Post before AP
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Post before AP

  1. #1
    Developer Extraordinar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Internets
    Posts
    571

    Post before AP

    I think that a user should have to post a reply in a thread, before he or she can assign AP's to a post in that certian thread. It would help to control alot of the AP stuff that is going around, and could programmed making use of the vBulletin sessions, I'm sure. Plus, it would help to uncoer AP alliences (If they still exist) and rid of that problem as well. I think overall, it would just help out in controling APs, which now seem out of control.

    Peace.

    MB
    Come to UnError.com

  2. #2
    Although i think its a good idea to be forced to post before you can assign antipoints, i dont think it works out logically... when a person reads a thread, they read it post by post and when they find the need to give points, they can do it there... with your idea, theyd have to go post, and then have to come back, find the post, and assign the points, which would be sort of a bitch of a problem if the thread was long... and that would also lead to a massive amounts of single line replies, like, "just posting to give points" and etc...

    good idea though, but those little details suck =)
    dave

  3. #3
    Developer Extraordinar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Internets
    Posts
    571
    After you post, you're takin back to the thread. Stop making it out to be more work than it is. If the person really deserves the AP's, they'll do it. There's probably a way to block lines like that, or users would probably just ban people that posted like that off the site.
    Come to UnError.com

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,914
    Hey Hey,

    Danny Boy is a good friend of mine but I'm gonna have to completely disagree with him on this one. I think it's a horrid idea. While the principal may be good "You have to contribute in order to evalute a post as good or bad"... the practice would be horrid. We get someone spamming the boards and want to neg them so they're banned (one of the main purposes)... Then we're going to have to sit and repsond to their spam before we can neg them? That's not good at all. Also someone posts a link or a good program that we think deserves rewarding... we have to post and say "Good Link" or "Nice program" before we can assign them greenies? What about in discussions when someone posts valueable information. "Good Post" comments usually get attacked right now... we're going to have to start allowing them and accepting them as the "norm". Good threads are going to be cluttered with useless posts because people want to give someone APs (be they good or bad) but have to say something first... Threads may be bumped to the top of the list while no new or intersted information is added because someone wanted to say "Good Job".... It's ridiculous.... It's going to do nothing but clutter up valuable posts... every thread will be come the Non-sensical thread (or whatever the hell that garbage is called).... Post counts will soar because people who neg or greenie 4 or 5 people a day will have to make 4 or 5 additional posts... even though they have nothing of value to contribute.

    I like ya MB, but this is one of the worst suggestions I've heard/seen yet.

    Peace,
    HT
    IT Blog: .:Computer Defense:.
    PnCHd (Pronounced Pinched): Acronym - Point 'n Click Hacked. As in: "That website was pinched" or "The skiddie pinched my computer because I forgot to patch".

  5. #5
    Developer Extraordinar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Internets
    Posts
    571
    I understand.

    There's got to be some way to regulate the flow of APs though, because there is an awful lot of bad ones going around. When I think of a better idea, I'll let everyone know. :P
    Come to UnError.com

  6. #6
    But think of it this way, say you fell behind a few pages on the nonsensical thread or something like that... and you want to give greens to a couple replies somewhere on those pages, imagine how tideous it would be... and don't get me wrong, i fully support the idea, it would guarnttee that ppl fully read threads and what not before bombing ppl with points... maybe the ppl here can make that u assign points but if u dont post to the thread within like 10 mins, they never appear to the person u gave them to.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Raion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    1,299
    I completly agree with you, because some people give out negs and don't give reasons to why they gave out the neg leaving the user clueless to why you gave out that negative point (Even though you have to comment some people don't leave constructive comments). Although this system wouldn't stop any AP Alliances because they could simply post something completly off topic or irrelevent to whatever they are posting and give out an AP so it doesn't completly stop them but users and moderaters will notice the posting sooner or later and get suspicious. I also think they should monitor all APs (the moderators) this way they can see who's in an AP alliance and etc.
    WARNING: THIS SIGNATURE IS SHAREWARE PLEASE REGISTER THIS SIGNATURE BY SENDING ME MONEY TO SEE THE COMPLETE SIGNATURE!

  8. #8
    Developer Extraordinar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Internets
    Posts
    571
    But think of it this way, say you fell behind a few pages on the nonsensical thread or something like that... and you want to give greens to a couple replies somewhere on those pages, imagine how tideous it would be... and don't get me wrong, i fully support the idea, it would guarnttee that ppl fully read threads and what not before bombing ppl with points... maybe the ppl here can make that u assign points but if u dont post to the thread within like 10 mins, they never appear to the person u gave them to.
    If you've already posted in that thread. (Which I assumed from the "fall behind" part) then you would already be able to assign APs. I don't believe APs should be able to be assigned for the non-sencial thread anyways. I can't believe that **** is still going on.

    I completly agree with you, because some people give out negs and don't give reasons to why they gave out the neg leaving the user clueless to why you gave out that negative point (Even though you have to comment some people don't leave constructive comments). Although this system wouldn't stop any AP Alliances because they could simply post something completly off topic or irrelevent to whatever they are posting and give out an AP so it doesn't completly stop them but users and moderaters will notice the posting sooner or later and get suspicious. I also think they should monitor all APs (the moderators) this way they can see who's in an AP alliance and etc.
    I think they should force people to put in a valid comment, because if they don't have a reason for giving you APs, you don't deserve them.

    MB
    Come to UnError.com

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,914
    Hey Hey,

    The AP system has flaws, we're all aware of this.. but we also all know it does the trick and most people are kept happy.. To me this thread is another example of whining.. maybe not from MB but from the replies... so someone neg's you and you didn't deserve it.. big deal. live with it, move on. yada yada yada.... The truth is that implementing an idea like this would serve no useful purpose and benefit no one other than the spammers and trouble makers and maybe a few of the AP whiners.... The system may be flawed but it does work.... this implementation would do nothing but cause problems.

    Peace,
    HT
    IT Blog: .:Computer Defense:.
    PnCHd (Pronounced Pinched): Acronym - Point 'n Click Hacked. As in: "That website was pinched" or "The skiddie pinched my computer because I forgot to patch".

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,055
    I think it's an idea that shouldn't be implemented based on two main reason's: AP Alliances don't exist anymore (atleast I don't think so, and atleast the problem has quivered). The second reason being it would cause too many problems and would encourage b/s posts just to assign posts in a thread.
    Space For Rent.. =]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?256342-Post-before-AP
www.antionline.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2016-44
111982
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:DDQDHMMGXFQRANSLXW2Y4BVTXENRNTAX
<urn:uuid:f6279a34-873d-4166-9492-c68b38869ac8>
2016-10-27T22:47:03Z
70.42.23.121
sha1:E5EIERF7EOEY34WRT4MNAO7ZXQRMNDDC
<urn:uuid:0efe8bf1-de56-4cf5-878b-a726080581a8>
http://www.antionline.com/showthread.php?256342-Post-before-AP
length
response
<urn:uuid:2f205b94-4560-42a2-ba42-3fccbf58c290>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-6-4.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-44
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf