Terminology of "SH Social Gatherings"

Does it matter ?

6 Jul 2006

Quote by Darkfire

there seems to be a common denominator appearing through this thread etc,that theres a divide between forum,/ ads and chatroom users,
its been mentioned people who use the ads section are ungenuine,people in the chatrooms are the quick shag bridgade and the people in the forum are the genuine swingers, perhaps a poll is needed to find if this is correct, surely you're not trying to impose an ads / a forum all swinging heaven has given us the 3 mediums to find what we are all searching for.

*copying and pasting from my pm box, i'll be back in a minute, just for clarification of exactly what I said *
is there a division between people who go on the forum /chatrooms/ and photo ads?
There has always been a form of divide - but purely due to the way 'swinging' is appraoched I think - forum is more social, ads are more shag-and go with a heavy hint of single males who dont swing, they shag. In my head there;s a big difference in the mentality & approach to recreational sex with others - some people agree with that point, others dont. There has alwyas been a divide of sorts between chatroom and forum - but again, purely because we move in different circles and donâ€™t know/associate with each other - and now with the proliferation of 'chatroom socials', that's only going to get worse, in my opinion. Munches and socials have always been the times and places where people do mix and meet each other and make friends and prospective play partners etc, between chatroom and forum.
are you suggesting we keep these different catogary of people seperate,
Fuck no! I rarely use chatroom, but from what I know of the forum, it is usually 'site regulars' who organise Munches and Socials - and it just tends to be people from the forum - again i think, because of the social emphasis of the forum itself. Far from trying to create a divide, chatroomers are and always have been welcome at Munches and socials, we try to heal the divide not create it!
Much of the issue in that thread, imo, are because recently, chatroomers are organising their own socials - the guestlists are primarily chatroomers who most of 'us lot' have never heard of. We dont know the organisers either - hence then makes it very difficult to ascertain whether the organiser knows what they're doing, who the hell are these people on the list, and most importantly, are we safe. Many wonâ€™t take the risk - therefore chatroom organised socials are attended by chatroomers only - and that's where the divide comes in. What we have now, a trend that's started very recently, is that munches and socials organised by forum people will be attended by forum people - and chatroom socials are attended only by chatroom people (with perhaps a couple of exceptions either way. In my opinion it is exactly that which is creating the divide.
were trying to increase the swingers activity in XXXX and keep coming across threads trying to stop it .
I've noticed that - but, alienating the forum people isnt going to help. I'm not talking about you specifically - there are loads more examples - the black on white (is a chatroom meet).... the BBW social (is a chatroom meet) . I havent noticed any particular threads to 'stop' them though (but feel free to point them out)
why / after all on the lets meet section it clearly states a social only has 2 rules 1, no banned members allowed plus dont tell a banned member about any s.h events, no wonder were getting an 8 page thread on a few simple rules.
its not about rules (although personally, i'd like to see one that says socials cannot be advertised in the adverts section) per se, its about the correct use of terminology. It wasnt just your previous social thread that kicked this whole thing off - its because recently, for reasons you'll have read in the thread - the defining lines between what is a Munch, a social and a party have become very blurred - and its time to chalk out those lines again so that when people put their name on the list they know what they're getting into- thats all.
no matter how people word the event no one should have expectations beyond a chat and drink with likeminded people at a social.
then why advertise it in the ads section, where you know full well there are people who are very ungenuine, people who will jump at the opportunity to get into a room full of women who (in their mind) are 'up for it' and an easy lay?
(with permission from Cockslut)

6 Jul 2006

Quote by cockslut
a social is just that, a social. in any language. surely socials are for the purpose of letting people meet likeminded people in a safe environment with no pressure to do anything else at that time and to evaluate if you would like to meet someone at a later date. be it at the end of the night or a month later.

:thumbup:

Quote by cockslut
there seems to be a common denominator appearing through this thread etc,that theres a divide between forum,/ ads and chatroom users,
its been mentioned people who use the ads section are ungenuine,people in the chatrooms are the quick shag bridgade and the people in the forum are the genuine swingers,

I haven't seen that and personally I don't think that is the case. There are genuine swingers who use the ads, chatroom and forum. You'll also find the "quick shag brigade" and "ungenuine" in all three
However what I will say is I do believe because there is a record of previous posts you can get a lot of information that people in the ads and chatroom don't always have.
For instance looking at people's previous posts, if they put a thread in let's meet up saying they're a single male aged 40 and are getting no luck. When they do another one a month later as the male part of a couple aged 28 it's easy to spot so they're weeded out.
Now if someone did that in the chatroom, the chances are no one would remember.
I don't think this makes the forum users superior in any way, but the nature of how it works means (over time) we do gain information that others might not.
For instance, if people want to know
How to post pics
Is it a pay site?
What's a munch?
Why's the site been down?
Why can't I log in the chatroom?
Why can't I put my phone number in my ad?
They often come to the point is I would argue that the majority of the forum users know more about the site rules and guidelines than other parts of the site.
Pololady gave an example of this earlier when she mentioned that she'd seen many chatroom users organising meets and giving exact times and locations. I'm not saying this doesn't happen in the forums, but I don't think it's as common. This doesn't make them any less genuine, it just means they're not aware of the dangers of what they're doing - as some of the forum users don't when they first start to post

6 Jul 2006

Quote by cockslut
a social is just that, a social. in any language. surely socials are for the purpose of letting people meet likeminded people in a safe environment with no pressure to do anything else at that time and to evaluate if you would like to meet someone at a later date. be it at the end of the night or a month later.

Unfortunately that is not the case in all cases.

Quote by cockslut
its been mentioned people who use the ads section are ungenuine,people in the chatrooms are the quick shag bridgade and the people in the forum are the genuine swingers,

Did you really need this thread to get that one - it's nothing new.
People have their own approach to swinging and do what suits them - we should be open to that fact - especially on a site where 'acceptance' plays such am important role.
Again, unfortunately that is not the case in all cases - some people become closed minded to any other approach to swinging that is not their own - believing their approach is the only 'genuine' way.

Quote by cockslut
perhaps a poll is needed to find if this is correct, surely you're not trying to impose an ads / a forum all swinging heaven has given us the 3 mediums to find what we are all searching for.

If you ran a poll you would need to put it on the forum - so the forum 'elite' would be the predominant participants and would only reinforce their 'elitist' views.
But on a more serious note....
Some people use all 3 mediums - some mix and match. It may seem the chatroom is being picked on - but it is only because there is more activity in the chatroom regarding socials at this time. The way some of the socials are being arranged and defined is not always in line with the expectations and presidents which some of the forum users (and even ol'skool chatroom users) are use to.
It is not to say chaters shouldn't be allowed to do things or the only reason they arrange anything is for an instant shag - it is about making sure there is minimum confusion as to what type of event is being arranged so people can make the right choice as to whether it suits them.
I do see a potential problem with some of the 'socials' being arranged (and quite frankly I do not care who is arranging them - forum/chat/ads). They are being called 'socials' yet are clearly just intended as a meeting point before going off and shagging. It may only be a small minority but it is happening. Now, if people know what this event actually is and choose to go - then fine. But if people think it is something else - then the potential problems begin to rear their ugly head.

6 Jul 2006

Quote by cockslut
its been mentioned some people who use the ads section are ungenuine, some people in the chatrooms are the quick shag bridgade and some the people in the forum are the genuine swingers, perhaps a poll is needed to find if this is correct, surely you're not trying to impose an ads / a forum all swinging heaven has given us the 3 mediums to find what we are all searching for.

There are ungenuine, quick shag brigade and genuine swingers in all three sections of the site it's just finding the genuine ones that takes time and effort wink

6 Jul 2006

presumably ad users are paying members of s.h. and have the right to be invited to a social, experience may tell us there the biggest form of timewasters but surely we cant paint everyone in there with the same may of been chance the've adopted to use the ads section or even chatroom as opposed to the forum so why treat them like second class.

6 Jul 2006

As far as I am concerned these are the categories given...
Munch =
Non- sexual, no playing event in a sepparate room at a public venue ie the function room at a pub where every member is eligable subject to the discretion of the organiser (ie, posting count / registered time / chat user / ad user).
Is Site endorsed and no restrictions put upon people's stauts (ie couple / single etc...)
Expect over 100 people. Advertised through LMU forum and PM, possibly chat.
Mini munch =
As above except may not be in a sepparate area of the public place, ie just a corner of the pub instead of the prviate function room which is stated clearly to start with.
Expect less than 100 people. Advertised through LMU forum and PM, possibly chat.
Social =
Non -sexual, no playing event when the organiser takes the responsiblity for the guest list and so has more of a discretionary choice over the attendees. They have the right to refuse individuals as they so wish depending on the social being organised. (would you want someone you hated coming to you house for a BBQ?) House rules/ social rules given via PM with directional information.
Event and amount of people controlled more by the organiser and number of people may vary depending on the arrangements made. Advertised in LMU and through PM, possibly chat.
Party =
Sex party where it is clearly stated that sex is on the cards and there will be playing happening. If you wish to have the opportunity to watch, be watched or participate in activities of a sexual nature. Number of participants would vary with the venue, guest list and rules set by the organiser. May be advertised in LMU, PM and Adverts section, possibly chat.
Meet =
Sexual meeting where the people involved have the agreed opportunity to participate in sexual encounters of their agreed choice with the given amount of people made clear to all parties potentially involved.
May be advertised in LMU, PM and Adverts section, possibly chat.
Why have I written it so simply? Because it bloody well is that simple!
I think it is the responisibilty of the person(s) advertising the event to make clear what is an isnt expected behaviour wise.
Anyone who breaks clearly defined rules of the gathering be that sexual or non sexual, then the organising person(s) reserve the right to ask the rule breaker to leave.
kiss

Gem. x

6 Jul 2006

Quote by HornyLittleBlonde
Pololady gave an example of this earlier when she mentioned that she'd seen many chatroom users organising meets and giving exact times and locations. I'm not saying this doesn't happen in the forums, but I don't think it's as common. This doesn't make them any less genuine, it just means they're not aware of the dangers of what they're doing - as some of the forum users don't when they first start to post

It does happen on the forum too from time to time - but it gets deleted and there is usually a record of the details being deleted so other readers can learn from that mistake. It is proibably more common place at this time in the chatroom because it is not monitored and people see it happen and no red text appears saying "EDITED by MOD - it is against the AUP" or " Details deleted for safety reasons"

6 Jul 2006

Quote by cockslut
presumably ad users are paying members of s.h.

Not necessarily. If you are a non paying member, you can put an ad up, you just can't reply to people.

Quote by cockslut
Experience may tell us there the biggest form of timewasters but surely we cant paint everyone in there with the same may of been chance the've adopted to use the ads section or even chatroom as opposed to the forum so why treat them like second class.

Yes the ads probably do have the most timewasters, but I believe that's because that's where the majority of site members are so equally they also have the most genuine members.
I don't think they are 2nd class, I just said that they don't always have access to the same information we do and hence may break the rules sometimes without being aware they are doing so (different to the people who repeatedly and knowingly do it)

6 Jul 2006

Quote by little gem
As far as I am concerned these are the categories given...
Munch =
Non- sexual, no playing event in a sepparate room at a public venue ie the function room at a pub where every member is eligable subject to the discretion of the organiser (ie, posting count / registered time / chat user / ad user).
Is Site endorsed and no restrictions put upon people's stauts (ie couple / single etc...)
Expect over 100 people. Advertised through LMU forum and PM, possibly chat.
Mini munch =
As above except may not be in a sepparate area of the public place, ie just a corner of the pub instead of the prviate function room which is stated clearly to start with.
Expect less than 100 people. Advertised through LMU forum and PM, possibly chat.
Social =
Non -sexual, no playing event when the organiser takes the responsiblity for the guest list and so has more of a discretionary choice over the attendees. They have the right to refuse individuals as they so wish depending on the social being organised. (would you want someone you hated coming to you house for a BBQ?) House rules/ social rules given via PM with directional information.
Event and amount of people controlled more by the organiser and number of people may vary depending on the arrangements made. Advertised in LMU and through PM, possibly chat.
Party =
Sex party where it is clearly stated that sex is on the cards and there will be playing happening. If you wish to have the opportunity to watch, be watched or participate in activities of a sexual nature. Number of participants would vary with the venue, guest list and rules set by the organiser. May be advertised in LMU, PM and Adverts section, possibly chat.
Meet =
Sexual meeting where the people involved have the agreed opportunity to participate in sexual encounters of their agreed choice with the given amount of people made clear to all parties potentially involved.
May be advertised in LMU, PM and Adverts section, possibly chat.
Why have I written it so simply? Because it bloody well is that simple!
I think it is the responisibilty of the person(s) advertising the event to make clear what is an isnt expected behaviour wise.
Anyone who breaks clearly defined rules of the gathering be that sexual or non sexual, then the organising person(s) reserve the right to ask the rule breaker to leave.

Gem. x

yes its simply put but where we have gone "wrong" in some peeps eyes is advertising a social in the ads section, now all the add stated was were holding another social in derby for drinks and a chat all being welcomed NO venue details were given in the ad and once peeps applied i had the option to send them the details or not, in our mind anyone on swinging heaven has the right to be invited to a social be it wether they use the ads / chatroom or forum.

6 Jul 2006

As I was afraid would happen, there's a shift towards an argument between the various site "mediums"
That saddens me greatly.

Quote by little gem
Her definitions/understandings of the varying "social functions

With which I for one would mainly agree .
The point tho' is that those definitions/understandings aren't actually freely available anywhere on the site as a permanent point of reference.
That's why I started the thread in the first place and now ask that something be written and published as that point of reference.
The post in LMU (a sticky) that cockslut referred to was brought about (imho) to deal with a specific problem, indeed a specific person - although padded out a little. It was written in Dec last year, before the full affects of the unified log in were known - to me at least redface

But even it that sticky it says something along the lines of . . . . (the site) endeavors to ensure that when you go to a Munch or a Social, you can go knowing that you'll feel safe in the company of people there.
People have already pointed out that part of feeling safe is having a clear knowledge of expectations, or rather a lack of expectations.

6 Jul 2006

know matter how many rules are laid down etc diferent people will interpret them diferently however slighty, just look at the "offside rule".

6 Jul 2006

rules designed to try to ensure people's safety are not and should not be open to interpretation.

6 Jul 2006

Quote by cockslut
presumably ad users are paying members of s.h. and have the right to be invited to a social, experience may tell us there the biggest form of timewasters but surely we cant paint everyone in there with the same may of been chance the've adopted to use the ads section or even chatroom as opposed to the forum so why treat them like second class.

6 Jul 2006

maybe the sun has got to me, and i'm being obtuse, but i've read this thread with interest for the last few days, and still don't get it?
we all know that a munch is a strictly no-play environment, and yet we all also know full well that there will be privately arranged play afterwards, of some sort, in some quarters? yet the fact that there might be play after the social event has no bearing whatsoever on the categorisation of that event as a munch, does it? it doesn't come into it?
the only distinction i can see is that a social is not bound by munch rules / terminology. as far as everything else goes, it is entirely at the discretion of those who attend, as with everything else? you'll get twats who get the wrong idea and think munch / social = prime opportunity to letch, as always, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with definitions?
i still don't get why there needs to be any further guidance or rigid guidelines on socials when the whole point of arranging socials rather than munches was to provide a little leeway for organisers in the first place? so long as they are clear that the social itself is no-play ((( and surely noone thinks everyone's gonna start shagging in the pub? ))) what does it matter what goes on afterwards? the no-play rule means no play at the event itself!, not that there will be no play whatsoever afterwards? confused

neil - somewhat bemused :?

6 Jul 2006

Neil when you say "We all know" I think you're referring to the "ol' school".
In a nutshell some things billed as socials are actually "we're meeting in the pub and as soon as everyone arrives we're off back to someones house"
Now I've always been more of a "use your common sense" that "we need more rules" person, but in the current climate I do think it needs a few clear guidelines in writing to clarify and refer people to.
e.g.
Social means no play
Private party/Meet expect play.
Don't divulge venue information in the forums/ads or chatroom
At the moment if someone starts organising a "Social" in the chatroom at their own house and then put's a post up in LMU saying "we're having a social, but we need more girls more the men" where does is state that this isn't classed as a social?

6 Jul 2006

Quote by neilinleeds
we all know .... :

Define 'we' and I'll point you in the direction of some people who don't know wink

Your comment highlights part of the problem - it is not that 'we know' - it is that many people 'expect' from their past experience. The way some of the 'socials' are changing and being arranged now - you could end-up being greatly diappointed if you attended based on what you 'knew' to be a 'social' under 'your' definition.

6 Jul 2006

we've been swinging over 22 years now (albeit with 1 couple) and since joining the internet have been busy meeting people just over 5 years on a more widespread affair. our first internet meet took in a 400 mile round trip and was horrible meet to say the least, driving home we had to make a decision 1) shall we knock it on the head or 2) if any, build on the few positive things we gained and carry on, obviously we did the second option and 1 thing for sure it made us more "hardened" if thats the right word, so perhaps wrapping newcomers in cotton wool maybe the not correct thing to do, after all we try and tell our children do this do that but until they experience a mistake they dont fully our socials are for is for anyone including newcomers to feel at ease in a safe environment talking to likeminded point is because someones account says joined bla doesn't necessaraly mean there complete newbies.

6 Jul 2006

Quote by fabio grooverider
presumably ad users are paying members of s.h. and have the right to be invited to a social, experience may tell us there the biggest form of timewasters but surely we cant paint everyone in there with the same may of been chance the've adopted to use the ads section or even chatroom as opposed to the forum so why treat them like second class.

in which case that might be true.... but then why did you only advertise on the day of the social in "couples seeking men" and not all of the different categories i.e "couples seeking couples", "couples seeking women" ect..... i am not having a go at you both personally, because i was within a hair's breath of asking to go myself.....but it was the little things like this that made me very wary rightly or wrongly of going, if thru reading the thread I was confused, i can only imagine i wasn't the only one..
I think this general conversation has been a long time in coming, but i am glad we are having it......just interested reading it all....
its good to talk (well type) lol. fab we did place an ad in a couple or 3 sections advertising the social not just couples seeking guys, but quite possible we had ads running in other sections not for that date so without deleting couldnt add anymore. , so couldnt put the ad in all sections at that time,mind you its upset a few peeps i placed an ad in the advert section as well as the forum (THIS APPEARS TO BE THE MAIN STUMBLING B-- LOCK) blimey they'd of had my guts 4 garters if i'd of put ads in all sections of the ads.

7 Jul 2006

now i'm confused, having placed an ad running alongside a forum topic, which many of you are unhappy with, WHY is it then S.H. encourages you to do that by having a "stickied" in the lets meet up forum showing you how to do it?are you guys actively complaining to the admin team to have that removed?? because if it needs to be removed until it is people will do it thinking it's ok to do so.

7 Jul 2006

Ahhhhhhhhhhh :idea:
you're talking about this: http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/4225.html
the 'how to link your advert' post - which, incidentally has been a sticky since before the 'new' profile system - which didnt automatically link to (there was no button in the profile box) member's adverts.
We used to encourage people to link to their personal adverts when posting in LMU for meets - so that folk also looking for meets could find more info about the poster and what they are looking for etc.
"Let's Meet Up" is for advertising meets, socials and Munches - the ads section is for personal adverts. It is still my oppinion that people should not be posting personal adverts in the ads section for the purpose of publicising Socials. IMO, and some people will disagree of course, those who frequent the ads section do so for a reason - they're looking for personal 1:1 type meets, and have little interest in attending 'socials' - as in socials as we understand them to be.... otherwise they'd be frequenting LMU too, wouldnt they? but by opening up a social and publicising it in the adverts section you're effectively inviting every Tom Dick and Harry, which is not good practice in terms of personal safety, discretion and the security of your guests.
That sticky, in my mind is not there to encourage the linking of personal ads to postsfor Socials - usually people organising socials dont need to tell people to 'look here and find out more about me' - its for people who are advertising for meets - which by definition, is a different kettle of fish to a Social.

7 Jul 2006

so it appears your saying if someone wants to meet 4 sex (ie, a photo advert user) there not wanted at socials, b4 you reply i'm not suggesting sex at the you realy think if and i say if because from photo ads experience shows 99% don't turn up cos someone advertises in the photo ad section there gonna "jump" on every female at a vanilla pub.i'm certain they will be as controlled as any one should be who frequents any public house.
am i right in thinking if someones got say 1000 posts they are more safer to meet? a post with someones sense of humour showing (which what lots of posts are) doesn't suggest there safer to meet.
youve said theres a divide betwen the 3 mediums but want to try and close that divide but your posts aren't suggesting that, as you say don't invite people who advertise in other sections.

7 Jul 2006

I think one of the problems with advertising socials in the ads system in the potential for thinking that unrealistic numbers will be attending.
There are a larger number of timewasters in that particular part of the site due to the numbers that use it, so while you may be expecting 150 people to attend if the bulk were from the ads system then you would get actually get a lot lower proportion attending, unless you were carefully vetting everyone.
The other problems I see with advertising social events in the ad system are:-
A lot of commercial entities try to sneak in ads for paying parties, people may view you in this light if they've been around a bit and will probably report said ad as suspect.
If you aren't vetting all attendees from the ads side then there may be false expectations for some, as the ads are used for arranging playing meets in general. People may expect some element of play because of this.
I never read your ad so am not commenting on that, just my thoughts on it in general.
If you are trying to encourage cross overs between all areas then perhaps a link in your ads to let people know you are organising social and that they'll find all details in LMU.
That encourages them onto the forums so that they will perhaps gain a better understanding of expectations for munches and socials.
Post count means bugger all.
A 1000 posts does not make anyone safer to meet, it just means that they are active on the boards and that you may have some inclinination regarding their personality and whether you want them at your social or not.
Alternatively they may have 995 one word responses in post count bump style threads so you are back to square one in your decision making.
Jas
XXX

7 Jul 2006

thanks jas tim, thats sounds reasonable, will try it that way next time.

7 Jul 2006

so it appears your saying if someone wants to meet 4 sex (ie, a photo advert user) there not wanted at socials, b4 you reply i'm not suggesting sex at the you realy think if and i say if because from photo ads experience shows 99% don't turn up cos someone advertises in the photo ad section there gonna "jump" on every female at a vanilla pub.i'm certain they will be as controlled as any one should be who frequents any public house.
Will they? you might be certain luv but imo everyone who attends also needs to have that level of faith in the organiser, and each other.
am i right in thinking if someones got say 1000 posts they are more safer to meet? a post with someones sense of humour showing (which what lots of posts are) doesn't suggest there safer to meet.
Nope, but like Jas says, if someone frequents the chatroom or forum:

it just means that they are active on the boards and that you may have some inclinination regarding their personality and whether you want them at your social or not

Post count has nothing to do with it - but frequenting the boards and taking on some of the values held & understanding the communitarian ethos does, imo - and the longer folk spend on the boards, joining in and finding out more, the more they 'get' it.
youve said theres a divide betwen the 3 mediums but want to try and close that divide but your posts aren't suggesting that, as you say don't invite people who advertise in other sections.
Nope, I said there's a divide between the way some people using the 3 mediums approachswinging. I also did not say 'we' dont invite people who use other sections - we dont invite people who are not known in large numbers (which is effectively what you're doing when advertising a social in the ads section) (which is different to allowing several 'forum/chat newbies' to a social - which is positively encouraged)

Jas wrote:

....If you are trying to encourage cross overs between all areas then perhaps a link in your ads to let people know you are organising social and that they'll find all details in LMU.
That encourages them onto the forums so that they will perhaps gain a better understanding of expectations for munches and socials.

:thumbup: I really think that's the best solution to this little problem. (I know we're a bit off topic here, but this needed addressing imo. )
However I dont agree with the linking it in your ads bit lol

*folds arms stomps foot* :lol: - but thats just my opinion.
You have many contacts in your area Cockslut, and people who frequent your chatroom - i'd say just let them know in chat or by pm (without divulging other details) that its up in LMU, the rest is up to them. If people are interested in the social aspect, they will put that effort in.
I still dont think advertising socials - by advert in the ads section or a link on that advert is good practice - you're still encouraging people generally who are primarily interested in your AD (as in they're looking at it because they've done a search for couples in the Derby area, they're looking at your pics, they're searching for a meet etc ) to come along to a social. It just doesnt sit well with me at all. dunno

7 Jul 2006

Why has this thread turned into a clarrification and justification of one members actions when it was from what I read started as a discussion over whether the site should post general guidelines about the definitions of 'the types of personal contact' advertised kind of thing.
Personally I couldnt give two hoots about an advert being pulled but I do think a loose deffinition of the types of meeting/socials should be included in the site references for those who havent been here that long and want to organise something themselves.
Why not include a loose bit of information on social, mini munch, parties and meets in the reference section? If it helps folks get what they want out of the site then surely having a bit of info about it would be better than having to discet reasons behind everything? dunno

Nothing personal to you cockslut... but I really dont care if your advert was pulled or not. what matters is where things go from here and that this isnt another circluar thread where everyone gets stuff off their chest and then nothing is done to improve the status quo. confused

What is at hand here at the moment???
Should guidelines for organising socials / parties / meets be put into the terminology reference part of the site?
What should the guidelines say / include?
Should socials be allowed to be advertised in the clubs and parties advert pages?
Sepparate thread for the latter in my opinion although the outcome would influence any guidelines (if they were to be included in the site ref / termionlogy pages).
kiss

Gem. x

7 Jul 2006

Quote by little gem
. . . what matters is where things go from here and that this isnt another circluar thread where everyone gets stuff off their chest and then nothing is done to improve the status quo.

. . . but to be fair, the discussion seems to have wandered and meandered around an example of why I (and others) felt the need of the thread.

7 Jul 2006

ok dam, best way forward you write how the majority feel it should be worded then get peoples opinions if its ok or alter a word or like you say we're going round in circles, as we have an agenda but no proposals how it should read.

7 Jul 2006

Quote by cockslut
ok dam, best way forward you write how the majority feel it should be worded then get peoples opinions . . . . . .

That (believe it not) isn't in my nature.
I was involved in the writing of parts of "Wat is a Munch" - but that was by invitation of the powers that be at the time.
I can't and won't, attempt to speak for the majority
And having seen the appalling treatment, and "clever" editing after being locked dished out to mike48 in his suggestions thread, I'm reluctant.
I also think it's possibly pointless to make firm suggestions at this stage because, apart from the sticky in LMU, it's been the case that the "site" will not get involved. And without the "site's" inclusion and possibly support and agreement, any suggestion may well in time become "just another thread"

7 Jul 2006

To find a solution to a problem you need to understand the problem and the causes of the problem (both direct and indirect) - to find a solution to a problem without understanding the nature of its cause is likely to be ineffective.
To say 'here is a concern or problem' is part of the process to finding a solution - after all if it ain't broke...
However, rather than purely focusing on the effects of the problem (and trying to eliminate those) it may be prove to be beneficial to take a more holistic approach - and for this (as dammy has said) it needs 'buy-in' from the 'site'..

Quote by dambuster
And having seen the appalling treatment, and clever editing after being locked dished out to mike48 in his suggestions thread, I'm reluctant.

Yes, there were a few questionable things going on . confused

7 Jul 2006

Quote by dambuster
And having seen the appalling treatment, and "clever" editing after being locked dished out to mike48 in his suggestions thread, I'm reluctant.

What 'clever' editing would that be? you're making out that that thread was manipulated after locking by moderators, which it wasn't. the only 'clever edit' as you so called it was the removal of my last post as Mike felt he was big enough to make his own defence.
Mal