Thread
| re: The Rating System unknown 20 Aug 08 1:34PM | Thread Closed |
sounds more like a very jealous teen (or non).
> that was MY comment about starrlite. And I stand by it. isabelle
> always 9s and 10s starrlite and a few (smirk) chosen others even
> though she says she never gives more than an 8
>
> oh cad-u-cus! oh cad-u-cus!
>
> where was i?
>
> and starrlite plays the same game except he always does his white bo
> shout out
>
> peace-out dude- three thumbs into you! # 1 spot again
> but i
|
| re: The Rating System unknown 20 Aug 08 1:38PM | Thread Closed |
Mor has never rated a poem in all the years he has been here. Maybe we should follow his example.
|
|---|
| re: The Rating System smugzy 20 Aug 08 1:43PM | Thread Closed |
Ratings? I rarely rate. I don't believe in 10s. And it's all so subjective anyway, even within my own mind I'd be rating differently on a different day, in a different mood.
I'd feel shit if I gave anything less than a 5 (although I think I probably have given a 3 before) because I don't want to knock someone back. Comments have much more value than ratings and there's a chance to reflect on positives as well as negatives, even in something that I think is pretty poor.
Plus ratings piss me off, particularly when one of my own poems has gone from a high to a very low rating within the blinking of an eye with no additional comments - what value do ratings have then? They often seem more like an immature act of sour grapes sabotage than an honest reaction. I don't mind my poems being considered crap but in that case, help me fix them...
|
| re: The Rating System unknown 20 Aug 08 1:47PM | Thread Closed |
mor is too high class to rate. sugzy is deliciousness, isabelle is corrupt. she is a bully.
she deleted my comment about starrlite but not about fractional and mutt because she is unfair.
am i right or am i right?
smugzy i have a full blown CRUSH on you. no-no-not you iseballe-- stand back, isabelle ugh! No!
|
|---|
| re: The Rating System joey 20 Aug 08 1:49PM | Thread Closed |
you're very good at activating the writer's OS, but the writer still has to do something with the machine -- it's true that it's not a holy thing, 'material manifold of reality' and that it forces us into negation -- 'this isn't it... it's over here...', and that it's happenstance, to our consciousness, whether we eat ice cream or cake. but, really, and the point i'm insisting on, is that we invent that consciousness through art -- that making things and making them fine and to the utmost value of the material itself is what makes us human -- and we can't let it go and still talk about it, we can't bitch about wording unless we bitch it in words -- that's the problem of labeling, isn't it -- that to name 'bitching' is to negate for the moment all of language itself -- that the world becomes the opinion and mode of sharply negating, and has to exist in momentum while the mind plays consciousness and constructs with words.
reacting, as i do, to something said, is lamer, but i allow that i'm no saint, and allow that i will play the game -- it's like running a marathon and being passed -- you deal with it any way you are able. i'm thinking that the 'able' is 'spirit' and that the mode, running a marathon, writing a poem, is accidental. but, why are we attracted to these particular things? and why is it that posts seem to be in the same style and flavor -- that people have a particular style, or here and unknown, the possibility that there will be a unique style once the unknown finds his own and unique voice?
> God does not play dice and the dice are loaded -- it's like that in
> duality where you have dialectical systems which cannot be
> sinTheorized in this existDance -- nevertheless the crit is the wit of
> it -- Economics is a loaded dice system and so is the Rating System
> based on numeric supremacy a darWinian ArtIfact-- it's about the
> haves and the want nots playing in the pome or gracing the page with
> their ponder and reaches without the grieVentings and
> moral-unrealistic teach us --
|
| re: The Rating System Mongrol 20 Aug 08 1:50PM | Thread Closed |
>
> You merely need to register several names on PC from different
> computers and award yourself plenty of ten’s (Mongrol style.)
I'm still waiting for you to come up with some evidence of this Mor. As it's not true there won't be any, so I really want to see you try.
:)
~ Mong
|
|---|
| re: The Rating System Mongrol 20 Aug 08 1:51PM | Thread Closed |
> Mor has never rated a poem in all the years he has been here. Maybe we
> should follow his example.
Schizo Mor strikes again ;)
~ Mong
|
| re: The Rating System unknown 20 Aug 08 1:51PM | Thread Closed |
My friend and I, both long-time members, recently discussed the topic of "The Rating System". My friend rates regularly, while I choose not to rate at all. However, we agreed that the "System" could use some refinement.
We agree that far too many here are far too liberal with the assignment of "10" scores. Also, "1" is a score which is rarely applicable, but can be assigned as often and to as many poems as one wishes.
To adjust the "System", we suggest the imposition of only allowing a member to assign a certain number of certain scores during each "rolling seven-day period". It may serve the equity of the overall ratings were a member only allowed to assign as many "10"s or "1"s per week as they are to post poems. Currently, that would mean two "10"s, and two "1"s. After that, perhaps a few "9"s and a few "2"s, several "8"s and "3"s, and then less limited "4"s through "7"s.
This would cause a member to be much more judicious in their assignment of a much more highly prized "10", or conversely, their assignment of the dreaded "1".
|
|---|
| re: The Rating System Mongrol 20 Aug 08 1:57PM | Thread Closed |
> We have the ludicrous situation of mongrol who acquires many more
> ten’s than favourable comments.
>
> A most peculiar phenomenon for a poetry site. When it is pointed out
> he immediately withdraws his work in order to hide the evidence. How
> strange!
How strange it is, even mor, you choose to use the Unknown to assume many voices to back up your own arguments and opinions and theories. This is more akin to truculence than anything actual or real, why? Because I can slap you around and dismiss your self-appointed pseudo-intellectual 'authority' with such impressive ease.
Perhaps your 'nephew' can come alone now to offer his 'opinion' once more on how 'great' his 'uncle' is?
~ Mong
|
| re: The Rating System unknown 20 Aug 08 1:59PM | Thread Closed |
well mongrol, i hate to embarrass you but EVERYONE who pays attention has noticed your CRUSH on mor even though he biatch slaps you something terrible.
|
|---|
Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next
|
|