All the mobile phone companies tell lies. i have never had anything go ahead as arranged.
Only just read this thread and, Oh Dear I've been here before a few times.
I remember when 'D***y D***s' site went commercial. Look at it now.
Same thing, onernight Draconian censorship of mentioning other sites, and all existing members got Premium Membership.
Well for the few years I've been around this site it's been nice talking to you all. If this doesn't get me banned then I think, like a lot of others I shall soon be moving on.
Strange to see that the Portsmouth Social has been cancelled. Readiing through the post it appears that a banned member was attending and this caused Mal to take offence to that. I have read through the AUP and it doesn't say anywhere on it that social get togethers also come under the same guidelines as Munches.
Can a site administrator clear this up for us.
Do organisers of social gatherings have to inform the moderators of who is attending them and how is it anyone's business apart from the organiser of a private event who attends it or not?
It does appear that by policing private meets and events the moderators of Swinging Heaven are extending their remit to moderate BEYOND the scope of their position - which is to moderate an online contact site only. Do they think they are a vigilante police force who have power over all aspects of our lives?
What's next?
Do we have to have permission to have 1-2-1 meets too?
Perhaps I personally can clear this up for you.
We don't normally have any say about social functions, only munches. However, in this case 2 moderators were due to attend a function at which a previously banned member was also attending. Suffice to say, this would not have been conducive to a very happy atmosphere. I'm not prepared to go into details here, other than the situation has been dealt with.
Whether you believe it was within the AUP or not doesn't really concern me. The rules concerning socials will be rewritten shortly.
and also just to clarify, we, the moderators, did not cancel or ask for it to be cancelled. That was up to the organiser to decide.
Mal
OK i have read mals post and i was going to post s8 away on this matter but a good friend advised me not to make a rash judgement...so i have spend the day thinking about this.
first of all i wud like to point out that IMHO the mods make good honest decions 99% of the time.
First of all i agree that members should be banned if they contravine the AUP. However i know full well that some BANNED members are still friends with active members of the site. I am not going to name names as that would be unfair. I know full well these active members do not want to endager the rest of us....
I can see that banned members should be banned from Munchs and the site i have not had an issue with that. I do however feel that banning from a social to an extent could cause a lot of unhappy current members. For example i could have a social at my house...now i could have SH people attending then a BANNED MEMBER decided to turn up on same day not knowing that SH people are going to be there ....would a BAN for Me come in to place.
I have a question does this BAN on BANNED MEMBERS attending pvt house based partys still come in to force as i think a lot of members would like some clarifcation on the rules.
I am sorry if people think i am delibertaley causing trouble, I am not, nor am I representing anyone. i just feel that some more clarification might be needed, in both the AUP and by mods.
does this also include meets and Private parts sent by PM, also does this apply to chatroom conversations
MikeC
:gagged:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
but I have to say shik, fleck and bollox
NAMING AND SHAMING
It is (or was) the policy of Swinging Heaven not to allow naming shaming in the public areas of the site.
Case in point, the name of the person who attacked kazswallows was, rightly in my view, withheld.
How is it then that Mal suddenly grants himself permission to ignore the rules and post accusations against Wishmaster then lock the thread? The reason given for the rule against naming and shaming is to protect against malicious accusations. What proof can Mal offer that his accusation is not malicious, and even if he can prove it, why does this give him the right to break the rules?
Also, how does Mal justify changing the rules retrospectively with regard to LMU posts advertising events that include non-members? The ruling was that if non-members/banned members are attending an event advertised on this site, it could not be stickied as a munch but could remain as info for a "social". Mal has now decided that the thread regarding kazswallows' birthday party, which is perfectly in keeping with that ruling, is now not acceptable. She has been told that she must either uninvite Wishmaster, or delete the thread (which she can't do) or be banned.
Is Mal going to reimburse the people who have booked hotels and paid for train tickets if this event is cancelled because of his interference?
Can Mal explain to the community what he meant by his comment to me on the telephone this afternoon: "I couldn't care less about kaz's party, I have to protect people's safety."
Whose safety Mal? You're not even going to the party, everyone who is going knows who will be there, and nobody has been threatened. Who are you to choose kaz's friends?
As I have posted, I saw Christmas Carol on stage in the week and despite an anouncement, a damn mobile went off during the performance!
Very off-putting to the actors and the audience.
If its that impotant they can be put on silent ( the phone that is!!!)
Ice,
Mal didn't change the rules. WE, the Moderators did. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
WE did so to protect the members of this site, and I for one will not apologise for that. WE are not saying that organisers of Socials can't invite banned members, because clearly they can and WE would not tell people who their friends should be. WE can however stop people from advertising such events on this site, and that is what WE have decided to do.
The rules of this site can and will be changed as and when WE feel it is necessary. After much debate amongst the mods WE decided that in this case there was a need for a rule change.
WE also decided that in this case, after certain information had been brought to our attention, that it would be wise to warn members that Wishmaster had made threats against us. Again, this was done to protect the members of this site, and WE do have evidence to support that decision.
Mal merely posted the decision of the mods - don't shoot the messenger!!!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Ok then, heres a serious question relating to the change in policy.
If I chose to post one of my private house parties on here and perhaps also through previous guests at my parties, and I receive requests from people to attend, how do I know who is a banned member here and who isn't ?
To make this workable I assume you will need to post a sticky somewhere listing all the banned members, so I can check potential guest against the list at the time of asking, to save everyone the embarrasment of having to go back to them and say, sorry you can't come as I've had to check my guests out.
Also what happens if someone attends, and unkown to me or any of my guests they are banned during the afternoon of the day of my party - am I therefore expected to check them out as they come to my door and turn them away at that point?
It strikes me that publishing a list of banned members is not acceptable, so therefore how can this be achieved ?
Simply put there is no practical way that this is workable - QED
Now he appears to be a fully fledged perv.... it's catching I think 
:whistling: :whistling: :whistling: :whistling: :whistling: 
:x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x 
:lol2: :laughabove: 
:kiss: :kiss: :therethere: :therethere: :therethere: :therethere: :therethere: