point of view of a person who has not a clue how the site is organised.....

based on the premise, no single member should have the power to close a thread and multiple members should have the power to reopen a thread i bring you this:

firstly, by no single member, i refer to members who give OR receive ap's negatively, in a single discussion thread. that is to say that the ap system monitors a discussion based on the quality of its subject matter by input from the members on a single discussion viewpoint entry basis, based on their opinions. so what if a discussion is perfectly legitimate, not of biblical quality, a normal conversation - enjoyed and contributed to by multiple members and a single user abuses the system? well either the thread will become extremely positive or sucidal. the extremely positive abuse case generally means that it is the ap giver but the thread is open and can still be rectified, but i digress, it is not in the scope of this thread header. with the sucidal case it could be the author of a post or the ap contributer, since i am talking about abuse, the post's content or the reviewers opinion is irrelevant. of course to resolve this, the sucidal thread would have to be reopened, by moderators(?assumption) or perhaps multiple members. in my opinion, if it were possible to donate ap's to a thread (that is discussion - the flow of thoughts based on the subject matter) perhaps only sucidal threads, and certain conditions were met (number of members who contributed, ap's contributed) the thread could be reopened. of course this may lead to other forms of abuse (of course of course). and the amount of legitimate threads that are closed due to a single member are probably minute. so it may not be worth altering the system. i do think the sucidal threads are a great feature, normally only the weak ones top themselves, like the one post wonders.

instead of opening another thread with a different subject matter:
however, there would be the problem of merging threads of the same topic that were spawned due to the closing of the parent. append the threads? no of course not. thats when i thought along of the related topics feature, and i wondered about dual-thread viewing. first off, i don't know if this would be practical to code or maintain. but i am viewing 1280x1024 pixels on a 19" and i think that it would work visually. navigate with a next_page1 or next_page2 or next_page1&2. for lower resolutions and smaller screens perhaps an 'optimised' view without the extra member info under avatar, or perhaps an avatarless view mode, to create more horizontal space and speed.

this thought process was brought to you in association with
http://www.antionline.com/showthrea...threadid=237619
& (i haven't read the first one yet, which i have listed second)
http://www.antionline.com/showthrea...threadid=237579

dont respond to old threads, this thread has long been dead look at the flashing date

you ass, do you even know how illogical a thing this is to say? firstly you make a statement, an order to me to not respond to old threads, and if this wasn't bad enough, you then justify it by saying that because the date is flashing the thread is long dead. for messages | the date is flashing -> thread is dead & don't respond. even if you aren't a complete ass, and this was supposed to be sarchastic, fyi, the thread is ▒▓▒▓▒░not closed░▓▒▓▒▓