Hmmm we have a question!!!!

13 Oct 2008

Thats very true Sassy.
We all know that along with some lovely people on here, there is the odd timewaster. :shock:
I really cannot see what the problem is if people want a verification system to weed some of those timewasters out. It is NOT compulsary to enter anything, but I bet a lot of single guys would agree, that it possibly could make their lives easier for the genuine ones out there.
Nothing is perfect and we love the site, otherwise we would not be here. We...well mainly myself, partake in most aspects of this site, from forum to chat, and def for meeting people. Of course people are entitled to partake in this site however they wish, but if you look at the " members ", how many of those have not logged on for over 1 year? I would hazard at a guess of over half.
Still this subject will continue to pop up, as long as this site is still active. We just have to be more careful about who we meet, and make sure they are genuine. cool

13 Oct 2008

The idea that one is going to achieve some privacy by not having verification is only slightly useful I think. Getting into adult sexual practices usually exposes one's sex life. As a result 'privacy' is slightly compromised.
To a certain extent one can achieve 'secrecy', but this is often undone when one encounter's a former lover and the body language and tell tale signs soon give the game away. In which case the umbrella one is operating under is quite possibly more characteristic of the behaviours associated with 'cheating'.
I haven't seen a site where people are given negative verifications either on their performance or behaviours. What is out there on record is fairly benign and simply indicates that people do meet and a good time is had by all.
Also if one uses other sites and abides by the format there, and accepts that verification is part of being a member, how can one argue passionately against it on this site?
I can't help thinking it's a legacy issue that has been handed down from the originators. An idea with good intentions but creating repeatable arguments.
The absence of a formal system simply means that people will ask each other for verification about new people. It makes sense as its simply an extention of the principles of safe sex, personal safety and responsibility for one's and other's actions. Why it can't be seen in this positive light is a bit worrying, I think.

13 Oct 2008

Quote by duncanlondon
The idea that one is going to achieve some privacy by not having verification is only slightly useful I think. Getting into adult sexual practices usually exposes one's sex life. As a result 'privacy' is slightly compromised.
To a certain extent one can achieve 'secrecy', but this is often undone when one encounter's a former lover and the body language and tell tale signs soon give the game away. In which case the umbrella one is operating under is quite possibly more characteristic of the behaviours associated with 'cheating'.
I haven't seen a site where people are given negative verifications either on their performance or behaviours. What is out there on record is fairly benign and simply indicates that people do meet and a good time is had by all.
Also if one uses other sites and abides by the format there, and accepts that verification is part of being a member, how can one argue passionately against it on this site?
I can't help thinking it's a legacy issue that has been handed down from the originators. An idea with good intentions but creating repeatable arguments.
The absence of a formal system simply means that people will ask each other for verification about new people. It makes sense as its simply an extention of the principles of safe sex, personal safety and responsibility for one's and other's actions. Why it can't be seen in this positive light is a bit worrying, I think.

just wanted to comment on the two paragraphs in bold....
the 1st paragraph is one of the big reasons why I not a fan on varification.....because people have always had the choice of picking and choosing what is shown, it is always going to show people in a positive light, you only get to see one part....
for example...... my pet beef... people on munch lists who can't be arsed to let the organisor know they aren't coming along......
If I put down on a varification sheet:
"this person couldn't even have the common decency to let the organisor know they were not going to turn up for this event"
harsh, but fair! not said anything that wasn't true....
Now with the greatest respect,what would be chances of that showing up on anybodies pages or profiles..... I am guessing very very slim to none..
now the 2nd paragraph....... absolutely i can argue against it
not all varifications on the different sites are the same, I use one other site, where it feels as if the varification process is used as if it is notches on a bedpost, and the varifications feel like a blow by blow account of the meets..... do i need to know everything that happened... hell no! am I on that site as much as this one.... no!
not all swinging websites are the same, and that is not a bad thing..... it means people can find different sites out there that make them feel comfortable.......
embrace the differences..... there are websites out there for everyone
different strokes for different folks......

13 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Sorry but cat amongst the pigeons time here.
Why do people go on a swingers site, if they have no intention of swinging?
Never quite understood that one. Go on slate me if you want.

Because they are interested in the lifestyle and want to learn more?
Because they did once participate, but have become jaded by ... certain aspects?
Because there are no rules saying that you HAVE to be a swinger to be a member?
Because they enjoy adult themed conversations and debates?
Because they enjoy the communal atmosphere?
As a non-participator, all the above are true for me.
:thumbup:
And I bet there are a multitude of other reasons too.
And Dave.......get very well very soon kiss

I bet there are too like....Sorry did not turn up as me dog was sick or.....sorry I did not ring you but ran out of credit or......
I know this has been discussed many times before, and to me it always seems the ones that shout the loudest are the ones who have no intention of swinging. :lol: That is not digging at anyone, just my opinion.
We DO swing and want to meet swingers, and all I was saying was that I would have thought a swingers site for swingers, would have actually meant, people do want to swing.
We have had it many times. We chat to people to get to know them, and then find out they are only here to chat. :dunno:
I do not see anything wrong at all in thinking a swingers site would have been for people that want to swing. Sounds rather logical to me. cool

They're lame excuses- not reasons.
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed. wink

13 Oct 2008

I give up. If people cannot understand a verification system is NOT something you have to partake in, then I will go to me corner. lol

13 Oct 2008

Quote by winchwench
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

13 Oct 2008

Quote by northwest-cpl
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:

13 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
I can totally verify that Mr K 777 is a plank at times :giggle: :wink:
As for Mrs 777 - what a sweetie kiss

13 Oct 2008

Quote by anais
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
I can totally verify that Mr K 777 is a plank at times :giggle: :wink:
As for Mrs 777 - what a sweetie kiss

I am hurt big time Anais.
But at least I can be safe in the knowledge that I am always right. :lol: :lol:

13 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
I can totally verify that Mr K 777 is a plank at times :giggle: :wink:
As for Mrs 777 - what a sweetie kiss

I am hurt big time Anais.
But at least I can be safe in the knowledge that I am always right. :lol: :lol:
We are just letting you think you are :lol2: :lol2:

13 Oct 2008

:sleeping:

13 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
As I've pointed out before, the people who don't use the system will then be detrimentally affected.
Bob from Norfolk who has an identical profile to his identical twin Rob, but has 6 positive verifications will look better, by default, than his twin who chooses not to use the system.
It removes the level playing field.

13 Oct 2008

Quote by winchwench
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
As I've pointed out before, the people who don't use the system will then be detrimentally affected.
Bob from Norfolk who has an identical profile to his identical twin Rob, but has 6 positive verifications will look better, by default, than his twin who chooses not to use the system.
It removes the level playing field.
I could give 50 things out there, that is not a level playing field.
Lets take a guy who has two positive verifications like...Nice guy, turned up for meet as arranged. As a couple we would look at that along with his pics and would then make a decision. On the other guy, he has no verifications and no pics. I think we know what guy we would choose to meet first.
The guy with a verification would take our vote everytime, over someone who did not have anything. That for us would make a difference, but of course Winch that is us only, others obviously do not agree and that is fine. :lol: Just trying to give our opinion.x

13 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Lets take a guy who has two positive verifications like...Nice guy, turned up for meet as arranged. As a couple we would look at that along with his pics and would then make a decision. On the other guy, he has no verifications and no pics. I think we know what guy we would choose to meet first.
The guy with a verification would take our vote everytime, over someone who did not have anything. That for us would make a difference, but of course Winch that is us only, others obviously do not agree and that is fine. Just trying to give our opinion.x

But isn't that exactly why Winchy's saying that it destroys the level playing field. The unverified guy may not want evidence of who he's met plastered on the notice board and so he asked not to be verified. He's just as good a guy and yet people are being put off him by the verification system.
Sorry - not gone back and read the whole thread again so I may have missed a point here.
.

13 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
As I've pointed out before, the people who don't use the system will then be detrimentally affected.
Bob from Norfolk who has an identical profile to his identical twin Rob, but has 6 positive verifications will look better, by default, than his twin who chooses not to use the system.
It removes the level playing field.
I could give 50 things out there, that is not a level playing field.
Lets take a guy who has two positive verifications like...Nice guy, turned up for meet as arranged. As a couple we would look at that along with his pics and would then make a decision. On the other guy, he has no verifications and no pics. I think we know what guy we would choose to meet first.
The guy with a verification would take our vote everytime, over someone who did not have anything. That for us would make a difference, but of course Winch that is us only, others obviously do not agree and that is fine. :lol: Just trying to give our opinion.x
okay.... saying that... lets move your example onwards....
the guy with 2 varifications...... has also been a bit of a prick, he has let down 10 others, and been a bit pushy with 5 others.......
how would you know? cause i doubt he is putting it on his varifications.....
and the guy who decides to keep it all private.... well he has been the perfect gent, never let anyone down...
are you Still choosing the one with the varifications??

13 Oct 2008

Quote by winchwench
As I've pointed out before, the people who don't use the system will then be detrimentally affected.
Bob from Norfolk who has an identical profile to his identical twin Rob, but has 6 positive verifications will look better, by default, than his twin who chooses not to use the system.
It removes the level playing field.

northwest-cpl from Manchester have no profile and no pictures. cpl-northwest from Manchester have filled their profile in, attached 6 photos and put an advert up. Doesn't cpl-northwest's profile look better, by default? Aren't northwest-cpl disadvantaged? Should the adverts and profiles be removed to make the playing field even?
If northwest-cpl were bothered then they would join the system and fill in the profile, just like Rob could get verified if he wanted - he's only got to ask Bob to do it for him. If he doesn't have a verified twin, and is new to the site, then maybe he should "join in and get himself known". There are any number of socials all over the country where people could get verified i.e. actually be seen to be who they say they are.
At the moment the unofficial verification system works against anyone who doesn't spend inordinate amounts of time in the forums or chat rooms - that's where the bumpy playing field really is.
And to make matters clear, we have no axe to grind for or against verification because we never meet people through the internet. However, as a non-interested party, the verification system seems to make more sense if it's official.

13 Oct 2008

Quote by westerross
But isn't that exactly why Winchy's saying that it destroys the level playing field. The unverified guy may not want evidence of who he's met plastered on the notice board and so he asked not to be verified. He's just as good a guy and yet people are being put off him by the verification system.
Sorry - not gone back and read the whole thread again so I may have missed a point here.
.

The sites we've been on where verification exists allow verification without details. You do not have to let others see who has verified you so guy 2 should have no worries about that.
For level playing fields see above.

13 Oct 2008

Quote by fabio
okay.... saying that... lets move your example onwards....
the guy with 2 varifications...... has also been a bit of a prick, he has let down 10 others, and been a bit pushy with 5 others.......
how would you know? cause i doubt he is putting it on his varifications.....
and the guy who decides to keep it all private.... well he has been the perfect gent, never let anyone down...
are you Still choosing the one with the varifications??

If people take verification with anything other than a pinch of salt then they only have themselves to blame if it all goes wrong. But I can see that verification is an additional string to your bow if you are trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

13 Oct 2008

I think the theories of how people are going to abuse a system are a bit weak. Seemingly based on the assumption that people are going to be simple enough to treat it like a menu, and work alone in the dark. I don't think people are that dumb.
A list of people allows you to contact other verifiers, which gives you a headstart in making your choice. From them you can get a reasonable idea of a prospective lover and their behaviour etc. If you find there is no response or it sets off alarm bells, you have found it easier to reach your decision. This is what people are going to do in social situations by word of mouth anyway.

13 Oct 2008

if those who dont like the verification system wont read or look at the verifications then they will still give the non verified a chance cuse they will be none the wiser. confused

those who dont swing ? why care ? your not here to meet so wouldnt care your not verified cuse you dont want meets anyway lol
if you are new and want to attend the munches you get told get chatting in the forums or find someone who will vouch for you. ahhh should we call it a vouching system?
is this all irrelevent, are we just anti v words? unless in the vwe context? lol
i personally dont want a verification system cuse then youd all realise im a man lol
xx fem xx

13 Oct 2008

Quote by northwest-cpl
As I've pointed out before, the people who don't use the system will then be detrimentally affected.
Bob from Norfolk who has an identical profile to his identical twin Rob, but has 6 positive verifications will look better, by default, than his twin who chooses not to use the system.
It removes the level playing field.

northwest-cpl from Manchester have no profile and no pictures. cpl-northwest from Manchester have filled their profile in, attached 6 photos and put an advert up. Doesn't cpl-northwest's profile look better, by default? Aren't northwest-cpl disadvantaged? Should the adverts and profiles be removed to make the playing field even?
If northwest-cpl were bothered then they would join the system and fill in the profile, just like Rob could get verified if he wanted - he's only got to ask Bob to do it for him. If he doesn't have a verified twin, and is new to the site, then maybe he should "join in and get himself known". There are any number of socials all over the country where people could get verified i.e. actually be seen to be who they say they are.
At the moment the unofficial verification system works against anyone who doesn't spend inordinate amounts of time in the forums or chat rooms - that's where the bumpy playing field really is.
And to make matters clear, we have no axe to grind for or against verification because we never meet people through the internet. However, as a non-interested party, the verification system seems to make more sense if it's official.
Of course the couple who have a filled in profile look better by default. But a "can't be arsed to fill it in" attitude is hardly in the same ball park as discretion.
If verifications have names attached to them, they're indiscreet. If they're anonymous, they're open to abuse.
And Tune- Spot on :thumbup:

13 Oct 2008

Quote by anais
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
I can totally verify that Mr K 777 is a plank at times :giggle: :wink:
As for Mrs 777 - what a sweetie kiss

Aw Anais :happy:
He is a plank, but a loveable plank. However, he's sitting quietly on his own in the naughty corner at the moment!!
Mrs 777 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

13 Oct 2008

Quote by northwest-cpl
But isn't that exactly why Winchy's saying that it destroys the level playing field. The unverified guy may not want evidence of who he's met plastered on the notice board and so he asked not to be verified. He's just as good a guy and yet people are being put off him by the verification system.
Sorry - not gone back and read the whole thread again so I may have missed a point here.
.

The sites we've been on where verification exists allow verification without details. You do not have to let others see who has verified you so guy 2 should have no worries about that.
For level playing fields see above.
Unattributable comments about other people is open to abuse. Plus the fact that some people, including me, do not want any evidence from other people that I've been playing. So Guy 2 still has no verification and is disadvantaged.
Having said that - if I relied on people reading other people's comments to determine whether they wanted to play with me then it ain't the sort of swinging I'm interested in - so maybe I don't care whether there is a verification system. I suppose what I don't want to see is that it becomes the be all and end all.
.

13 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
I can totally verify that Mr K 777 is a plank at times :giggle: :wink:
As for Mrs 777 - what a sweetie kiss

Aw Anais :happy:
He is a plank, but a loveable plank. However, he's sitting quietly on his own in the naughty corner at the moment!!
Mrs 777 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oh noooooooooooooo, who sent Mr K to the naughty corner? I was having fun teasing him :wink:

13 Oct 2008

Can I just add that this is the most civilised debate we've had on this subject that I can remember.
.

13 Oct 2008

Quote by anais
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
I can totally verify that Mr K 777 is a plank at times :giggle: :wink:
As for Mrs 777 - what a sweetie kiss

Aw Anais :happy:
He is a plank, but a loveable plank. However, he's sitting quietly on his own in the naughty corner at the moment!!
Mrs 777 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oh noooooooooooooo, who sent Mr K to the naughty corner? I was having fun teasing him :wink:
Me!!!!! :evil2:
Mrs 777 xxxxxxxx

13 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
And some of the people speaking out against verification are very active swingers. However, they're discrete- so you may well not have noticed.

I suppose that depends on personal interpretation of very , active and swingers. :wink:
I still fail to see the problem with a verification system. If anyone doesn't like it they don't have to accept verifications, the people that do like it can accept them - no harm done. I wonder how full Kent's corner is getting. lol

Very full......wanna join? :lol:
I think people are a little confused, as I think they think, they will have to join in with the verifications. Still each to their own. :lol:
I can totally verify that Mr K 777 is a plank at times :giggle: :wink:
As for Mrs 777 - what a sweetie kiss

Aw Anais :happy:
He is a plank, but a loveable plank. However, he's sitting quietly on his own in the naughty corner at the moment!!
Mrs 777 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oh noooooooooooooo, who sent Mr K to the naughty corner? I was having fun teasing him :wink:
Me!!!!! :evil2:
Mrs 777 xxxxxxxx
I know who wears the Trews in your house

:rotflmao:

13 Oct 2008

Was there ever any doubt of that Anais??
Anyway, he's sitting in the corner patiently folding his copy of The Sun into a dunces hat!! Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww rolleyes

Mrs 777 xxxxxxx

13 Oct 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
Was there ever any doubt of that Anais??
Anyway, he's sitting in the corner patiently folding his copy of The Sun into a dunces hat!! Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Mrs 777 xxxxxxx

We knew a while ago but didn't want to tell Mr K :lol2: :lol2:
I'm sure a hat will suit him :giggle:

13 Oct 2008

Quote by anais
Was there ever any doubt of that Anais??
Anyway, he's sitting in the corner patiently folding his copy of The Sun into a dunces hat!! Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Mrs 777 xxxxxxx

We knew a while ago but didn't want to tell Mr K :lol2: :lol2:
I'm sure a hat will suit him :giggle:
Oi you girlies, stop ganging up on me. lol