Question about verification or quikies

23 Nov 2008

or what ever you want to call them.
I joined another site recently which has it, and by all accounts from what people say here we have it now in quickies.
My question is to people from other sites that have had it place for a while have you come across or been a victim of verification abuse??
Please this is not a thread to voice your opinion on if you want it or not, it's a thread to highlight if and it's a big IF there is actually an abuse of this system or if it's just people scaremongering about it.
I dont want to have a go at people who dont approve of it, and maybe scaremongering is not the right word, I'm just really interested in if it works or has anyone really been upset and felt degraded by it on other sites.
I can not say at this point if it's good or bad as I have not been on the receiving end long enough.

23 Nov 2008

Accutaly you've made a good point there UK.
Has Sh inavertenly created something it didnt want and if there is abuse of the system can something be done about it?

23 Nov 2008

I think SH may have awakened a sleeping giant...

23 Nov 2008

Quote by GnV
I think SH may have awakened a sleeping giant...

What? China! confused

23 Nov 2008

Thank you Varca for your comments, but as I have stated I'm asking for comments on if people have actually suffered from the possible abuse you have highlighted.
Yes I agree it is open to abuse but is this something people are afraid ie: the possibility or is it some people have actually been subject to.
It's very easy to complain about something hypothetical, but unless someone or several people can come up with real evidence of abuse how can it be wrong dunno

I will say again I'm unsure myself which is whhy I pose this question

23 Nov 2008

Well I haven't been a recipient.
I can't really see how the Quickies thing is any different to posting on the open forum. It's all attributable and presumably the same rules apply.
I think you are raising the possibility of another 'debate' by asking whether anyone has been on the receiving end. I sincerely hope it doesn't.
.

23 Nov 2008

Quote by westerross
Well I haven't been a recipient.
.

Haven't you?
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

23 Nov 2008

Quote by blonde
Well I haven't been a recipient.
.

Haven't you?
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yeah but that's not abuse - hehe!
More's the pity!! wink

.

23 Nov 2008

pervert!!!! :giggle:
Sam xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

23 Nov 2008

Well considering this topic has been subject of so much debate in the past I expected many more replies, or is it that it is not as much as a problem that it has been made out to be ????

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Ukwineman
Well considering this topic has been subject of so much debate in the past I expected many more replies, or is it that it is not as much as a problem that it has been made out to be ????

Or maybe people just don't want to say confused

23 Nov 2008

Maybe no-one wants to post about it dunno

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Ukwineman
Well considering this topic has been subject of so much debate in the past I expected many more replies, or is it that it is not as much as a problem that it has been made out to be ????

From what I can gather (and you will have to excuse me cause I dont do technical) once the updates are fully functioning, quickies will not be displayed on your profile until they have been approved by the account holder. Therefore the chance of anyone being 'abused' via the system should be none existance (unless they decide they want to display something abusive).

23 Nov 2008

I haven't had any bad comments, except for one which, although I know was in jest, caused my eyes to bulge out :shock: and was deleted as soon as I saw it.
I'm a very private person and there were other comments on there which showed links between me and other people, so I deleted those too.
So - no, I haven't had anything bad. But I have been caused upset because of them.

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Steve
Maybe no-one wants to post about it

i do...
what are we talking about?
lp

23 Nov 2008

ok I have not posted this because I whole heartedly believe in this system, but unless you have a full and open debate with all sides considered how can you totally debunk something.
So far we have one lady that has recieved abuse and one lady that has been linked to people that she wishes to keep private.
As NWC mentiones it seems we shall be able to vet what is posted, but as yet noone has been able to say that the system is open to systimatic abuse.
Just because you dont want to talk about it does not mean it's not there and it will just go away, thats called sticking your head in the sand.

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Ukwineman
snip
As NWC mentiones it seems we shall be able to vet what is posted, but as yet noone has been able to say that the system is open to systimatic abuse.

snip
Anything that is in essance(sp) unmoderated is open to abuse IMO......
As long as those who dont want them have the option to turn them off or vet what appears on their profile then I see no reason for them to be stopped.....
Everyone can choose then cant they dunno

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Ukwineman
ok I have not posted this because I whole heartedly believe in this system, but unless you have a full and open debate with all sides considered how can you totally debunk something.
So far we have one lady that has recieved abuse and one lady that has been linked to people that she wishes to keep private.
As NWC mentiones it seems we shall be able to vet what is posted, but as yet noone has been able to say that the system is open to systimatic abuse.
Just because you dont want to talk about it does not mean it's not there and it will just go away, thats called sticking your head in the sand.

I think you may have gone part way to addressing your theory (of nobody's said owt so maybeit's not a problem)there. Just because people don't come on a thread and say that they have been a victim of abuse, does not mean that it doesn't exist and that everything is, therefore, 'hunky dory'.
And - nobody has been able to say that the system isn't open to systematic abuse.

23 Nov 2008

Quote by varca
I think maybe that times are moving on. Is it that the site has so much new blood and with more peer sites available that have such facilities available that it is becoming expected?

Yes I think this is correct.

23 Nov 2008

Quote by varca
but is it not better that we do and can ask for measures/options to be out in place to opt in/opt out/decline/accept/choose to display or not?

sorry to snip this down but thats a good point.
If this is the way and it can be debated is it not better to get in at ground level and set the parameters now before things get set in stone.
Anyway that is just an aspect of this and not exactly the question I was asking, but good point Varca

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Freckledbird
ok I have not posted this because I whole heartedly believe in this system, but unless you have a full and open debate with all sides considered how can you totally debunk something.
So far we have one lady that has recieved abuse and one lady that has been linked to people that she wishes to keep private.
As NWC mentiones it seems we shall be able to vet what is posted, but as yet noone has been able to say that the system is open to systimatic abuse.
Just because you dont want to talk about it does not mean it's not there and it will just go away, thats called sticking your head in the sand.

I think you may have gone part way to addressing your theory (of nobody's said owt so maybeit's not a problem)there. Just because people don't come on a thread and say that they have been a victim of abuse, does not mean that it doesn't exist and that everything is, therefore, 'hunky dory'.
And - nobody has been able to say that the system isn't open to systematic abuse.
Thats very correct no one has said the sysytem is not open to abuse, but it has been around for a while on other sites and is still in use, therefore it seems to me that its not as abused as people make out.
I don't think there will ever be a systems that fits all the people all the time, that would be impossible. But as I say again talking about it must be a good thing, and I thought this group of people were more open to discussion than most.

23 Nov 2008

Quote by varca
Just to be on the safe side I have hourly alarms set so that no-one will know what a crap shag I am via Quickies lol :grin:

I only risk waiting 15minutes wink

Quote by Freckledbird
And - nobody has been able to say that the system isn't open to systematic abuse.

Sorry to nick just this but but wanted to say that the reason I havent commented on it, is mainly because I dont feel able to answer it. I am not 100% sure what systematic abuse people are referring to, and dont really want to put it on the open forums cause if people have not thought of it, then it will certainly give them ideas. confused

However, if you are referring to a form of verification, doesnt that already happen? How many times do you see a post in lets meet up which gets replies from people they have met, either socially or intimately. I know I have done it in the past, and didnt actually think anything of it, but arent we just verifying someone?

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple
Just to be on the safe side I have hourly alarms set so that no-one will know what a crap shag I am via Quickies lol :grin:

I only risk waiting 15minutes wink

Quote by Freckledbird
And - nobody has been able to say that the system isn't open to systematic abuse.

Sorry to nick just this but but wanted to say that the reason I havent commented on it, is mainly because I dont feel able to answer it. I am not 100% sure what systematic abuse people are referring to, and dont really want to put it on the open forums cause if people have not thought of it, then it will certainly give them ideas. confused

However, if you are referring to a form of verification, doesnt that already happen? How many times do you see a post in lets meet up which gets replies from people they have met, either socially or intimately. I know I have done it in the past, and didnt actually think anything of it, but arent we just verifying someone?
I could site two occasions where I have put an ad on LMU where people have effectivly verified me, and the difference is dunno

23 Nov 2008

We have tested the quickies and think i am right in saying they do not appear until you have clicked on the flashy envelope. If this isn`t the case then it is a case for concern as many have said, messages can be left without being first monitored.
It's just like wanky winks ... the wanky quickies can be deleted as soon as you receive them.
Would be happier if this was thought out and someone was listening to posters .... not everyone wants the quickies from random people and we need some means of stopping them, just as we have the automatic wink disbabler function.

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Suede-head
We have tested the quickies and think i am right in saying they do not appear until you have clicked on the flashy envelope. If this isn`t the case then it is a case for concern as many have said, messages can be left without being first monitored.

No this is not correct, they appear as soon as someone has sent them. If you don't log on for a week, they'll be there for everyone else to see for a week.

Would be happier if this was thought out and someone was listening to posters .... not everyone wants the quickies from random people and we need some means of stopping them, just as we have the automatic wink disbabler function.

We have been promised a means of deleting them before they go on public view, when the gliches are ironed out.

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Cherrytree
We have tested the quickies and think i am right in saying they do not appear until you have clicked on the flashy envelope. If this isn`t the case then it is a case for concern as many have said, messages can be left without being first monitored.

No this is not correct, they appear as soon as someone has sent them. If you don't log on for a week, they'll be there for everyone else to see for a week.

Would be happier if this was thought out and someone was listening to posters .... not everyone wants the quickies from random people and we need some means of stopping them, just as we have the automatic wink disbabler function.

We have been promised a means of deleting them before they go on public view, when the gliches are ironed out.
You are right Cherrytree ... can still see them. Thanks Mr Cube for the "test" How long till the gliches are ironed out and how many reputations may be harmed until they are ?

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Suede-head
We have tested the quickies and think i am right in saying they do not appear until you have clicked on the flashy envelope. If this isn`t the case then it is a case for concern as many have said, messages can be left without being first monitored.

No this is not correct, they appear as soon as someone has sent them. If you don't log on for a week, they'll be there for everyone else to see for a week.

Would be happier if this was thought out and someone was listening to posters .... not everyone wants the quickies from random people and we need some means of stopping them, just as we have the automatic wink disbabler function.

We have been promised a means of deleting them before they go on public view, when the gliches are ironed out.
You are right Cherrytree ... can still see them. Thanks Mr Cube for the "test" How long till the gliches are ironed out and how many reputations may be harmed until they are ?
which brings me straight back to my original question, so far everyone is assuming that people will be harmed, so has anyone dunno

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Ukwineman
We have tested the quickies and think i am right in saying they do not appear until you have clicked on the flashy envelope. If this isn`t the case then it is a case for concern as many have said, messages can be left without being first monitored.

No this is not correct, they appear as soon as someone has sent them. If you don't log on for a week, they'll be there for everyone else to see for a week.

Would be happier if this was thought out and someone was listening to posters .... not everyone wants the quickies from random people and we need some means of stopping them, just as we have the automatic wink disbabler function.

We have been promised a means of deleting them before they go on public view, when the gliches are ironed out.
You are right Cherrytree ... can still see them. Thanks Mr Cube for the "test" How long till the gliches are ironed out and how many reputations may be harmed until they are ?
which brings me straight back to my original question, so far everyone is assuming that people will be harmed, so has anyone dunno

They wouldn`t have logged in to see the offending messages and probably dont use the forum ! Our point is the system is there that can be abused ... why do you need evidence ?

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Ukwineman
I could site two occasions where I have put an ad on LMU where people have effectivly verified me, and the difference is

ah yes but...
I have had someone enter such a thread in an attempt to kill it also... not nice.
things can always work both ways.
any coin has a flipside
lp

23 Nov 2008

Quote by Ukwineman
which brings me straight back to my original question, so far everyone is assuming that people will be harmed, so has anyone

there are many attempts to 'harm' 'reputations' here in the open forum... it happens anyway.
lp