|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 361 responses total. |
carson
|
|
response 250 of 361:
| 
Jun 6 18:24 UTC 1995 |
(FWIW, most people never typed the full "sexuality" to join the
sexuality conference. "cyberflirting" can be shortened as far as
until it could be confused with another conference. It might go
as short as "cyb."
|
remmers
|
|
response 251 of 361:
|
Jun 6 22:07 UTC 1995 |
I'll create cyberflirting first thing tomorrow morning, when the system
load is low and it won't take forever. Carson, let me know either here
or in mail who the fw's are to be. I'll await word from robh on
changing any aliases for the current sexuality conference -- perhaps
discussion of that part would most appropriately continue in the
sexuality conference itself. If and when the 'sex' alias is
relinquished by that cf and up for grabs, I'll let the cyberfl. fw's
know and they can have it if they still want it.
This proposal is a grex landmark: It's gotten more discussion than
any other conference proposal in the history of Grex. (More than
almost any 10 conference proposals put together, probably.) People
just like to talk about sex, I guess.
|
robh
|
|
response 252 of 361:
|
Jun 6 23:03 UTC 1995 |
Let's just hope they'll talk about sex this much in the new
conference... >8)
Of all the conference aliases I've seen proposed, I like
"hsexuality" the best. I can change the name to the Human
Sexuality conference, in keeping with the alias change.
|
carson
|
|
response 253 of 361:
|
Jun 7 00:06 UTC 1995 |
re #251: brighn offered to FW cyberflirting. I have no objection to
his doing so.
|
bruin
|
|
response 254 of 361:
|
Jun 7 00:19 UTC 1995 |
If brighn wants the cyberflirting FW, no problem with me.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 255 of 361:
|
Jun 7 13:05 UTC 1995 |
(Re 250: "cyb" might well conflict with the "cyberpunk" conference)
|
davel
|
|
response 256 of 361:
|
Jun 7 14:27 UTC 1995 |
We may well drown in cfs beginning "cyber" before we're done.
|
carson
|
|
response 257 of 361:
|
Jun 7 16:22 UTC 1995 |
re #255: it should, but cyberpunk only goes as short as "cyber". :)
|
brighn
|
|
response 258 of 361:
|
Jun 7 18:59 UTC 1995 |
The Flirting conf has been created.
Type j cflirting, until the other alia are installed.
It now has two items... I'll get to linking and entering later in
the week.
|
cicero
|
|
response 259 of 361:
|
Jun 7 19:59 UTC 1995 |
Great! I'm always impressed seeing "The Grex Way" in action.
|
nephi
|
|
response 260 of 361:
|
Jun 8 09:46 UTC 1995 |
Really! It is amazing that so many people were able to come to a consensus
on such a heated issue. Good going people!
Hmm . . . does anyone else want a conference created, as that *is* the point
of this item . . . 8*)
|
carson
|
|
response 261 of 361:
|
Jun 8 14:12 UTC 1995 |
re #260: I'm working on it.
|
selena
|
|
response 262 of 361:
|
Jun 9 11:28 UTC 1995 |
DAMMIT, *I* have an objection!
Hsex should have been the new cf!
I was just in cflirting, and it SUCKS.
I immediately took it back off my cflist.
Back to sexuality..
|
popcorn
|
|
response 263 of 361:
|
Jun 9 14:08 UTC 1995 |
But.... last I checked, you were one of the prime instigators of the
cyberflirting in the sexuality conference. By doing this, you are
Not Helping. How about going back to cflirt and seeing if you can
help make it a better conference, rather than dismissing it right away
when it's too new to have developed its own personality? If you're
there at the beginning, you can help mold the new conference to have
a personality that you like.
|
carson
|
|
response 264 of 361:
|
Jun 9 14:10 UTC 1995 |
DAMNIT, Selena! Have you been *reading* this item at all?
<ahem> :)
I think *both* are going to be restarted (i.e., new). However,
we can't just *make* robh restart sexuality, or make brighn and robh
link items _immediately_. Please be patient, and please, please, please
don't bait anyone? Pretty please? Beg? Woof woof?
|
carson
|
|
response 265 of 361:
|
Jun 9 14:10 UTC 1995 |
(popcorn slipped in with #263.)
|
selena
|
|
response 266 of 361:
|
Jun 9 14:23 UTC 1995 |
No, I'm reacting to the list of ground rules that have been
posted in cflirt #2.. they're MORE restrictive than anything
I *ever saw in* sexuality! And now, we're expected not to in sexuality, too?
THAT is what bites.
|
carson
|
|
response 267 of 361:
|
Jun 9 14:36 UTC 1995 |
Send mail to brighn. I'm sure that he's open to suggestions. He *is*
reasonable. Trust me on this one. :)
I'd guess that any "rules" that brighn posted are more in the interest
of CYA than anything he'd actually try to enforce.
|
ajax
|
|
response 268 of 361:
|
Jun 9 17:53 UTC 1995 |
Selena, another possibility, if you want to put some effort into
it, would be to help create a cf of your own, with whatever emphasis
you'd like to see. The market could get a little crowded, but if the
cflirt cf is too disney for some folks, I'm sure there would be
interest in a bawdier, or at least less regulated, "sex" cf!
(Carson, what's CYA mean?)
|
carson
|
|
response 269 of 361:
|
Jun 9 18:24 UTC 1995 |
View hidden response.
|
ajax
|
|
response 270 of 361:
|
Jun 9 18:38 UTC 1995 |
Aha, you mean Cover Your Anatomy-that-you-sit-on :). Hm...dunno why
Brighn has to cover anything, but to provide some context, here's the
CFlirt ground rules. I tend to agree with Selena's opin, and hope
she'll consider ruling a ruleless cf, but decide for yourselves.... :)
-----
Ground rules:
(1) Absolutely positively nothing that is not suitable for any
other Grex conference but for content. That is, topics should be
relevant to flirting, cybersex, and so on, but the goal of this
conference is to have fun, not to get Grex and all its minions
arrested for pandering.
(2) No flaming, unless in response to baiting. No wars, in other
words. Drift conferences especially attract that behavior. I don't
want to see it here.
(3) Everybody must have fun, whether they want to or not! :)
(4) Appropriate to the conf.:
-- tantalizing stories and other fiction and poetry
-- light questions about sex and other naughty things
-- personal ads and flirting
(5) Inappropriate to this conf.:
-- CyberSex (take it to Party or Mail)
-- expectations of serious discussions (take it to Sexuality)
I'm sure I'll be lax in enforcement, but I reserve the right to
chastise, freeze, and delete!
You stud-muffin fw,
Brighn
|
peacefrg
|
|
response 271 of 361:
|
Jun 9 21:07 UTC 1995 |
The only rule I don't agree with is #1. How can you have a Grex
after Dark if you can't talk hardcore. I had a lot of ideas
for items but that rule blew them all to hell. But, selena
I wouldn't get rid of the conf. It is what you make it. There is
only 4 entries there now so of course it sucks. Give it time and
enter some cool stuff in.
|
selena
|
|
response 272 of 361:
|
Jun 9 22:23 UTC 1995 |
I've seen infant conf's and NONE of them had anyhthing like these
rules, immediately saying "naughty-naughty".. and in this cf, it IS NOT
constructive! I know that cf's with four <or less> items need time, and I've
been a part of a few, which have all done fairly well. Given the rules above
<especially #1>, I want nothing to do with this one. Sexuality had less
restriction, and this was supposed to be where the BAWDIER side of that
cf came to rest.. so what's with the rules?
I've mailed him with a suggestion of what *I* had in mind,
as far as items to link, and the kind of flavor *I* had envisioned..
If it's taken to heart, maybe I'll stop recommending against it.
As of now, I'm boycotting.
|
mta
|
|
response 273 of 361:
|
Jun 10 01:14 UTC 1995 |
If you boycott, how will you know if it gets better?
|
selena
|
|
response 274 of 361:
|
Jun 10 03:14 UTC 1995 |
Because I know brighn, and I am/will be talking to him. It's very
simple- if he drops the facade of these rules, and seriously looks
at the flavor that my "linkworthy" items suugest, then I'll take another
look. I'm *certainly* not putting it back on my cflist until I see
some change in that direction!
|
