Old Steam Room Stuff

10 Dec 2005

i just find it ironic that the was a bash a couple of weeks ago (marcuso's) and one going on this weekend (the skegness weekend) that have played under the same rules as the one that kaz has organised....... and these are/have gone on without a hitch
Wouldn't it in hindsight have been more approiate to have drawn a line in the sand and said "NEW events that want to be placed as socials will have to be played under these rules" rather than someone who has already changes what they have written once, in acceptance of new rules layed down and approved by mods,to now have to do it again......
as a lot of people have said... we know there are banned sh members going.... I am not the biggest fan of the member and we don't get along, but kaz has been upfront and it is now my decision to make whether to go or not.....especially if she now decides to cancel a lot of people have probably paid for rooms , as such may well have been the case for the portsmouth social.....
the name and shame policy has to be the same for everyone...because it has set a dangerous precedent....sexual abuse doesn't get you named, but threats do.....

10 Dec 2005

Quote by kazswallows

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.
:

Can you tell me why then if Wishmaster has made threats but the guy on saturday actually carried physical/sexual abuse against me, why I can't name him on open forum as you have done with wishmaster in the interests of protecting site members that may have him on msn or such like?
Well said Kaz ... I've not been on for a while and this is sickening me you can sanction the naming and shaming of Wishy who has probably just let of steam yet theres no one willing to name and shame the asshole who attacked Kaz which to me is a bigger threat to the members of this site, and this is the case every time a non mod/op has a problem the mods should be consistant if your gonna start naming then isn't it about time we as members had a list of threats against us.

10 Dec 2005

Another question as the skegy social went ahead with the organiser of this Social be banned as well...........
as i dont belive she should....please confirm
also banned members does this apply to temporary banned members or fully banned members.
MikeC

10 Dec 2005

Quote by dirtytwo
Perhaps a Swingers Pub (if there was such a thing) is the way to go...

A Swingers Pub is probably the best three word definition of a munch that you could write.
I'm convinced, (and I'm sure most if not all all the other long term members are) that you are less likely to suffer unwanted attention at a munch, and far more likely to have an unlimited supply of people prepared to deal with any unwanted attention that you are in the average high street pub or club on a Saturday night. Everybody at a munch knows the first rule is "No means No", and everyone agrees that transgressors are never going to be invited back.
At an SH social, you will be meeting people who are new to socials, that's inevitable since the whole point is to invite new people along to see if they feel this is something they want to be part of. This means dealing with the occasional wild cannon, but it's something we are acultely aware of, are prepared for, and will have no hesitation acting on.
This discussion isn't really about such clean cut cases, it's not about protecting you from someone who thinks if it moves he can grope it, it's about protecting you from people who were once trusted to run part of this site, but were involved in a heated argument about it and said something that got them banned, or in a more extreme case of Voddy's ban, protecting you from someone who chose to remain friends with the previous person and was not aware of what was said in the argument!
The question here is not 'do we run safe events?', because there is no question that we do. It's 'are we overzealous in our definition of safe events?' that's the point here.

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Mister_Discreet
Perhaps a Swingers Pub (if there was such a thing) is the way to go...

A Swingers Pub is probably the best three word definition of a munch that you could write.
I'm convinced, (and I'm sure most if not all all the other long term members are) that you are less likely to suffer unwanted attention at a munch, and far more likely to have an unlimited supply of people prepared to deal with any unwanted attention that you are in the average high street pub or club on a Saturday night. Everybody at a munch knows the first rule is "No means No", and everyone agrees that transgressors are never going to be invited back.
At an SH social, you will be meeting people who are new to socials, that's inevitable since the whole point is to invite new people along to see if they feel this is something they want to be part of. This means dealing with the occasional wild cannon, but it's something we are acultely aware of, are prepared for, and will have no hesitation acting on.
This discussion isn't really about such clean cut cases, it's not about protecting you from someone who thinks if it moves he can grope it, it's about protecting you from people who were once trusted to run part of this site, but were involved in a heated argument about it and said something that got them banned, or in a more extreme case of Voddy's ban, protecting you from someone who chose to remain friends with the previous person and was not aware of what was said in the argument!
The question here is not 'do we run safe events?', because there is no question that we do. It's 'are we overzealous in our definition of safe events?' that's the point here.
Good Point Mr D

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Dawn_Mids
As after all it is a libelous statement and be dam sure he has a screen shot of it and there is a lot of people here that would stand up and say yes i saw it leaving the site open to a libel action

Just picking up this bit.
It can only be libelous if we post something slanderous about a person that is not true, do you honestly think we would have taken that risk?
I think you will find the original post from Mal( before it was edited ) left a lot of room for interpretation
don't want to be drawn into the wishy and (another member) argument and if wishy doesnt come no great loss..
don't like the fact there is someone trying to tell us who we can and cant invite retrospectively after we have already stuck to the rules and done everything correctly then to have the goal posts not only moved but taken off the pitch

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Vicky_uk
Surely we have a choice isnâ€™t it our right?. After all we are a democracy arenâ€™t we?

feeling a sense of deja vue here...........
The answers IMHO are yes and no respectively........we have the choice to use this site or not......but dont EVER be fooled into thinking that it was/is/or is ever likely to be, a democracy.

10 Dec 2005

Quote by SirLee
don't like the fact there is someone trying to tell us who we can and cant invite retrospectively after we have already stuck to the rules and done everything correctly then to have the goal posts not only moved but taken off the pitch

Agreed!! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Following the feedback we have received from the site members, we have had another look at the situation regarding Kaz's party and now feel that it would indeed be unfair of us to expect her to make changes at this late stage. We acknowledge that Kaz has abided by the rules and it is too late to move the goal posts.
In this case we are going to allow Kaz to advertise her party here under the previous guidelines.
This will be the only exception!! wink

10 Dec 2005

To answer the naming and shaming queries.
Wishmaster was named and shamed in the interest of the community, as he has threatened SH as a whole, and not just the moderators on this last round of threats.
It was felt only right to warn other users of the site that this had happened, so that they could make relevant choices regarding their own privacy and safety.
This isn't the norm we know, however in some cases exceptions to the rule must be made.
I believe this is one of those times.
Jas
XXX

10 Dec 2005

This has caused a lot of heartache and upset to a lot of members and I do not beleive it has yet run its course.
I was up till 6 am in a private chat room with a couple of peeps involved last night and we were given the opportunity to confront the person concerned with the allegations.
What came out of it was the allegations were edited and taken out of context, I suppose just like the mods threat to me that i would be banned if I ran my social with banned members whether or not I had the post deleted.
The person accused has said he will drop out with no hard feelings, I've said no (not at the moment), he has been told that if he causes any trouble he will be asked to leave and he respects that. But there again that rule applies to everyone!!!!!!!!
As has been said, everyone has to choice whether or not to come, nobody has complained, in fact the support is overwhelming kiss

My social can go ahead, in no small way due to the trust, respect and support of the people in here. Again community spirit prevails as it did after last weekend's incident.
I'm going to enjoy my party and those that are coming, I hope you enjoy it too. After all the hassles over the last month or so we need to let our hair down and just be the swingers and friends we are.
kaz xxxxxxxxxx
On another matter, my question re naming and shaming has not been answered thou' why wishmaster is named has, he allegidly made threats, I WAS abused and the guy is still out there and some peeps dont know who he is! still one rule for one etc.
blonde in answer to your post, I have no problem with the pm you sent and really appreciated the trust you gave me. Unfortunately that was abused when you had that conversation with a friend of mine, slighting me, saying that you had given me information you clearly hadnt, and telling people that I had blabbed that info AND that is why the pm's and chat logs have been recorded in their entirety so no mistake can be made about who said what and to whom. Hopefully from our conversation last night this has been sorted. And i did say that I would put this in the forum this morning so others do not think that I am slighting you in open forum.

10 Dec 2005

Well im afraid im going to have to have a little rant here! lol
It has been brought to my attention that one or two comments made on various posts on here regarding my after party from the Wigan munch reveal a bit too much information on what went on and with whom. I am not going to mention any names as that wouldnt be right to do so but felt it pertitant to say that anyone attending a private get together at my flat should be aware i will not invite them back if they post personal information regards to things that go on.
I want people to be able to come to parties at mine, relax, have fun without it being posted all over thread what went on.
Rant over!

10 Dec 2005

Quote by kazswallows
I was up till 6 am in a private chat room with a couple of peeps involved last night and we were given the opportunity to confront the person concerned with the allegations.
What came out of it was the allegations were edited and taken out of context ...........

The snippets of text that you've probably seen are only part of the story I agree ........ you need to have also been on the receiving end of the phone calls to understand the full context. They were nasty, very nasty.
If you want to believe that they were 'made up' somehow or that they never existed then that's your choice and you're entitled to it ............ having been here when they arrived I know exactly how real they are and I know exactly in what context they were made.
Steve

10 Dec 2005

Quote by steveg_nw
I was up till 6 am in a private chat room with a couple of peeps involved last night and we were given the opportunity to confront the person concerned with the allegations.
What came out of it was the allegations were edited and taken out of context ...........

The snippets of text that you've probably seen are only part of the story I agree ........ you need to have also been on the receiving end of the phone calls to understand the full context. They were nasty, very nasty.
If you want to believe that they were 'made up' somehow or that they never existed then that's your choice and you're entitled to it ............ having been here when they arrived I know exactly how real they are and I know exactly in what context they were made.
Steve
Thank you

10 Dec 2005

Now this is how it looks with all these snippets on board, with the grapevine in effect.
Wishmaster and another member have fallen out and a mod has been involved with threats being initially made to the mods and then to the website. Now the mods are making moves towards banning members from having anything to do with wishmaster ... without necessarily wanting to be honest with the website.
Now as far as I have always been led to believe ... disagreements between members are nothing to do with mods and they haven't ever wanted to get involved before.
I agree that the whole thing has a very bitter taste but Wishmaster has been singled out for "special" treatment. A malicious phone call is very nasty but sexual abuse is worse and yet that perpertrators identity is being protected.
Preferential treatment if you sleep with the mods?
Thats the very nasty appearance of this whole saga.
Cx

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Jas-Tim
To answer the naming and shaming queries.
Wishmaster was named and shamed in the interest of the community, as he has threatened SH as a whole, and not just the moderators on this last round of threats.
It was felt only right to warn other users of the site that this had happened, so that they could make relevant choices regarding their own privacy and safety.
This isn't the norm we know, however in some cases exceptions to the rule must be made.
I believe this is one of those times.
Jas
XXX

I hope you have all read this from Jas. AndI take exception to the comment about sleeping with Mods!! The person concerned has not shared my bed nor my sexual favours, however, the threats have been made against ALL the Mods and the site and other named individuals.
I have also spoken to Kaz via PM about this.

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Calista
Preferential treatment if you sleep with the mods?
Thats the very nasty appearance of this whole saga.
Cx

I wondered when something like this would come out ........ that's why I've been reluctant to get involved in the debate. This has got absolutely nothing to do with who's sleeping with who. The stance on Wishmaster is because of his threats against the site:

Quote by Wishmaster
I am going to break SH ..... all nice n legal like ....... I've looked into it and know exactly what to do .......

Let's not cloud the issue with tabloid journalism shall we?
Steve

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Calista
Preferential treatment if you sleep with the mods?
Thats the very nasty appearance of this whole saga.

That is also a very nasty thing to say in my books Calista.
I agreed with the posting about wishmaster after he threatened the site as a whole.
I have not slept with the guy, I've only spoken with Chris a few times but whether a mod has slept with someone is bollox and not relevant mad

:x :x

10 Dec 2005

And I knew you wouldn't read the LOOKS part which is why I highlighted it and put the "appearance".
You all should know me better than to asume I'm trying to cause trouble .. I'm trying to make a point that the rumour mill on SH is far more dangerous than actually admitting upfront and being honest with what is going on.
I have nothing to do with Wishmaster, haven't even chatted to him, but all this cloak and dagger threatening of people is as bad as his behaviour.
I don't for one minute believe that sleeping with a mod gets you favours and have defended you many times, you have an enviable job, but out of context snippets and apparent "favouritism" is ridiculous.
Cx

10 Dec 2005

I think what you have completely forgotten Calista is that none of this is what Wishmaster was banned for initially.
He chose to involve a member of this site in an issue that has nothing to do with her, she is suffering seperatly and there is nothing that this site or any oif the mods can do to help her with that.
As I've stated before, he had been treated as an exception because he has threatened the entire community, not because of threats made to one individual, or the moderators.
If that is how it looks to you then I have to ask, have you read my post at all.
Jas
XXX

10 Dec 2005

I'm glad to see an exception has been made for Kaz's birthday as this was arranged prior to the new guidelines.
I am however concerned to see newbies posting that they're put off social events and munches. That leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.
I am please to say that every event I have attended has been a success and this is not only due to the guidelines and a great job by the organisers, but to the SH community spirit.
I sincerely hope recent comments don't put members off attending.

10 Dec 2005

In response to a pointless pm, thought it best to make it clear, as some are obviously looking for anything to add to the rumour mill.
FFS mad

:x :x :x :x
Nomy above comment isn't a dig at Steve.
I meant help in a moderating capacity as none of the threats have been made via the site, and he's already removed from here.
Some fucking people get right up my nose. :x

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Calista
I don't for one minute believe that sleeping with a mod gets you favours

Wanna give it a try??? confused

:? :?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Sgt Bilko
I don't for one minute believe that sleeping with a mod gets you favours

Wanna give it a try??? confused

:? :?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
rotflmao

bad Sarge
Cx

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Sgt Bilko
I don't for one minute believe that sleeping with a mod gets you favours

Wanna give it a try??? confused

:? :?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
On my way round :lol:
Could this be a get one, get another one free? :twisted:

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Sarah
I don't for one minute believe that sleeping with a mod gets you favours

Wanna give it a try??? confused

:? :?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
On my way round :lol:
Could this be a get one, get another one free? :twisted:
Would you really want the Sarge even if he was free?
bolt

Cx

10 Dec 2005

At least some sense has been put into the issue of kaz's social
But still not seen or heard anything regarding Voddy's Ban
She had no idea what was going on behind the scenes as did a lot of people, so why take it out on her?
Also she has been on the receiving end of a very nasty phone call ok the lady concerned did apologise the day after, but why scream abuse in the first place. It appears people do say nasty things in the spur of the moment and when heated dosent it
But why oh why take it out on a person who was just running a social, and was totally unaware of what was really going on.
This whole thing has caused her a lot of hurt and distress which could have been avoided
and I for one dont think its fair shes been banned for it

10 Dec 2005

I wrote the new rule that Mal posted,
It says:
1) Postings about social events involving banned members are not allowed.
2) If you break this rule, you will be banned.
Seems quite reasonable to me.
Wishmaster is not allowed to post on this site. In any definition of reasonable behaviour, this should amount to no more than a minor ripple on the pond of life.
Yet for him - MAJOR personal Tsunami!
Consider the kind of mindset it takes for a minor ripple to become a major Tsunami.
Do you still need to ask the question "Why is he singled out?"
Because he chooses to be.
lhk
Kat
P.S.
In case you missed it the first time I WROTE THE RULE THAT MAL POSTED

10 Dec 2005

Quote by steveg_nw
The stance on Wishmaster is because of his threats against the site:
I am going to break SH ..... all nice n legal like ....... I've looked into it and know exactly what to do .......

Am I alone in thinking that losing SH would actually be better than a single member being abused? It's only a web site, for heaven's sake...
I think Kaz is entitled to feel upset that her attacker isn't named, when people are named for threatening the site. I think that now the "naming and shaming" rule has been broken, the moderators need to think again about how they would handle a problem like Kaz's in future.
The suggestion to list banned members seems sensible...

10 Dec 2005

OK.. I'll start
Banned member:mfromr
rolleyes

:roll:

10 Dec 2005

Quote by Mark Horne
The stance on Wishmaster is because of his threats against the site:
I am going to break SH ..... all nice n legal like ....... I've looked into it and know exactly what to do .......

Am I alone in thinking that losing SH would actually be better than a single member being abused? It's only a web site, for heaven's sake...
I think Kaz is entitled to feel upset that her attacker isn't named, when people are named for threatening the site. I think that now the "naming and shaming" rule has been broken, the moderators need to think again about how they would handle a problem like Kaz's in future.
The suggestion to list banned members seems sensible...
I'm not going to wade into this but i will make a few vague points.
Wouldn't a publication of those who have "really" broke site rules be beneficial to all as they would provide decent precedent for mods to go by, removing ambiguity and enforcing confidence in the heirarchy?
Also, I will note that the suggestion of "a vote of no confidence" in the moderators is ridiculous - 99% of members of this site couldn't do half as well as the mods do here. The fact they are so dedicated to the site is what gets them in for criticism most of the time, and thats thoroughly ridiculous.
People should stand back, realise that its just a website, its here for people to enjoy themselves! If people really want to gossip, watch Eastenders and talk about that!
There is alot of disruption on the site at the moment and alot of people have seized a chance to gain an advantage over those they don't like.
This attitude is not in the best interests of the community and those of us who are decent people will work hard to eradicate these past difference and to continue building SH in the positive light it has always been held in. Swinging Heaven is, undoubtedly, the best resource for swingers on the internet; we don't want this crumbling because of individualistic desires.
Trust in the moderators decisions; they've seen all this for and nine times out of ten will know more of the story than the regular member would as they come in for the direct hit. However, if they make mistakes, thats human!
The best thing I ever learnt from my parents - in any argument or discussion, put yourself in every other parties shoes and make an objective judgment based on an honest opinion. Ultimately its only an opinion.