Mr_D_and_HotTart's Forum Posts | Swinging Heaven

Join the most popular community of UK swingers now

Mr_D_and_HotTart

Over 90 days ago

Bisexual Male, 57

•

Bisexual Female, 62

0 miles · Hereford and Worcester

Profile Friends

Meets Parties Stories

Forum

17 Nov 2004

Quote by tallnhairy
Maybe Mister Discreet, but I think a lot of this thread is about how poorly the system came into being, and how poorly scrutinised the reasons for it and the definitions used were put together.

That's very true, but those points have become thoroughly jumbled up with the rest of the debate. What I'm trying to do here is deal with the conceptual misgivings and misconceptions that people have, not the implementational ones, and I'm not defending the way it came into being or the definitions.

17 Nov 2004

Quote by HornyBear
You two, Wishmaster and Mr_Discreet, have made yourselves known as really nice genuine guys and from posts in the room I guess you have met your share of contacts. So the room works for you and you (and I for that matter) didn't need a shagbadge to play in the 'scene' so why do we need it now?

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.
There is a big problem in the chatroom that new arrivals get pounced on by hoardes of other newbie unwanted pvt-ers and are scared off before the less pushy regulars get past the "hello how are you" stage of the conversation. That's what this system is intended to help cut down on.
Maybe if people with + were designated 'the welcoming committee' rather than 'verified' then this whole kerfuffle would have been sidestepped?

17 Nov 2004

Quote by Fred
Dont know if this has been mentioned yet but for a newby who has only skimped at the rules, comming into the chat room, the "plus sign" appears to be a sign that those marked in that way are an easy shag and can be had with an unrequested pvt.

True, but this is actually a very good thing. It means that they will be bugging an experienced chatroom user who knows that we name and shame unwanted pvts. They will therfore be put through the inevitable 'read the rules or you are out' warning and either learn or be kicked before they had as much chance to scare off as many other genuine new arrivals as they would have before.

17 Nov 2004

Quote by JandPUK
And let's be honest here; the + is NOT to show that people are genuine, it's there to say that a group of people who know each other are saying they've fucked each other. It doesn't show that people are genuine at all!

I'm sorry but that accusation doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. The regulars and active people already know who each other are, so what would the point of introducing such a scheme at all if you were right? Even if it was there for the reason you suggest, then how could the people in it not be genuine?
The system is there so new people can see that certain people are genuine. End of story.

Quote by JandPUK
We've met several people from this site already (and as others have also indicated, met others who are not from the SH site, or have played in clubs etc). but because they may not be known to this small, self selecting group, we are not apparently 'genuine'.

If you've met people from the site, then they can verify you. It's only a small group at the moment because the verification process has only just started.
I'll say this for the third or fourth time: Not having the + does not mean you are not genuine. I don't know why that seems to be so hard to grasp (well, apart from a rather tricky triple negative, of course)!

17 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
but it will be a loss to SH if things are influenced by who can stir up the biggest angry mob, rather than a sensible measured debate about the actual scheme

I think, by and large, the contributers to this thread, such as blue, have put together a sensible measured debate about the actual scheme. To suggest they are trying to stir up the biggest angry mob seems unfair at best, rude at worst.
I sincerely hope I've not given that impression, it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. I used the word "if" in that sentence to indicate I was talking about something that hasn't happend but might be in danger of happening, and my reply was directed only ay HornyBear's comment about public perceptions, not at anyone else.

17 Nov 2004

Quote by HornyBear
...if there was a problem that needed addressing and a solution had been devised (lets call it verification) then it could have been placed as a Thread in here for everyone to make their contributions good, bad, positive or negative. It could have run for a fortnight and then the Ops and the owner could have taken a very much more informed view. That is called consultation not democracy. Judging by the comments in these 16 pages I would say you would not have touched it with a bargepole!

How many times does it have to be said that the people who use the chatroom are not the same people who use the forum. While there is some overlap, many of the really heavy chatroom users mostly don't have the time or inclination to come in here. It's not a democracy if the forum users get to decide what's best for the chatroom users! The mood in the chatroom is a lot more positive about this scheme than it is in the forums.

Quote by HornyBear
As a single male 'wannafuck' I guess I am the target for what has been put in place.!

Where on earth did you get that idea?

Quote by HornyBear
if the intention is to remove single males from the site and make it a female / couples only site then that is fine but lets be told that is the reason. And if this is so why were 4 single male 'wannafucks' in the first tranche of granted + things?

Then isn't it blindingly obvious that this isn't the intention? I'm sorry, but this does come across to me as you flinging some mud and hoping it will stick.

Quote by HornyBear
May I ask again?:
Precisely what was the perceived problem that needed a solution?

It's right there, in the very first sentence of the explanation page: The most common question we get asked in the chatroom is "How do I know a chatroom user is genuine?"

Quote by HornyBear
why was there no consultation for those who would be required to use it and thus maybe improve it?

Presumably beacuse there is no way of holding this discussion with the chatroom users (as opposed to forum users) without it turning into a rabble of 100 people all talking at once (which, let's face it, is what it is most of the time anyway!)

Quote by HornyBear
Perception is all in a public situation

Which is why people should stop complaining about what they percieve the scheme to be, and actually take the time to read the explanation. Throwing wild speculation about 'kicking out single men' and 'having to shag an op' or 'the rules keep changing' might well get this scheme shouted down, but it will be a loss to SH if things are influenced by who can stir up the biggest angry mob, rather than a sensible measured debate about the actual scheme, or (god forbid) letting the chatroom users iron out the flaws and then decide if they like it.

17 Nov 2004

Sticking to factual corrections as promised....

Quote by little gem
I find it incredibly insulting that I have to send an email to be "branded" genuine

You don't have to send an e-mail. Someone else has to send it, you can't verify yourself.

Quote by little gem
What happens if two people get together and "cook up" a ficticious meet. Who would know if they didn't tell?

Only verified users can verify others, so 2 non-verified people can't achieve anything by cooking up a ficticious meet.

16 Nov 2004

:grin:
Good to have you back aboard!

16 Nov 2004

At SH we do tend to bend over backwards* to be open minded
*and occasionally forwards if you ask nicely!

16 Nov 2004

Can you believe it's not butter?

16 Nov 2004

Hello, good evening and welcome! :welcome:
I think you'll fit in just fine... your only worry is being too normal for the rest of us!

16 Nov 2004

Daddy or chips?

16 Nov 2004

bumping this back from page 2

16 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
You mean this new one isn't the second?!
I only remember the original.

yes, the 2nd was a few years later, the same song but with a different line-up

16 Nov 2004

You could always use the time honoured tradition of ford car names....
Esisting Mainstream porn: Fiesta, Escort, Galaxy
Gay porn: Scorpio
Failed: Capri
Unused: Focus, Sierra, Granada, Zephyr, Anglia, Ka, Transit Deisel hi-Cube 2.0 GLX
hhhm, maybe not that last one!

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
OK, fair enough, I have met erm... (counts..... ) 3 people from here with a possibility (not even an intention!) to take things further than just a drink. As it turned out, I only had drinks and a meal with 2 of them, and did take things further with the other one. But all of this happened over 6 months ago, and the one I did take things further with isn't active on the forum any longer.
What I object to, is the fact that this was done even though for the last 6 months I've been in an exclusive relationship. Yes, we met at a munch, but in the time we have been together, we haven't played with others. I know you don't really understand why people are objecting to being verified Mr D, but imagine how it could look to my partner? In a less trusting relationship, this could have caused all kinds of hassle for us. Some of my previous exes might well have accused me of "meeting people with intent", or worse, following through with the intent behind their backs!
I didn't ask to be verified, I wasn't told that I HAD been verified, and when I've questioned my own verification I haven't received so much as a "we're sorry, it was a mistake" email in return. You could argue the point that it's now been removed, but if any of the above reactions had occurred, it would have been too late by now, as the damage could have already been done to my non-swinging relationship.

VERY well explained!!!!
An important part of swinging is DISCRETION!!!! This system totally disregards that issue!
I mean... you could possibly get a verification if one of the powers has seen you at a club - is that right? If so........ who the f*ck are they to start passing that info on? I might have seen powers in clubs who know me, but I don't know them..... how is passing info like that on to others fair or moral, or in any way appropriate for a site that promotes consensuality?
I'll say it again, since Angel Chat referred to me, and the first time was several pages back...
I agree that this should have been be entirely discretionary
If anyone else was standing up for this proposal, and representing the views of many chatroom users who don't use the forums, I'd have dropped this thread a long time ago. I'm only defending it because having a completely anti-verification thread on the boards wouldn't (in my opinion) eflect the views of chatroom users.
I'm going to restrict my posts here to clearing up factual issues only from now on.
:giveup:

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
Yeah, you're getting your info from something that is bullshit!

Well, I didn't write it, and I'm getting thoroughly fed up defending it now! :giveup:

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
I think the qualification for a +v should be something more like 'active player and looking to arrange meets via the chatroom' rather than just 'active player'.

So, that'll mean that every single guy on there gets a + automatically then .... something I think the powers will not want at all!
Not automatically, they have to have successfully arranged a meet, and turned up for it to qualify for the 'active player' bit!

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
So.... the definition says you need to have had sex.... Steve_D yesterday said that intent to have sex was enough, now you are saying that just turning up to a meet is enough???? Does anyone have any idea what is the REAL truth here..... apart from that the supporters of this utter mess are clutching at straws now they have been questioned?

All I know is that I'm getting my information from the Verifying Users page which seems to spell it all out quite clearly, and to the best of my knowlege hasn't been changed since I first read it.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Calista
Surely this is a double standard though ... if you can't get verified going to to munch then how can you get verified from turning up at a meet even though nothing happened? How does that prove you're a genuine swinger?

I think this is a little semantic twist, please someone correct me if I'm wrong... Munches are purely social meets where there is no playing so going to a munch doesn't imply an intention to swing.
Some scurrilous people might claim to have seen rude goings on at a munch, but this never happens wink

wink

. What these people have seen was always somthing that, by coincidence, happened just after the munch, or at an after-munch event, or in a nearby non-munch room while the much was going on, and therefore does qualify the participants for verification.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
"Swinging" means different things to different people. It is not all about "playing". The idea of differentiating between players and non players is artificial and created with an agenda that no one apparently is able to explain. Therefore I would say that, yes, being defined with a + if you don't want to be part of a system such as this IS indeed very bad.

I know it looks like I'm the self-appointed defender of the + in this thread, but I do have to say that I'm entirely in agreement with you on both those points. I think it should be optional, and I think the qualification for a +v should be something more like 'active player and looking to arrange meets via the chatroom' rather than just 'active player'.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by roger743
To be something that could be mistaken for fair, maybe the admins aren't recording that information. If it were me (and it isn't ), I really wouldn't want to have a "who shagged who" database sitting on my computer.

The admins are not getting that information. For a verified user to verify somone else all they send to the admins is the other person's chatroom name.
No description of who did what with who else is required. Since users can be verified if they turned up to a meet where there was no mutual attraction and nothing happened, it doesn't even imply that you've had any form of intercourse at all!

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx

I don't know why people are so offended that they are being verified

Maybe because what people do in the private lives is their own business, and who people shag is nothing to do with the powers that be?
Just a thought!
I take your point, but to even get into this site you have to click a big button marked "Genuine UK swingers enter Swinging Heaven here", so is it really so bad to be identified as a "Genuine UK swinger" once you are here?

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Angel Chat
But herein lies the problem as far as I'm concerned.......... I don't even know who the "powers that be" are, and yet I'm almost 100% sure I haven't shagged them! So how did I get verified??!

Anyone who is verified can verify others.

Quote by Angel Chat
I emailed the list admin last night just after I posted to this thread, and have just been in to the chatroom to check that I no longer have a + (it's gone PHEW!) but have had no reply to my email, so I'm still none the wiser as to who verified me or why

It's anonymous for very good reasons, partly for your privacy, but also so the verification admin(s) can keep their anonymity, which means they can't be accused of bias or abusing their position.
I don't know why people are so offended that they are being verified confused

confused

16 Nov 2004

Quote by wildwilly
Does the cross (+) signify a holier than though attitude, if it is there to show you "put it about" surely a division (/) symbol would be better. Newbies arent going to know what the hell the + sign stands for anyway, chatrooms are instant access and unless they are serious they will not read the sites policies and guidelines, they may just think the +'s are the GOD SQUAD.

Voice (shown by a + in java chat) is actually a standard feature of internet chatrooms, the symbol for it wasn't chosen by SH, and can't be altered by SH.
People who regularly use other chatrooms will already know that Voice indicates some degree of familiarity with the room, and will not be surprised to see it in #swingingheaven.
I don't see that this is any more open to misinterpertation and devisiveness than the use of "@" for Ops, who (incidentally) ARE the god squad (as newbies already learn very quickly!)

16 Nov 2004

Whoever set this poll up clearly never felt the cold, cold, harsh and uncomfortable feel of white porcelain on their bell end when sitting down to pee!

16 Nov 2004

Hmm, a few points to throw into the debate:
Firstly, why do people assume that newbies will be ignored by verified people? Surely verified people are more likely (and more able) to welcome genuine newbies into the fold than randomly chosen chatroom users? My exeperience of people likely to have a + is that they are always ready to welcome the genuine newbies who read the rules and want to join in.
Secondly, the verification system isn't complete yet, many people who probably qualify haven't got their + yet (me for example) so it's a bit unfair to judge the effects of the sytem before it's all in place.
Thirdly, the system does still serve it's purpose of directing newbies to genuine people even if a large number of eligible people opt out - in fact I suspect that having a large number of opt-outs will actually help the system, since it will mean a lot of the conversation in the channel will be between + and non + people, rather than the cliquey + only room that some are imagining.

16 Nov 2004

Well at least it can't possibly be worse than the 2nd Band Aid recording... Bros and Stock, Aitken, Waterman anyone?

16 Nov 2004

Damn, I really should have known that then, I have some mad half man half biscuit fans as friends and they must have played it to me at some point. Maybe I was just laughing too much to remember it?

16 Nov 2004

:high-smile: :high-smile: :high-smile: :high-smile: :high-smile:
Happy Birthday!
:high-smile: :high-smile: :high-smile: :high-smile: :high-smile: