response 114 of 133:

Feb 24 08:27 UTC 2008

#64.93 Mary Remmers (mary) Thu, Nov 22, 2007 (09:14):
I think you've got free speech issues confused with intentional acts ...

[[...xnip...]]

But that said I'm not sure the totally open model works all that well
anywhere anymore.  It's a magnet for people with social issues.

#64.100 larry (lar) Sun, Nov 25, 2007 (16:07):
re#93
yeah, I guess spamming ......

[[...xnip...]]

Let's face it cyklone..we banned hera for content.
  

response 116 of 133:

Mar 1 01:22 UTC 2008

Retard.

response 118 of 133:

Mar 2 01:59 UTC 2008

lar;s 100 wnas slighterly off ... nort 'content' raterh, ;mal-content;
  
mdoerated newsuer nad/or psoting resotrictions seemm the learst-worst chioce.

response 120 of 133:

Oct 23 17:58 UTC 2008

Not that I read every post in this topic but as I read remmers#85 the 
following occured to me.

What if... individual posts where rated - say, on a five star scale. 
Further if all posts were to default to five stars and as grexers read 
and rate the post would be rated to reflect the average. With some 
filter arrangement grexers could choose the low-end threshhold they 
would be willing to subjec themselves to. Of course those who "live" 
here would be subjected to everything whereas the more casual among us 
would be treated to a dialed down version, if so desired. 

Of course there would need to be a mechanism to limit rating to once 
per customer. I think a system whereby the users have a direct say in 
what we want to represent would help build community spirit. 

Further the public access portal (read anonymously) could be tuned to 
reveal 'threes or above' (or whatever.) That might intice folks to 
register and log-in to see 1.what passes for low grade and 2.perhaps 
enter their 'vote' on the topics they did view.

What could possibly be more democratic than that? 2cents << madmike

response 122 of 133:

Oct 23 19:32 UTC 2008

Something like that is certainly possible....

response 124 of 133:

Oct 24 01:08 UTC 2008

Thanks for the redirect remmers. I get what you're saying. Perhaps 
there could be several filtering "cliques". For example one could tune 
in using the administrators clique or the moderator clique, the newbie 
clique or the self admitted twit clique. Imagine the hoops that could 
be constructed to determine who may be admitted to a particular group.
You could collect group labels as sort of merit badges. 

You might even allow for revoking of group membership based on fellow 
cliquee votes. 'Cyber-Survivor' as it where.

For the record I think the MySpace model is okay for them but too 
restrictive for grex. 

I really dig that I can post to Coop. And I did not even have to pass a 
psyc test. ;-)

response 126 of 133:

Jan 28 07:13 UTC 2009

i noticed that the groups stuff is (seems to be) un-updated. ???
  

response 128 of 133:

Feb 6 05:53 UTC 2009

well,  i thought i'd be int eh verified group, for one example.
don;t wanna get a buncha ppl too upset.

response 130 of 133:

Feb 17 15:53 UTC 2009

eh?

response 132 of 133:

Feb 18 16:29 UTC 2009

There seems to be something in FrontTalk where a character sequence
which I expect to result in a cancelled posting instead causes 
a blank posting to happen.  Not sure what that sequence is.
But it probably involves a CTRL-C.