Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Male, 57
Bisexual Female, 62
0 miles · Hereford and Worcester
Profile Friends
3
Follows
10
Forum
1.6k
Groups
1
Meets Parties Stories

Forum
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by HornyBear
1) No one can possibly object to any system that recognises (rewards?) genuine people or removes / identifies Timewasters.

I'll admit I was saying the same thing at the start of this thread, but since then I have been swung by the points made by blue, Fred and others. Any such system also creates other categories of people: those who don't fit easily into a category, those not yet rated, and those who don't want to take part. There will always be objections somewhere. Even something as innocuous as forum post counts being visible has had it's effects here.
Quote by HornyBear
So can I ask that we focus our efforts on defining / supporting a 'genuine' system and trust to others that the current 'player' system is consigned to history. After all Mark will read this and we have to be constructive as well as critical.

Yes, definitely time for some constructive criticism here!
Quote by HornyBear
I have looked at other chatrooms and one that has addressed this issue rather well I feel has introduced a '5star' system. At the start (and any new joiners) everyone has 3 stars. So equality for all here. Anyone can post a comment upgrading or dowgrading someone but these comments are visible and the source is identified. So it is also transparent. And it is solely based on personal genuineness / courtesy etc and nothing to do with sexual aspects. So privacy is respected.

Hmmm. I've seen similar things tried in the past, and they have generally devolved into farce fairly quickly. Take for example ebay's feedback system - people with 300 positives and 1 negative are treated as pariahs, and every feedback comment begins with "AAAAAAAAAAAA+++++++++++++". Slashdot (the geek news site) had been refining it's Karma/modpoints system for years on end, so it's a complete laybrynth now, and it's still open to abuse.
Quote by HornyBear
Now like any system it is open to abuse but at least all the key elements are in place and you are also not identified in the chatroom as 'different'.

Ah, here's a big issue... The reason this system was introduced (conspiracy theorists please play along for a bit here!) is solely for the benefit of new chatroom users, so the whole point is to differentiate people in the chatroom!
I think over the course of this debate we've lost sight of what the system was designed to do (help new chatters identifiy people) and turned into a discussion about how to verify swingers in general. Given such institutions as munches, post-count, and even chatroom cliques, I don't believe SH would benefit at all from having a general purpose rating system grafted onto it, for all the reasons others have stated in this topic.
Quote by HornyBear
(They use the + to identify 'helpers' who new people can chat to and have stuff explained privately).

I'm in favour of this - in fact I suggested something similar about 18 pages ago (I suggested "welcoming comittee" rather then helper, but you get the idea).
I think it's worth going back to basics and restating the following:
+ is widely used and understood by chatters in most of the millions of other chatrooms out there in the world. It's a facility that already exists and that many newbies will be familiar with from elsewhere, just like the concept of chatroom Ops.
I think it is far more constructive to debate the question "Is there a good use to be made of the + facility in #swingingheaven?" than to broaden it out to "how can we structure an ideal rating system?"
Quote by HornyBear
Your star rating is displayed as part of your profile along with the other information you supply. Maybe that is one failing of SH in that you can chat without having any ad / profile. So a saturday night piss artist looking for a quick f*** comes in without any effort. Maybe we ought to have it as a requirement that anyone in the chatroom has to display their ad number. Just a thought as people in the forum have immediate access to a profile from a link.

Interesting points, but I suspect that opening those particular cans of worms might be better done in other threads, this debate over a small matter like the + is already heading for 50 pages, and I can see issues like a requirement for an ad, or a star rating being far bigger and more controvertial!
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Yes, there are commands which ops could use to do nasty things relating to +V. There are also commands which the ops could use to automatically give op powers anyone with an 's' in their name, or to automatically file transfer the complete works of Leo Tolstoy to anyone using mirc at 2pm on a Wednesday. The fact that such powers exist does not mean that they will be used in #swingingheaven.
The specific command that Neil is thinking of would mean that the only thing non + people could do to be heard is to PVT people without asking, which makes it about as useful in the context of a channel with a no pvts rule as a chocolate teapot.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by Ice Pie
I feel she is abusing her status and being a PM-tease

Women are reminded that they can only get away with that excuse once a month :shock:
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by KitKat
All those who want to be verified, simply re-register with a + at the beginning of your user name

I'm sorry, but this isn't technically possible, the IRC chartoom system doesn't allow + in user names (or the "@" that signifies ops for that matter). This is something that's beyond SH's control.
The + doesn't even show up as a + in some software... for ircle users, they will see people's names in green rather then with a +, and ops appear as red instead of with a @.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Q. Why is :censored:* like a washing machine?
A. Because they both drip when they're fucked!
* please insert a name or geographical sterotype which you do not find offensive here
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by JudyTV
With regard to DPA I have made tentative enquiries (Purely for academic reasons) to UCL and the general answer is that the DPA would not be up-help or stand in British Law due to it being a intangible cyber issue and could not be controlled due to international complications regarding the super highway spanning worldwide laws.

I'm quite surprised to hear that, since the act does actually contain a specific provision that is designed to stop peopel simply moving their data 'off shore' and claiming exemption from the act... "Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data."
If you want to read the full text of the DPA, go here. I am considering posting this link in the 'insomina' thread too :sleeping:
Quote by JudyTV
Not that anyone would want to go there, like I say it was purely academic anyway. The Uni lecturer did say it was a very grey area and no legal representative would touch it with a barge pole. So in effect DPA does not apply here and to be honest I don't think it should.

Hmm, if I was Mark, I'd be inclined to take a less optimistic view, and sprinkle the AUP liberally with disclaimers just in case... but we are drifting off topic now.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
all those questions are already answered by the site owner on a page that can be found right there at the top of the homepage! this is a free site. it will always be a free site. there are no hidden areas. it is open.

It may surprise you to learn this, but scam sites lie and claim to be free when they are not :shock: it;s only through chatting to people who confirm it that many newbies actually believe those pages.
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
the +, as explained on the verification pages, and in this thread, denotes that as far as the first tranche of plusses go, they are known to have shagged someone on this site. for you to be verified, at the moment, a decion to say that you are known to have shagged someone on SH has been taken on your behalf, without your permission!
it is an invasion of privacy, and an invitation to breach your confidentiality!
neil x x x ;)

That's was a problem with the first tranche of plusses that doesn't seem to be being continued.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
i don't follow the haddock=fish logic? if + denotes genuine, lack of a + denotes what?...

Let me stop you there... + does not denote genuine.
It denotes "..one who is active on the swing scene and who actually meets others on the scene for consensual, recreational sex (Munches and Parties excluded) ... known as genuine and meet the definition above to a member who is already verified (including cases of, "we really didn't fancy each other), AND has not asked for their verifcation mark to be removed."
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
either it makes a distiction, or it doesn't. if it doesn't, what's the point? if it does, why do you feel the need to be distinguished from other users?

Because I think newcomers will get a better idea of what the SH community is like if they chat to me (or other + people) than if they randomly pick someone to chat to, from a list that includes annoying gits who only arrived in the chatroom a minute before they did.
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
it's a free and open site that anyone over 18 can access. where might the scam be lurking?

You want a list of every possible scam? Off the top of my head... mebership fees, chatbots boosting numbers in the channel, hookers in the channel, pay to see replies to your free ad, we won't verify you without a visa card, you need to buy an 'adult verification id' to get in, no fees at parties (but it will cost you £80 to get the party locations), install this dialler to use the good bits of the site, everyon here id a reported or police cracking down on doggers, we are all actuallly single men... I could go on for days!
Newcomers need reassurance, that's why this scheme was intoroduced.
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
we we're once newbies clever enough to look round the site and join in with it and make our minds up for ourselves. new newbies however somehow aren't and so need to be told who's who?

Yes.
Look at the number of ones who seem to be real, nice people, but don't decide to stay, just because you and I stayed, doesn't mean that everyone stays!
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
thanks for at least agreeing that it *is* a sanction. well i deny you the right to sanction me! now what? as 2 equal members abiding by the site AUP, you have the power to sanction me, cos you're plussed, i have no say in that whatsoever, and just accept your power over me? well sorry but no i don't!

I only have the ability to sanction you if you are plussed too. If you want to opt out, then opt out! As it stands, you have the ability to sanction me by getting my + removed if I lie to you, but I have no ability to sanction you because you are not plussed. In what way does this put me "over you"?
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
you chose to edit out the quote on the bit where i asked if you can see any way that this system might adavantage you to the disadvantage of other users, so i'll ask it again?

Since all users are able to take part in the scheme, the short answer is 'no'.
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
if this system is of benefit to those who accept it, those who don't accept it can't or won't benefit from it, and so they are denied a benefit you have! that is fair how? kind of the entire point is that it splits the site and elevates certain users!

By the same token, the photo ads system is of benefit to those who accept it. I don't have a photo ad, so I can't benefit from it. Would you support me if I demanded that the whole photo ads section be scrapped?
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by bluexxx
...I did not need a verification system to feel comfortable enough to invite them to my house..... I worked that out myself from their polite emails

I hope you won't think worse of me if I perhaps hint that you might, just, in some small way, be a teensy-weeny little bit more self-confident than the average chatroom newibe? wink
Quote by bluexxx
did I do well?????
cool 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

I dunno, you only get a +, not marks out of ten! :shock:
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
The + means (to paraphrase the rules) "this person is what they say they are, and they will turn up to a meet".
no it doesn't say that at all. it might say you are who you say you are yes. but that will be seen to say that the non-plussed might not be? so it makes them non-genuine? !

No, that's you jumping to a conclusion. If I say "all haddock are fish", you can't assume that "all fish are haddock"!
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
It's not an anti-single male measure, it's an anti-misleading discription/timewaster measure.
]so we are incapable of making distictions ourselves, or picking up the phone and actually speaking to someone, or switching on a web cam, or just chatting for a good while? we want our hands held for us to establish that?!?

We don't, but newbies who are worried that the whole site might be a scam do!
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
If all the genuine single males in chat were verified:
1) It would be a very good thing for the small number of single males currently verified (myself now included) since it would remove the possiblity of us being accused of abusing our status.
yes i'm quite sure it would be good for you! we have no argument there! not sure on the remove the possibility etc etc thing. didn't understand what you meant?

You need to have read the whole thread to follow that one! Basically, blue was saying she could damage the scheme by verifying lots of single males, and I was pointing out that doing that would actually help the scheme.
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
2) It would be a very good thing for anyone in chat interested in single males (it does happen sometimes!) because they will know where a good supply of real ones can be found
so the other single males ain't real people now?

Whoa there! Jumping to conclusions again... I said "a good supply", not "the only supply".
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
3) It would be good for people not interested in single males, because the verfied ones would not want to risk their verified status by harassing peopel who are not interested.
if someone harrasses, well they get booted? the + serves no function there. you either abide by room rules, or you get binned. so you're saying the + is actually another sanction available to ops?

No, iIt's a sanction available to anyone mistreated by a + person.
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is a newbie and who is a regular.
all it takes is a few visits to the room to see who's reg? the regs know the regs cos they see them every single day. the newbies can see who's reg by becoming reg? not difficult for anybody?

The large majority of newbies don't make enough visits to do that. First impressions count, and this whle thing is about improving new people's first impressions.
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is known to be 'a genuine person who is what they say they are' and wants this fact to be known and who is isn't, doesn't or doesn't want it to be known that they do.
well if i'm just there to chat, i can make that known by simply typing, i am just here to chat. if i'm just there to chat, then i won't arrange meets? if i'm just there to chat, then i really don't care who meets or who doesn't cos, i'm not there to meet?

Then you don't need to be verified. However, if you are new, and in that position, the verification system will help you because it will point you in the direction of some of the people you probably want to chat to, and away from a lot of the people you probably don't want to chat to. As you get to know the chatroom better, you'll naturally take off the 'trainig wheels' of looking for + people to chat to and chat to people you've met before too, just like all the other regulars will be doing.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
I think he's still reading the verification thread.... we've been sneaky and keep moving the end further away each time he gets close!
You should ask him over there, then he'll see it!
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by roger743
I'm in two minds about the playing requirement, but writing it this way does stop the 'give me a blowjob or I won't verify you' scenario.

Ummm... no, it doesn't, because verification is not compulsory. Mr could very well verify someone if they don't give him a blowjob, but because he's (well) a bastard, he can still refuse to verify them unless they give him a blowjob.
Hmm, the way I read it was that you could verify someone you didn't fancy, not that you could verify somene who didn'; fancy you, which is an interesting distinction.
In your example, I assume the person Mr A. Bastard was saying that too could get him unplussed (and hopefuly banned) by reporting it.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by bluexxx
1. In my veiw, munches are the PERFECT tool for verification. The onus is not on the organisers at all. People don't stand around at munches not speaking to each other! Take the NW munch - how many people were there last time? About 200 was it? Therefore, not only does one person get to meet a newbie and see that they're an OK, genuine person, but they are met by shit loads of people! What better credibility is that, to be verified by 200!

I take your point to some extent (I don't think I've have excluded parties or munches where 'play' took place, but that would either mean a formal admission that play does happen at munches, or an even more unwieldy definition that play areas near munches are 'not muches', which I attempted to write a dozen or so pages back), but it does raise 2 difficult issues:
1) How do you survey those 200 people's views? Does the one shy woman who got an unwanted grope and will leave SH if the groper gets verified have enough of a say to offset the 199 who were too drunk or busy to notice that?
2) Munch organisers do filter out people based on a very small amount of evidence, with no formal method dispute resolution, and the filtering is done by different people with different criteria (after all letting someone into your house is different to letting them into someone-else's pub). Is this fair?
Quote by bluexxx
2. The idea of reporters being the reason why playing is a necessity is bollocks, pure and simple. Steve-D said that playing was not actually necessary - just the intention to play. Therefore a reporter could easily go to a meet and then say "sorry, I don't fancy you after all", and still get verified! How to you think the news of the world get their stories about swingers clubs? They pose as players and go in! Jeeeez!!!!! Trusting aren't you Mr D!

Hmm. Well I guess it excludes good looking reporters only lol
I'm in two minds about the playing requirement, but writing it this way does stop the 'give me a blowjob or I won't verify you' scenario.
Quote by bluexxx
3. Again, as playing is not actually necessay to get verified, this point is not valid either.

hmmm, it's either that or allow "give me a blowjob or I won't verify you", I think this is the lesser of 2 evils?
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by bluexxx
See, that's exactly the problem..... when the concepts within this system are challenged the exact meaning of the + changes to fit the situation! Is that cos no-one really knows what the hell the + is meant to mean in the first place....??????

Well, the definition has never changed, the problem is that it's a very long definiton that can't easilly be summed up in a word or two withought being misleading... which I think is where a lot fo the confusion is coming from.
Here is what the relevant pages say:
"A verified user is one who is active on the swing scene and who actually meets others on the scene for consensual, recreational sex... known as genuine and meet the definition above to a member who is already verified.... Munches and Parties are specifically excluded from the verification... You may sign a user as genuine even though you decided not to take things further. If you are satisfied that they acted in good faith and it's simply a case of, "we really didn't fancy each other" - this is provided you have actually met them."
What's not explicitly stated is that you can be genuine but not verified, for any number of reasons.
I'll try to paraphrase it...
"A verified person has met someone who was already verified for the purpose of having sex (even if they didn't fancy them and said no) at a meeting that wasn't a munch or a party."
It's never changed, but it is horribly unwieldy to drop into conversation, which is why it's been abbreviated in ways that don't actually reflect it's wording accurately, such as "newbie", "genunie" etc.
Quote by bluexxx
I'm lovin' this thread, it's the best entertainment there's been on the cafe for a long long time

Agreed, and I'm glad to see I'm not offending you by carrying on a lively debate smile
If things start to die down, I've still got "does soft swinging count?" and "how far do we have to go to qualify as having sex?" in reserve ready to fuel the fires! :twisted:
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by steve-shireen
Thats why the system we used in another room was better because you could gain verification by meeting anywhere and sex didnt have to be involved....You just had to be who you said you were and to turn up and be all of the things we expect....polite and be of genuine character..

I would be inclined to agree, if it wasn't for the following reasons...
Firstly, we are in the unique (as far as I know) posiion of having Munches, for which the entry criteria is pretty much 'join in a little bit on the forum, and don't act like a reporter'. It would put a lot of pressure on munch organisers, since they would effectively have the validation burden put on them, if anyone they accept automatically qualifies for verification.
Secondly, a requirement to actually play (or intend to play) before verification removes the possiblity of reporters gaining verification, which is a bigger issue for SH than for other sites, since SH is the biggest and best, it's also the natural target.
Thirdly it's a lot easier to revoke a validation based on an untrue fact (did play, didn't play) than on an opinion (not polite, etc), and the Ops have so much to deal with in chat that they need hard and fast rules to apply.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by bluexxx

4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is a newbie and who is a regular.

Not at all. I could get blokes verified who very rarely use the chat room... therefore they are newbies. I thought the system was not about who was a regular vs. newbie, rather about being a player? I could get blokes verfied who no-one knows, including myself. I could collect a gang of blokes, speak to none of them, but shag them, then afterwards tell them to log on to the chat room. As long as I knew what they had logged on as, I could verify them perfectly legally, couldn't I? Nothing in the rules says I have to vouch for the personalities of the people I verifiy. They could be total toss pots for all I know, but provided they abide by the site rules they stay, complete with their +, even though they have nothing to add to SH really.
However, I could not verify regular users who are very genuine if they are not interested in actually having sex with me. I might have met them many times, have had many in depth discussions with them, and they might be very good at putting newbies at their ease and explaining how the scene works. Yet they are unverifiable cos none of our meetings were intended to be sexual.
Therein lies the bizarre paradox of this system
Therefore, for new genuine users to the room, under this system, the + does not tell them who are trustworthy and who are regulars at all...... does it???? And if the + was meant to denote a "regular" it adds further to the idea of a clique, does it not?
Ooops redface
yes, you did catch me getting my words wrong there. I should have said :
4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is known to be 'a genuine person who is what they say they are' and wants this fact to be known and who is isn't, doesn't or doesn't want it to be known that they do.
(pause while I let my keyboard cool down a bit after all that exertion... anyone with realtives who expired through trying to say that last sentence aloud without first taking a very deep breath please contact my solicitors in writing).
As I said before, I'm prepared to sit here and defend the concept, reflect the more positive mood in the chatroom, and make factual corrections, but Ii'm not keen to be the self-appointed defender of the exact wording or implementation confused
I think my points 1), 2) and 3) were valid though!
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by steve-shireen
So its only single blokes who are none genuine and timewasters then confused:
We have come across many couples and some single females who are the biggest timewasters and dreamers there are..

Not at all, I was just taking blue's example and running with it... If she does the single males and you want to do the couples then I've got the clipboard and pen! lol
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Hello Toni and Tris, :welcome: to SH
If you can put up with all the silliness in the forum then you'll fit right in!
My advice to new people who want to ease into things gently or are not sure how far they want to go is to get yourselves along to a Munch (see the What is a munch page for a definition), then hop over to the "let's meet up" page and see if there are any local ones to you. Please don't be put off if drunken munchers get both your names the wrong way round and introduce you as Trish and Tony though....
Anyway, there are a few of us Southerners dotted about, so I'm sure you'll find what you are looking for eventually!
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by bluexxx
Someone verify me, and I'll show you all what bollox the system really is cool 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
I'll be the champion of the single male......................................
Something tells me I wouldn't be welcome in the chat room for very long as the already verfied males would soon complain once a shit load of newbie (yet genuine and players) guys get verified, one after another.
confused :? :? :?

No, that's actually the best thing you could do for the system, because it would weed out the non-genuine single blokes who don't turn up for meets, which is exactly what this system is designed to do.
I dare say if such an offer was made, we'd see quite a few of the new-ish unverified couples suddenly admit to being single blokes and therefore prove themselves non-genuine, in the hope of meeting you, which would also be a good thing and hlpe the system work better.
The + means (to paraphrase the rules) "this person is what they say they are, and they will turn up to a meet". It's not an anti-single male measure, it's an anti-misleading discription/timewaster measure.
If all the genuine single males in chat were verified:
1) It would be a very good thing for the small number of single males currently verified (myself now included) since it would remove the possiblity of us being accused of abusing our status.
2) It would be a very good thing for anyone in chat interested in single males (it does happen sometimes!) because they will know where a good supply of real ones can be found
3) It would be good for people not interested in single males, because the verfied ones would not want to risk their verified status by harassing peopel who are not interested.
4) It would be good for everyone who is just there to chat, or to make up their own minds about swinging (and we do get a LOT of both these types in chat) because they would be able to tell who is a newbie and who is a regular.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by shireen-steve
But I will ask this.... Have the people with a + ever been in a chat room with this system before??... I think not!!....

I just ran all my join scripts and...
Out of 31 active channels on 6 servers that I currently have acess to, all but 8 use 'voice' to indicate something, ranging from clan membership, clan officer status, ownership of a particular car, being a 'verified' fan of a particular singer, being a channel regular, or simply being 'one of our mates'.
Of those 8 that don't use voice, 5 are on a private server that's harder to get into than fort knox, and everyone able to connect is 'trusted', and 2 use mass opping (ie if you are trusted, you get an @ not a +), leaving a grand total of one channel that doesn't use voice fr anything.
This is a fairly biased sample, since most of my channels are related to game clans and are therefore very security conscious, but you did ask!.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by Jewcy_Joanne
As you are a + Denisebabe can i ask if you asked for verification .. the same to you MrD and you wishmaster?

Since you asked... at the time you posted that, I didn't have a + (the system is still being 'rolled out', so not everyone eligible has one yet).
After you posted, someone offered to verify me, and I said yes.
View Post
Mr_D_and_HotTart
Sex God
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
This is the crux of the issue, and something that seems to be widely misunderstood. We don't need a 'shagbadge', but new arrivals do need to know that at least some of the chatroom users are genuine. It's not there for us, it's there for them.

you what?
so WE are quite clever or persistent enough to have worked that out for ourselves, but newbies, which we once were remember, are clearly so bloody dumb that they couldn't possibly work that out without SH ops awarding the shagbadge?
perhaps you'd like to rephrase mate?
neil x x x ;)
It's not a question of newbies being 'dumb', it's a question of them not knowing anyone yet. If you'd like to suggest some other method by which you could enter a room you've never been in before and know who to trust and who not to, please let us know!
View Post