Therealmaster
November 10th, 2001, 10:54 AM
Would it be possible to see WHO is giving you antipoints? at least that way you know who it is and maybe you can figure out why they've given them you.
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Antipoints
pwaring
November 10th, 2001, 11:01 AM
That's probably a good idea, especially if they give you negative AntiPoints.
Oh, and your signiature should read /dev/null not dev/null ;)
Oh, and your signiature should read /dev/null not dev/null ;)
Therealmaster
November 10th, 2001, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by pwaring
That's probably a good idea, especially if they give you negative AntiPoints.
Exactly what i mean, either we should be allowed to see who gave it us, or at least they should leave a comment.
Originally posted by pwaring
Oh, and your signiature should read /dev/null not dev/null ;)
and i know that the *nix address is /dev/null .... but i wanted dev/null (just to confuse everyone even more)
That's probably a good idea, especially if they give you negative AntiPoints.
Exactly what i mean, either we should be allowed to see who gave it us, or at least they should leave a comment.
Originally posted by pwaring
Oh, and your signiature should read /dev/null not dev/null ;)
and i know that the *nix address is /dev/null .... but i wanted dev/null (just to confuse everyone even more)
ThePreacher
November 10th, 2001, 11:32 AM
I got negative antipoints for this comment (http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=282582#post282582) and the thing is the person who gave them to me said "for sure, for sure" as though they agreed with me. This antipoints thing is annoying. At least Im not as hated as that Seb-g.
Ennis
November 10th, 2001, 12:26 PM
First of all if you knew who gave you antipoint's nobody would give them for fear of revenge antipoints.
It's pretty obvious people, as for Seb-G, he's is just a child making fun for everyone. He's hated but man doe's he not care or ever will! And you are not hated because you get antipoints, you maybe just too opionated for some and Im writing this with a hangover so Im gonna stop but you get the jist.
It's pretty obvious people, as for Seb-G, he's is just a child making fun for everyone. He's hated but man doe's he not care or ever will! And you are not hated because you get antipoints, you maybe just too opionated for some and Im writing this with a hangover so Im gonna stop but you get the jist.
Alcatraz
November 10th, 2001, 02:16 PM
How many antipoints do newbies start out with?
stflook
November 10th, 2001, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Therealmaster
Would it be possible to see WHO is giving you antipoints? at least that way you know who it is and maybe you can figure out why they've given them you.
Letting people know who is giving you AntiPoints would leave the door open for AntiPoint retaliation, and even flame or AntiPoint wars. If people want you to know who is sending them, they will sign the submission. If not, such anonymity is their right. You can generally tell why you're given the points based on whether or not there is a comment, what kind of comment it is, how many points the submission was worth, and what type of post it was. I believe I can tell with fairly good reliability when somebody truly doesn't approve of my post, and when they're just abusing the system. There is no need to have the person's name given.
Would it be possible to see WHO is giving you antipoints? at least that way you know who it is and maybe you can figure out why they've given them you.
Letting people know who is giving you AntiPoints would leave the door open for AntiPoint retaliation, and even flame or AntiPoint wars. If people want you to know who is sending them, they will sign the submission. If not, such anonymity is their right. You can generally tell why you're given the points based on whether or not there is a comment, what kind of comment it is, how many points the submission was worth, and what type of post it was. I believe I can tell with fairly good reliability when somebody truly doesn't approve of my post, and when they're just abusing the system. There is no need to have the person's name given.
UberC0der
November 10th, 2001, 05:54 PM
I can understand wanting to know why someone gave you negative points. Perhaps an alternative to user disclosure would be a mandatory comment when giving negative points. At least that way you could get an idea about Why they gave them to you. I know that I would want to know.
Evil Homer
November 10th, 2001, 09:11 PM
Not to complain, but isn't this like the 2394879836th thread with just about these exact same posts? It has been made clear many times in the past that a change in the antipoint system is very unlikely, so you should just probably just get used to it
Therealmaster
November 10th, 2001, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by stflook
Letting people know who is giving you AntiPoints would leave the door open for AntiPoint retaliation, and even flame or AntiPoint wars.
This I actually thought about...and then thought that as the antipoints wont let you asign people antipoints one after the other that this wouldn't be quite so important. This is i guess just another example where a decent feature is wrecked because a few would abuse it.
Originally posted by stflook
If people want you to know who is sending them, they will sign the submission. If not, such anonymity is their right. You can generally tell why you're given the points based on whether or not there is a comment, what kind of comment it is, how many points the submission was worth, and what type of post it was. I believe I can tell with fairly good reliability when somebody truly doesn't approve of my post, and when they're just abusing the system. There is no need to have the person's name given.
True it can be easy to work out why a whole batch of antipoints has been give, but even if people choose to remain anonymous shouldn't there be at least ( as UberC0der said) a mandatory comment when giving someone antipoints.
And if someone is abusing the system then if the name is given then it would be easy to tell who it is, and if not (or they have to comment) then it would make no difference to the current set up.
Letting people know who is giving you AntiPoints would leave the door open for AntiPoint retaliation, and even flame or AntiPoint wars.
This I actually thought about...and then thought that as the antipoints wont let you asign people antipoints one after the other that this wouldn't be quite so important. This is i guess just another example where a decent feature is wrecked because a few would abuse it.
Originally posted by stflook
If people want you to know who is sending them, they will sign the submission. If not, such anonymity is their right. You can generally tell why you're given the points based on whether or not there is a comment, what kind of comment it is, how many points the submission was worth, and what type of post it was. I believe I can tell with fairly good reliability when somebody truly doesn't approve of my post, and when they're just abusing the system. There is no need to have the person's name given.
True it can be easy to work out why a whole batch of antipoints has been give, but even if people choose to remain anonymous shouldn't there be at least ( as UberC0der said) a mandatory comment when giving someone antipoints.
And if someone is abusing the system then if the name is given then it would be easy to tell who it is, and if not (or they have to comment) then it would make no difference to the current set up.
stflook
November 11th, 2001, 06:12 AM
This I actually thought about...and then thought that as the antipoints wont let you asign people antipoints one after the other that this wouldn't be quite so important. This is i guess just another example where a decent feature is wrecked because a few would abuse it.
It's true that the current system won't let you give the same person points over and over before giving them to others. The end result? Lots of other people caught in the middle getting points, good or bad, that they don't deserve. We can avoid that can of worms altogether simply by not providing the sender's name. If you want to have it send the name as a default and leave a checkbox or something to submit anonymous points, that would be fine. I know that doesn't solve the problem in question, but I think it would be a good middle ground. You should ask JP about an alternative way to track AntiPoints abusers. I'm sure he can come up with something, assuming he agrees.
shouldn't there be at least ( as UberC0der said) a mandatory comment when giving someone antipoints.
A mandatory comment as WHO said?? I posted a thread about that exact topic a while ago, and JP shot it down. I'm not about to retype my whole argument on the issue, but here's the link if you want to check it out.
http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119593
It's true that the current system won't let you give the same person points over and over before giving them to others. The end result? Lots of other people caught in the middle getting points, good or bad, that they don't deserve. We can avoid that can of worms altogether simply by not providing the sender's name. If you want to have it send the name as a default and leave a checkbox or something to submit anonymous points, that would be fine. I know that doesn't solve the problem in question, but I think it would be a good middle ground. You should ask JP about an alternative way to track AntiPoints abusers. I'm sure he can come up with something, assuming he agrees.
shouldn't there be at least ( as UberC0der said) a mandatory comment when giving someone antipoints.
A mandatory comment as WHO said?? I posted a thread about that exact topic a while ago, and JP shot it down. I'm not about to retype my whole argument on the issue, but here's the link if you want to check it out.
http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119593
ronin13
November 11th, 2001, 12:39 PM
Although I usually put my name to points given or not with a comment stating why,I don't really think it should be mandatory.Maybe far too much emphasis is being given to the whole subject.Although I don't doubt there are those trying to abuse the system or maybe being unfair.I do agree that if you are giving someone negative points there should at least be a comment as to why and it should be more of an explanation than "I'm having a bad day and taking it out on you" or "I just don't care for your view on this".Better yet,if you disagree with someone's statement post a reply giving your view point.This is supposed to be an open discussion forum where views can be expressed and then discussed,let's not forget we are all different,we are all from different backgrounds,we all have varying computer skills,and are from different age groups...but have at least one thing in common...... wanting to know more about computers,computer security,and the cyber world we move around in today.
Therealmaster
November 11th, 2001, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by stflook
If you want to have it send the name as a default and leave a checkbox or something to submit anonymous points, that would be fine.
That would probably be a good idea...or as was posted in the other thread
http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119593 to have a system where more antipoints are given dependant on whether the name is given or not :) .
The main reason that i posted this was because i hadn't actually seen other posts on the topic
If you want to have it send the name as a default and leave a checkbox or something to submit anonymous points, that would be fine.
That would probably be a good idea...or as was posted in the other thread
http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=119593 to have a system where more antipoints are given dependant on whether the name is given or not :) .
The main reason that i posted this was because i hadn't actually seen other posts on the topic
UberC0der
November 11th, 2001, 04:07 PM
A slight modification/clarification to my post above.
I agree that disclosure of any kind may make thie Anit-Point system less an honest form of feedback. Perhaps a mandatory blurb about assigning negative Anti-Points /* do I misunderstand Anti-points? I am under the impression that Anti-points can be + or - */ is a little excessive and would make some members who would have otherwise given negative points hold back.
I suppose that I just like to see a comment when I get any points whether + or -. I suppose + points are an ego thing, and - points are an ego thing to `why did you think my post sucked donkey?' and the like.
Maybe a more sane way is to say 'If you are going to give points + or - *Please* give a bit O' feedback along with them".
Besides, if someone is just being a jerk, I am not sure I want an ambiguous thing like :{bARf}: or BlecH or NhgJAS!!!!!!! in the comment just cause the person Had to enter something.
I agree that disclosure of any kind may make thie Anit-Point system less an honest form of feedback. Perhaps a mandatory blurb about assigning negative Anti-Points /* do I misunderstand Anti-points? I am under the impression that Anti-points can be + or - */ is a little excessive and would make some members who would have otherwise given negative points hold back.
I suppose that I just like to see a comment when I get any points whether + or -. I suppose + points are an ego thing, and - points are an ego thing to `why did you think my post sucked donkey?' and the like.
Maybe a more sane way is to say 'If you are going to give points + or - *Please* give a bit O' feedback along with them".
Besides, if someone is just being a jerk, I am not sure I want an ambiguous thing like :{bARf}: or BlecH or NhgJAS!!!!!!! in the comment just cause the person Had to enter something.
Therealmaster
November 12th, 2001, 03:28 PM
Got some more antipoints today....thank god they were balance points, because i was being criticised for my posts here. :(
However i just have 1 final (promise) thing to say regarding antipoints.....if balance points are given, would it at least be possible to see which way they were intended to go...be it negative or positive so taht at least you can tell wether people liked the post or not, even if they can't actaully harm/benefit your antipoints total?
The only reason i ask is because i have recieved several balance points that have had no message and so i don't know whether people liked/agreed with or disliked/disagreed with my posts.
However i just have 1 final (promise) thing to say regarding antipoints.....if balance points are given, would it at least be possible to see which way they were intended to go...be it negative or positive so taht at least you can tell wether people liked the post or not, even if they can't actaully harm/benefit your antipoints total?
The only reason i ask is because i have recieved several balance points that have had no message and so i don't know whether people liked/agreed with or disliked/disagreed with my posts.
Havanger
November 12th, 2001, 06:36 PM
if you want to give people antipoints and you want them to know who you are, just put your name in the comments box. duh. if you do, others will likely follow.
-havanger
-havanger
Ennis
November 12th, 2001, 08:09 PM
Thats not really the point Havanger, I think they are reffering to everytime you give antipoints youre name appears no matter what.
I think people can figure out how to let people know it's you.
I think people can figure out how to let people know it's you.
Dome
November 12th, 2001, 08:31 PM
we have been through the whole AntiPoint thing a bunch of times guys, go read other threads!
Therealmaster
November 14th, 2001, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Ennis
I think people can figure out how to let people know it's you.
Ok so arguements accepted. Just 1 more little thing though, does anyone else have a problem trying to decide whether balance points they were given were meant to be positive or negative, if there is no comment then how are we meant to know whether people agree with what we are saying or not?
I think people can figure out how to let people know it's you.
Ok so arguements accepted. Just 1 more little thing though, does anyone else have a problem trying to decide whether balance points they were given were meant to be positive or negative, if there is no comment then how are we meant to know whether people agree with what we are saying or not?
antionline.com
Copyright 2007 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2007 Jupitermedia Corporation All Rights Reserved.