|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 361 responses total. |
popcorn
|
|
response 175 of 361:
| 
May 29 13:19 UTC 1995 |
Brain dump time (this response is long, and not relevant to much of anything).
Speaking as a grex user (and not in any official capacity), I miss what
the sexuality conference used to be. It used to be full of lots of neat
thoughts on topics ranging from gender issues (now mostly moved to the
femme and homme conferences) to discussions of homosexuality, teen
pregnancy, vehement arguments about anti-porn activists such as Catherine
McKinnon, and debates about monogamy vs. polygamy. It was a fascinating
conference. Today the conference is still active, but the main discussion
seems to be cyberflirting, and an occasional quickie flamefest. I
more or less don't go there anymore. I understand what Carson means when
he complains about the current character of the conference. I can see why
he put his comments here: if his comments had been in the sex conference
it might be months before they were found by the people who used to
participate in the sex conference and have now moved on because they don't
enjoy its current character, but who might rejoin if the conference went
back to what it once was. And the people who currently frequent the sex
conference *like it* the way it is; they don't want to change it back to
what it used to be, so trying to change the conference from within is
futile. So, what do you do when the content of a conference changes, and
some people want the conference to go back to what it used to be? In
general, I think the answer is that you have to live in the present, and the
current version of the conference is what most current users want. But I
find it difficult to apply that line of thinking to Grex's sex conference,
where what the current users want is so different from what I'd like the
conference to be, and what it once was. I dunno. I think Carson and I are
outnumbered here (and certainly outshouted). It's the old question of one
group saying "we were here *first*, and we want to do things this way" and
another group saying "we are here *now*, and we want to do things another
way". However, the neat dynamics in the sex conference of old was a
combination of particular users and a point in time. Many of those users
have moved on, and time has moved forward. If you split the sex conference
into two conferences, one for the old style and one for the new, I don't
think it would accomplish much. The new-style conference would probably
merrily chug forward with cyberflirting. The intended old-style conference
would either also be frequented by people looking to cyberflirt, or it
would die a long, slow, death of inactivity. I don't think the dynamics of
the old sexuality conference would spring back to life. I dunno.
Especially on conferencing systems, it's easy to live in the past,
romanticizing the "good old days" of last month or last year, or 5 years
ago. (Of course, a month, a year, and 5 years ago, people were saying the
same things about the "good old days". Over time, I think people forget
the things they didn't like.) My own personal inclination is to leave the
cyberflirting conferences for the people who like that stuff, and to go
hang out in some other conference where the discussion is more to my liking.
So in this response I think I've managed to contradict myself several
times, and also bore anybody reading this to tears, without saying
anything remotely useful. <sigh> :)
|
robh
|
|
response 176 of 361:
|
May 29 14:17 UTC 1995 |
Yeah, it's hard for me to imagine the Sex conference being what it
was without mythago still here. I still miss her. (The fact that
I`d known her since 1987 is part of it, too.)
I've felt the same frustration about the change in the conference,
but I have little to say on the subject (sexuality) myself, and nobody else
wants to talk about the higher-brow stuff any more. Or so it seems.
|
ajax
|
|
response 177 of 361:
|
May 29 14:26 UTC 1995 |
Just as an aside, CompuServe had (has?) a Human Sexuality forum, with
"hsex" as its keyword to join. Strikes me as a good way to subtly sway
people's expectations; people joining just "sex" would probably have been
expecting something different.
|
srw
|
|
response 178 of 361:
|
May 29 15:57 UTC 1995 |
I think Valerie's mostly right, wasn't at all boring, and didn't
contradict herself so that I noticed.
Perhaps if we leave the sex cf alone and create a new hsex conference
it might not die a long death of inactivity. It's hard to say without trying
it. It sounds like Rob would rather fw that conf than the current one,
so let brighn take over. It probably won't bring back the kind of
conversations we had with mythago, but it might be worth it to see
what it would bring.
|
mta
|
|
response 179 of 361:
|
May 29 18:25 UTC 1995 |
I'd have a great deal to say in an hsex conference...
|
brighn
|
|
response 180 of 361:
|
May 29 18:26 UTC 1995 |
With the bit about who the f-w was, I was referring to the flaming going on
in the sex conf, not to what's above here. I think what's above here is
perfectly apprpriate. I rather wish Carson had also mentioned it in Sex,
what was seriously wrong, instead of thegeneric bitching he *was* doing there,
forgetting (I think) that not everybody reads coop. I'm only here because
I flamed at Steve Gibbard (inappropriately) and he told me to read this.
I second that motion. If there's a new conference that's advertised as
what the "old Sex conf used to be -- serious discussion" or somesuch, it
stands stands a much better chance than routing out the old sex conf, which has
inertia already as a sex SEX S-E-X !!!!! conf.
I'd be willing to f-w the sex SEX S-E-X !!!!! conf. I think those who see
me in action know that I'm a lot of bark and not much bite, at least publicly,
and have the sense to keep the sex conf tolerably clean. (Now privately,
ahem... oh, yeah, this isn't the CyberFlirt conf. ;)
I would love to have serious discussions on sexuality issues, I've alreaddy
said that I miss them too.
|
brighn
|
|
response 181 of 361:
|
May 29 18:26 UTC 1995 |
(The votes are rolling in... do we have a solution?>
(MTA slipped in ahead of me)
|
bruin
|
|
response 182 of 361:
|
May 29 18:53 UTC 1995 |
Brighn's solution of two different sexuality conferences (one for serious
discussions, and the other one, to get down and dirty), IMHO, would be
a reasonable compromise to both groups.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 183 of 361:
|
May 30 07:18 UTC 1995 |
I've been wondering why conferences don't bifurcate on their own,
with those preferrring one style forgetting items that others prefer,
and vica versa. There would then arise two separate conferences within
the same conference, each evolving in its own way - and perhaps
bifurcating too. The reason might be because people prefer to quit
a conference rather than intentionally *stop* reading items in the
conference that don't interest them - if you could believe anything so
silly.
|
nephi
|
|
response 184 of 361:
|
May 30 07:52 UTC 1995 |
I think I know the answer to that one, Rane. If you go look at the
SexUALITY conference, you will see that drift has killed *every* serious
item. It has gotten to the point that even new, serious items have been
overtaken by drift immediately after creation, with the drifters
ridiculing all attempts at serious conversation.
I think that there are many more people who are interested in a SexUALITY
conference than are interested in a mindless-flirting conference, but that
they have all been *chased away* by the hand-full of people that do
nothing but drift that is nothing but "flirting", which should really be
carried out via e-mail.
I think that this is a very bad situation in which a few Very
Inconsiderate people have managed to kill an entire conference and think
that the best alternative now is to use ajax's idea and create a Human
Sexuality conference joinable by "hsex". I'm not optimistic that this will
work, either, but feel that it is the best alternative.
|
bruin
|
|
response 185 of 361:
|
May 30 10:06 UTC 1995 |
Of course, we also run the risk of losing some Grexers to M-Net or other
sources, where such behavior is not only tolerated, but encouraged.
|
tsty
|
|
response 186 of 361:
|
May 30 13:59 UTC 1995 |
long live the risk ......!
|
brighn
|
|
response 187 of 361:
|
May 30 15:57 UTC 1995 |
Um, Bruin, what they do in M-net is *not* flirting.
I'm one of the CyberFlirters. I also try to be considerate, and do take
up serious conversation when it's available. I realize that there are other,
ruder folks in Sex right now, but I resent the constant generalizations that
do nothing but create further dissention. I *don't* think it should be in
mail, or in party, because the flirting is intentionally generic. Taking it
to mail would make it a personal thing. People who are suggesting that it
should be taken to mail are indicating that they don't understand its
sociopsychological function.
Rob has said that he allows it because he doesn't like to censor and
(implicitly) there's nowhere else for it to go. If there were two salient,
cohesive conferences, HSex and Sex, Rob 9as FW of HSex) can delete and tell
people to take it to Sex. As it is, he can hardly say "This is a serious
item. Take it to #7!" ... see the difference? I do honestly believe that
if there were a serious HSex conf with a no-drift, take-it-to-Sex disclaimer,
people would respect that.
We're not so inconsiderate as you think, Nephi. Telling us to "Get a life"
and then publicly ridiculing us in Agora (as Carson did) is far MORE
inconsiderate.
I do agree that the drift has gotten out of hand, though.
<repeats previous suggestion about two confs>
Besides a feeling of excessive paperwork, does anybody have a *tangible*
comp[laint to having to conferences? After all, we have two creative writing
conferences (Writing and Poetry). Before Poetry, most of the poetry found its
way to Writing, but now the two have settled into peaceable non-overlap.
|
remmers
|
|
response 188 of 361:
|
May 30 17:14 UTC 1995 |
Okay, here are some comments from me wearing a cfadm hat:
My #174 was directed at the part about taking the alias "sex" away from
the sexuality conference and giving it do a different conference. A
proposal to take away a name from an existing conference has never come
up before. It's not exactly a new conference proposal. Not sure what
the best way to handle it is, but I'd be uncomfortable setting a
precedent of doing it without discussion in the affected conference
first.
Others have suggested leaving the sex conference as is and making the
new conference the "sexuality" one, calling it "hsex" or something.
Doing that would be consistent with what's been done in the past and
wouldn't set any new precedents. Carson, would that be acceptable to
you and achieve the spirit of what you're asking for?
|
carson
|
|
response 189 of 361:
|
May 30 17:26 UTC 1995 |
Re #171: I'm *very* serious about this proposal.
I understand your concerns about my proposed new conference as
being a potential problem should minors get in, *HOWEVER* I
do not believe that the problems would be any different than
those created by having a sexuality conference. I think any
arguments of that nature could equally apply to either
conference.
re #172: I'd rather that you contribute to this discussion usefully. If
you're feeling antsy and need to hurl insults, there's an item
for you in Summer, and I'll be happy to engage in all the
flaming you think you can dish out.
re #173: Whew! For a moment, I thought *I* might have to fairwitness
the thing!
re #177: That's pretty much one of my points.
I don't want to overstep robh's FW authority with my proposal, which is
why I worded it the way that I did. Rob stepped in to FW sexuality when
no one else offered, and he's doing with it exactly what he said he would
do. While it's not the way that I FW conferences, I have a lot of respect
for robh because he's doing what he said he would when no one else would.
Further, I don't hold him individually responsible for the condition of
the sexuality conference currently; that'd be silly in my opinion.
I'm also not interested in throwing blame *here*, contrary to the
responses of the previous posters. I'm looking at a *solution*.
The first part of my proposal is that the current sexuality conference
lose the "sex" alias. I don't want that done without robh's agreement,
and I don't want it done without moving the "sex" alias to another
conference. For that reason, I suggested creating a conference to fill
that role. We can call the new conference "flirting" or "dating" or
"singles" or "cybersex" or "alt.sex.stories.hamsters.duct.tape" for all
I care; I'd rather leave that up to whomever becomes the FW (at this point,
it looks like brighn, and I support that, as if it mattered).
I have several suggestions for what could be linked to the new conference
as well as what could be created for the conference, and I am perfectly
willing to discuss them via mail with the FWs.
If there aren't any objections to the suggested new conference, I'd
like for it to be created ASAP, and if he's willing, I recommend that
brighn be installed as a FW.
|
carson
|
|
response 190 of 361:
|
May 30 17:26 UTC 1995 |
#188 slipped in, but I hope I answered it. <fingers crossed>
|
remmers
|
|
response 191 of 361:
|
May 30 17:55 UTC 1995 |
Um, I'd like to be sure. The last sentence of #188 is a yes/no
question. Is your answer "yes" or "no"?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 192 of 361:
|
May 30 18:03 UTC 1995 |
It seems we have two proposals on the table, one to create a new flirting
type conference and convert the sexuality conference back into its older
role; the other to create a new conference for serious discussions of
sexuality, while leaving the current sex conference as a flirtplace.
My own inclination is toward the second option, because I think the
baggage that's currently in the sex conference would push it toward
continuing to be a flirtplace, so it makes more sense to give the
baggage to the flirting conference. Dunno, though.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 193 of 361:
|
May 30 18:05 UTC 1995 |
(Brighn - The fair witness of a conference can't remove individual
responses, only entire items.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 194 of 361:
|
May 30 19:44 UTC 1995 |
The FW can't scribble? *bites lip* I did not know that.
Then again, my only fwing has been the extremely ill Homme conf.
Then I definitely see the concern about all the drift.
I would be willing to fw either a new CyberFlirt conf or the existing
Sex conf > Cyberflirt conf, whichever option we go with.
Formalized options on the table:
#1 (Carson's option):
Create a new conference for Cyberflirting.
Give the alias "sex" to the Cyberflirting conf.
Give a new alias, "hsex", to the current Sexuality conf.
Ask RobH to be assertive in keeping the drift down.
Install Brighn as the FW of Cyberflirting.
#2 (Brighn's option):
Create a new conference for Human Sexuality.
Give the alias "hsex" to the Human Sexuality conference.
Have RobH resign as FW of the current Sex conf.
Install RobH as FW of the Human Sexuality conf.
Install Brighn as the FW of the Sex conf.
Perhaps, move the serious (older) items to Hsex.
#3 (Nobody's option):
Leave everything as is and continue the flamewars. :(
Is this an accurate assessment? There seems to be a leaning towards
#2: Are there serious complaints *Against* #2? Or in favor of #1?
(Btw, I'll be around tomorrow, but gone Thursday to Sunday for Wellspring,
and will be incommunicado during that time.)
|
carson
|
|
response 195 of 361:
|
May 30 20:24 UTC 1995 |
It's nice to know that we can *both* vacation. ;)
Small nitpicks with your assessment of #1:
"hsex" sounds like a good alias, although it's actually ajax who
suggested it. I'd also like to see "sexual" as an alias for the
current sexuality conference (dunno if it's there already).
I'm against any request, implied or stated, that robh become "more
assertive." I think that doing so would be insulting to him as a FW,
and remove proper allocations of responsiblity.
re #188: My answer is "no." I see solution #2 as forcing robh out of
a role that he graciously volunteered to accept. Whether robh
decides to stay, go, or both should be up to him.
Also, my proposals were made (and I don't think I made this clear) on
the condition that they be acceptable to robh, as it is his conference
that will be affected by the change. Should robh decline to support
my proposal, I'd like to withdraw it.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 196 of 361:
|
May 30 21:47 UTC 1995 |
Re installing "sexual" as an alias for the sexuality conference:
Actually, the full name of the conference is "sexuality", which is set
up so it can be shortened to anything down to the first three letters.
So "sexual", "sex", "sexu", and "sexuality", among others, will all
get you to the same place.
|
robh
|
|
response 197 of 361:
|
May 30 22:55 UTC 1995 |
Re 194 - Hmm, looking at your versions of the first two options,
I see no difference between the two except for bookkeeping
concerns, i.e. which conference has to get up and move one seat
to the left. Either of those options sounds good to me.
Re 195 - I very much like your proposal, carson. Even though I
don't have much *personally* to talk about in terms of serious
sexuality issues, I want to see a place where these issues can
be discussed. (And I'll add, I have even less to say about
cyberflirting. >8)
|
peacefrg
|
|
response 198 of 361:
|
May 30 23:44 UTC 1995 |
Does anybody frequent shadow bbs? They have a conference there called
erotica. It is used for posting erotic stories you have written, questions
about hard-core sexuality, and 'personals'. Then they have another conf.
that is similar to sexuality where you just discuss sexuality on a whole
and how it effects your person. In order to get past the legal age issue
the erotica cf isn't open to everybody. You have to send a letter to sysop
saying that you want to join and if they don't already have proof of age
then you mail them your drivers lscence photocopy. For anybody who is
really interested in a cf like that they will spend 29 cents to mail
something to staff. If anybody is interested in something like this, I am
volunteering to fw. Also, I am for zapping sexuality and starting over
again. I think that would help some of the flaming over there. Everybody
gets a new start. No memories of what happened before. You can still have
oldsex cf until that dies out.
|
bruin
|
|
response 199 of 361:
|
May 31 00:12 UTC 1995 |
Just missed being response #200 by that much. Anyway, I do believe that
either the #1 or #2 option would be viable, although the Sexuality and
CyberFlirting conferences should be clearly designated. Mabye whoever
makes the 200th response will have more to say.
|
