denise we're not bickering.
we're having a free and frank exchange of views in a respectful adult manner, which is what the cafe is for. except it ain't actually a free and frank exchange cos we're being told by some to STFU about it in a completely unadult, disrespectful way by some ops who would rather flame and launch personal attacks than discuss it with us?
well we care about this too much just to STFU, cos we love SH too much to let the place be dragged down to that level.
neil x x x ;)
denise
no it is not a chatroom issue. it is a site issue. chat is just part of SH. something we are all members of. and lots of people arguing here are chat members, who cannot raise this in there, cos for one you can't argue this point in a medium designed for one line banter, and more to the point, if you do bring it up in there you risk a kick / ban!
you say say this to the site owner? what do you think we are doing here on his forum? maybe mark would prefer us to send him 600 mails every time a new question arises? i somehow doubt that?
neil x x ;)
denise
the reason this thread has gone on so long, is cos we are arguing on a point of principle about something that fundamentally changes the nature of SH! it has nothing to do with whether we use the room or not, or would have the + or not if we did, or anything.
there are huge, real concerns from god knows how many members, that this is just plain wrong in conception, and badly handled in implementation.
most of those arguing in favour of +, are room members of long standing, already have a +, and so do not seem to grasp why we have an issue with it. they are defending their + status, and not arguing on principle.
noone has yet answered a single one of god knows how many questions brought up here?
and it's all well and good saying, we have it, there's no point arguing, cos that is one of the arguments we have. if we aren't allowed to question it, and have to accept it, then some members of this site have taken it upon themselves to forever change SH! i challenge their right to impose this on us and force us to accept it without at least having the decency to come here and respond to criticism without flaming those who challenge it. we are simply to assume they know what's best, and any questioning of it is out. they cannot even give us a reasonable summary of their thinking on it.
this issue will simply not go away till all these questions are answered in the same way that they have been asked. reasonably. logically. openly. honestly. with respect.
neil x x x ;)
hiya fred mate!
good to see you, and ta for confirming all our fears about the effect this is likely to have on new and unknown users who can't claim +V status! ;)
right. StarChat hosts the SH chatroom. it's a collection of servers linked together, and run by StarChat ops. it has nowt to do with SH whatsoever. they just allow us to have a chatroom running on their machines. some SH ops are Starchat ops, but most are not. an SH op has a much lower status than a Starchat op, and only has opping powers in the SH chatroom.
when you go into the chatroom now, and find a + next to your name, that's cos a particular command, the voice command, is being run against your nick. as it happens automatically, you are being auto-voiced from a database that holds a +V next to your nick in some way.
that database is therefore being held off site, and we have no way of knowing who is adding you to that database. it may be an SH member, and most likely is, but equally it may not be. Admin could just be requesting the addition of a nick for us.
neil x x x ;)
am i right in thinking it's been said that Ops are not adminstering this? cos if that's true, then it raises an interesting point
now the auto-voice database must be located on a StarChat server for +V to be automatically assigned when you enter the room. that means that at least one database of SH members exists off site. SH does not own Starchat.
Admin could simply forward requests to a non-SH member with StarChat Op priveleges to add +V. that would mean again that Admin is at least a site member, but there are then 2 databases, one on site run by Admin, and one on Starchat that may or may not be run by an SH member.
we have no way of knowing whether the op actually adding the +V is an SH member in that case. so there could be an issue there of breach of confidentiality? i don't know?
alternatively, Admin are maintaining a single database on StarChat, and adding +V themselves, which means Admin are an SH Op, which IIRC, has been denied.
neil x x x ;)
well i did wonder about DPA, cos clearly if users are being auto-voiced when they enter channel, then a database is being held somewhere on a server. who administers that database, where that database is located, and whether admin are SH members isn't an issue as far as DPA is concerned i think. just the fact someone somewhere has it on a server could bring it within DPA. that database must be on a SarChat server for the auto-voice to work. it's likely that admin are at least SH members.
but . . i think if it's just a chatroom nick, with a +V against it, it can be argued there is nothing confidential there that leaves you identifiable per se. having said that, it is possible in some roundabout way for some users to be personally identifiable if they use a real name in the room, or use a realname email addy for chatroom registration, and in that case you can argue that the nick and +v and nick registration in combination reveal confidential, personally identifiable info that you are an active swinger? i doubt that is a breach of DPA though, but i simply don't know. just something else should that really needs to be clarified?.
neil x x x ;)
mr_d, think it's apparent i have actually read the entire thread? you don't wriggle out that easy mate! can't be bothered with the multiple quotes again . . . .
i don't follow the haddock=fish logic? if + denotes genuine, lack of a + denotes what? 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?
it's a free and open site that anyone over 18 can access. where might the scam be lurking? 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?
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!
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?
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!
jon? if the room is still exactly the same as it always was, then the point of verification, or the need for it, is what?
neil x x x ;)
oh FGS do you not think i don't know all about single males? i am one FGS, and constantly battle the attitude that we are all desperate wannafucks! ((( see previous post by system implementer for the origin of that particular wording!! )))
i was once a shite channel op, who had to step in to god knows how many rows, to defuse that particular assumption? and boot people permanently from the site because of an opinion *I* made about them?
you yourself have claimed you are intelligent enough to make your own distinctions, as have many others. so the point is, WTF is the point? if members of this site are clever enough to make those distinctions, why do we need to report our shags to some administrator to gain special status, who will then assign us a status so those less able than ourselves ((( ???????? ))) can then make that distinction themselves?????
either we are genuine on our own merits or we are not!
i am not gonna report my sexual conquests to a site admin, just so i can have a particular status on this site. a status that is only given to those who are quite prepared to breach discretion in order to gain a + by gossiping about the fact that they have just fucked someone!
what, in my argument, and that of god knows how many members outraged by this, making whole essays on moral grounds, is soooooo difficult to understand?
you will see ops, ex ops, mods, mere members, outraged by the whole idea! i reiterate once again, i could have claimed the +, but it disgusts me, and it disgusts many members.
neil x x x ;)
absolutely staggered beyong belief! :shock: :shock: :shock:
right. let's get this absolutely clear steve_d!
the function of a chatroom OP, is to enforce the AUP, and ensure the responsible use of the room! nothing more! OPS are mere members of this site, who have volunteered to do that. so as mere members, why is their opinion, or their rights, of more weight than that of other members who have argued forcefully against this.
so the OPS ((( some of them ))) voted for it? well who gave you the right to take that upon yourself? a handful of you ASSUMED that right. which is precisely the point of those who have argued so forcefully, out of real passion, on this thread!
we are arguing not on "teething problems". we are arguing out of real conviction that it is simply plain wrong for members to have their sex lives subject to scrutiny so that a handful of anonymous other members can say whether or not they are a genuine member of this site!
i do not accept, that anyone, be they OP or not, has the right to pass judgement on others here. nowhere have you put forward any valid reasons why this is either necessary or desirable or even remotely useful. there are lots of negatives that lots of users, many of them yer ACTUAL chatroom user, have expressed here. so lets not just dismiss the argument out of hand with yet more put downs eh?
it serves no purpose, it is unclear, it is confusing, it does not serve to denote genuine swingers. it simply serves to denote people who in your opinion, are not genuine, because they don't know who you know. that's it!
neil x x x ;)
this is a hell of an essay, but please bear with me, cos i want everyone here to be very very clear, that i have no axe to grind here with anybody, but this issue is of huge importance to members of this site!
since posting the 2 farewell threads, i have barely looked at SH. in general for me at least, it is not the place it was, mainly for personal reasons that are unrelated to SH as such. but then last night i was made aware of the existence of the verification thread, so i took a quick peak at it.
reading the first post, which btw was raised not by a mod or an op by way of explanation of the process, but by someone who had stumbled across the new pages on verification, i knew immediately what i felt about it. but i read through every post on every one of ten pages, to see where the reasoning lay, and if i was wrong in my opinion.
it was with mounting disbelief that i followed this thread, until finally i activated a new account, so i could post my feelings on it. i can tell you hand on heart i would not have reactivated without this thread.
IMHO, SH as i have known it, no longer exists! i am arguing on this thread out of real conviction that potentially the entire character of a site i love with a passion has been changed forever by this.
this is an OPEN COMMUNITY! we pride ourselves on acceptance of anyone who comes here in the right spirit, no matter who they are, or who they choose to be, or what they choose to do!
what we now have, is a site where the right connections confer a status on you that is denied those who have yet to make those connections. SH now consists of those who know the right people, and those who don't! that is a clique by any definition of the word, something some of us have really tried to avoid with a real effort to welcome those who come here. it will serve to EXCLUDE!
verification, in the way it has been presented, has nothing whatsoever to do with your status as a swinger, or as a member of this site in your own right, on your own terms. it CONFERS a status on a certain clique of individuals, in the least transparent way, and engenders a situation where not knowing members of that clique CONFERS ON YOU A LESSER STATUS!
we also have a situation now where YOUR PRIVATE LIFE IS SUBJECT TO JUDGEMENT by a mere handful of individuals. they NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE YOU but you have no right to be informed of exactly WHAT THE BASIS OF THAT JUDGEMENT IS! they cannot even give adequate response to those who have raised questions on this thread asking for a simple definition of the process. but it is entirely within those individuals power to label you as A NON-GENUINE MEMBER OF THIS SITE! that is what verification does, and they have just ASSUMED THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THAT JUDGEMENT UPON YOU!
every challenge to the idea of verification raised on this thread, has been dismissed by those who have instigated this system. nowhere have they presented any form of reasoned argument why this is either necessary or desirable, or what the specific intention is.
in the abscence of that information, one can only conclude that either, there is a hidden agenda which we are not allowed to know, or alternatively, there is in fact no reasoned argument which can adequately counter the weight of opinion of those horrified by this idea!
we now have something like 350 posts on this thread, yet those who claim the right to judge us in this way are nowhere to be seen. i leave you to draw your own conclusions.
and that's pretty much me done. i only came back to watch SH finally descend into chaos, cliques, and open warfare. and i'm a bit sick seeing it.
neil x x x ;)
well that's just it isn't it Angel Chat?
the system has been imposed by a select few, without any discussion whatsoever, and despite this thread now running at 16 pages, in the main all comments from the ops who imposed this system have been along the lines of just STFU and don't question it?
well sorry but the ops do not a site make. it's members do. and the longer those members are kept in the dark, the greater the speculation as to the real agenda here?
they have taken it upon themselves to make judgements about your private life! whether you like it or not! you no longer define yourself or your involvement here. a shadowy committee does that for you, and if you chose not to play along then you are effectively categorised as a non-genuine member of this site. is that what any of us want to see, because that is what has just happened!
i think it's time someone posted something sensible. i know this must have been discussed among the ops, so clearly it has been reasoned out at some point? we however are not privy to that reasoning?
neil x x x ;)
i'm just here cos i love a good old barney ok! well no that's not really true i don't really. well ok i might do. look i don't know do i cos i'm not here. :lol2:
and show no mercy to those that are clearly not interested in adhering to the rules and becoming part of our community but to those newbies that are friendly, respectful and decent the females in the chat room are very courteous and friendly in return.
