You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   91-115   116-133     
 
Author Message
18 new of 133 responses total.
hera
response 116 of 133: Mark Unseen   Mar 1 01:22 UTC 2008

Retard.
hera
response 117 of 133: Mark Unseen   Mar 1 01:39 UTC 2008

re #114: You're the one with a "social issue" you skanky cunt whore bitch.
I don't see you contributing much of anything in the General conference.
tsty
response 118 of 133: Mark Unseen   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.
hera
response 119 of 133: Mark Unseen   Mar 7 02:41 UTC 2008

What the fuck did you say???? You retard.
madmike
response 120 of 133: Mark Unseen   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
madmike
response 121 of 133: Mark Unseen   Oct 23 18:06 UTC 2008

...kinda' like cyklone was talking about in #55(?) I suppose...
cross
response 122 of 133: Mark Unseen   Oct 23 19:32 UTC 2008

Something like that is certainly possible....
remmers
response 123 of 133: Mark Unseen   Oct 23 21:24 UTC 2008

Re resp:120 - Hmmm...  I'm glad somebody is reviving this thread.  In
resp:85 and resp:88 I detailed my objections to such a rating system
and proposed a more individualized alternative that would allow users to
fine-tune their filtering to their own tastes.  Just to remind y'all.
madmike
response 124 of 133: Mark Unseen   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. ;-)
naftee
response 125 of 133: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 02:17 UTC 2008

this is grex's most interesting conference.
tsty
response 126 of 133: Mark Unseen   Jan 28 07:13 UTC 2009

i noticed that the groups stuff is (seems to be) un-updated. ???
  
cross
response 127 of 133: Mark Unseen   Jan 29 14:34 UTC 2009

Which groups?
tsty
response 128 of 133: Mark Unseen   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.
krj
response 129 of 133: Mark Unseen   Feb 6 17:34 UTC 2009

davel
response 130 of 133: Mark Unseen   Feb 17 15:53 UTC 2009

eh?
mary
response 131 of 133: Mark Unseen   Feb 17 23:40 UTC 2009

Dave!  Missed you 'round here.  And at the Lighthouse.
krj
response 132 of 133: Mark Unseen   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.
cross
response 133 of 133: Mark Unseen   Feb 18 17:39 UTC 2009

Hmm; that's weird...
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   91-115   116-133     
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss