Il scratch your back but i dont have any gossip though :P
If one thing swingers hate it's being judged by the vanilla community. Getting a feedback system is the equivalent of being judged by your own community.
I don't know about anyone else, but I don't come here to be judged by anyone, much less someone I just shagged.
I think the idea that one is going to be dragged through the mud by being verified is again a bit over dramatic.
Other sites are quite reasonable in their verification systems, usually a simple compliment is made and its no more than saying to people, feel reassured these people are genuine and do what they say etc. The verifications are also screened for abuse and people seeking revenge etc.
So really is not as bad as people are feeling and thinking about it, by getting into this type of argument on this site.
There seems to be a 'high church' approach to this and other arguments on this site.
I am not sure if the arguments are effective for or against verifying. I mean how far does one go to argue the need for one's discretion without being indiscreet?
One thing that does occur even on a non verifying site is the recounting of a meeting, usually to someone's dissapointment; where although no names are mentioned, you can be sure the other person (offender) knows you are talking about them. They could be offended also, and would not want to start a tit for tat argument; which would be stopped by the mods anyway.
Equally one could be perpetrating a corker of a lie, but we; the audience are being invited to believe in the integrity of one side of the argument. That's unfair and tedious.
Is this kind of thing fair? Non verifying does not prevent this. But verifying might do. So in some way non verifying can encourage this kind of behaviour.
Verifying is no good if you tell people you are getting a crap deal out of a meeting with other members. People will always think there's no smoke without fire etc. So the feedback that is produced is reasonably benign and in effect almost a formality.
So I think its down to one's own confidence in how one deals with such things.
I actually think verifications are not a bad thing. As long as the person being verified has the final work, ie decision on if it gets displayed or not and can delete at will. There is another site where this is the case and it works well.
Verifications can be the reason between deciding to meet someone or not, or inviting to a party or not. If you can see someone has met one or two people and everyone is happy, it is a good form of reassurance, even though you can't go by that alone.
Having said that, when you see people with pages of verifications that can be off putting too, so it's everything in moderation. Choose the ones to keep wisely and remain in control.
People seem to be worried that members of a site are going to get bad or incorrect publicity. I think there are plenty of laws about slander and defamation of character to protect against such a thing. Such laws are held equally on web sites, by the operators. Like this one.
As I said before it would be no good in publicising a crap meeting. So few would do this even if it was allowed. Therefore people would verify all those with whom they had a decent encounter, and forget about the crap events.
So I think that the current 'feelings' about this are again getting a little bit over the top.
Verification comes down to one persons word against another. If one person is given bad feedback,and it's all a tissue of lies, how can they prove that?
Of course, no-one would dream of lying out of pique, or because of rejection, would they? Or, in extreme cases,
give bad feedback for a meet that never existed.