You make a few points there Cockslut, but I'm going to concentrate on what you said about mentors as an example.
If there are no clear guidelines anywhere then it is open to individual intepretation.
Although not everyone will read the guidelines at least we as members have something to refer to and to point out to others.
At the moment if someone is "scared to death" of attending a munch, we can refer to the guidelines and tell them confidently what a munch is and what the behaviour is at a munch.
At present if someone pm's me to ask "What goes on at a social" and there's threads running at chatroom discussions about Pub socials, Social BBQ, Social at someones house, I couldn't tell them what a social was and what would or wouldn't happen.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Terminology of "SH Social Gatherings"
Quote by cockslut
is it correct to assume then, with S.H. rules covering socials nothing untoward as actually / physically happened to any one at a social.
Not entirely, but I can see that clear definitions/rules/guidelines can help to minimise the risk.
Quote by cockslut
. . . . so i agree black & white rules are needed,however to write a statement for nearly 1/2 million people who need to understand would be very difficult.
That's one of the reasons that I think it's the right time to have "the site" get involved.
we would love some of the forum users to pop along to one of our socials,so at moment then best way forward is to maybe when placing our next ad would be to "go overboard" explaining the boundaries of our social, which is purely drinks / chat at a vanilla social. they should expect no diference to say a drink in town with his friends.
is that suffice?
is that suffice?
Quote by cockslut
we would love some of the forum users to pop along to one of our socials,so at moment then best way forward is to maybe when placing our next ad would be to "go overboard" explaining the boundaries of our social, which is purely drinks / chat at a vanilla social. they should expect no diference to say a drink in town with his friends.
is that suffice?
Possibly, but that's exactly one of the things I'm trying to stop as being necessary
Quote by cockslut
we would love some of the forum users to pop along to one of our socials,
:doh: Wish you'd have posted that yesterday, we half discussed asking if we could come along.
Quote by cockslut
so at moment then best way forward is to maybe when placing our next ad would be to "go overboard" explaining the boundaries of our social, which is purely drinks / chat at a vanilla social. they should expect no diference to say a drink in town with his friends.
is that suffice?
Personally I wouldn't put it in you're ad at the moment, but if you do choose to (as there's nothing at the moment to say can't) I would just put "If anyone is interested in coming to a purely social meet with us and some other people, please see Here" and put a link to the thread.
Disclaimer The views above are my own personal ones and not a site suggestion
I've been thinking and thinking about this and it's such a difficult one.
If rules/guidelines are written for Socials then I don't see them as being any different than mini munches and it appears perhaps overly controlling of Mods/Ops/Admin to dictate the rules of more 'nilla type meets.
On of the reasons Socials became popular was because members didn't want to be dictated to on how they ran their meets.
As banned members aren't allowed to attend any SH Socials anyway, it just comes down to how the venue and invitees are picked now that makes it different to a munch.
Maybe the term should be dropped altogether and there are munches & mini munches that fall under the guidelines and then specifics meet titles for all others. i.e pub meet for NW, pre party meet for B&W, 'Nilla night in Notts, Fuckfest meet in Finningley.
:lol:
Organisers would be required to state clearly the nature of the event in the opening post and members would have the info to make their own choices.
Mods already check these posts for info in case they are commercial, so it wouldn't really increase the load to advise some rewording and/or clarification in opening posts.
Jas
XXX
If rules/guidelines are written for Socials then I don't see them as being any different than mini munches and it appears perhaps overly controlling of Mods/Ops/Admin to dictate the rules of more 'nilla type meets.
On of the reasons Socials became popular was because members didn't want to be dictated to on how they ran their meets.
As banned members aren't allowed to attend any SH Socials anyway, it just comes down to how the venue and invitees are picked now that makes it different to a munch.
Maybe the term should be dropped altogether and there are munches & mini munches that fall under the guidelines and then specifics meet titles for all others. i.e pub meet for NW, pre party meet for B&W, 'Nilla night in Notts, Fuckfest meet in Finningley.
:lol:Organisers would be required to state clearly the nature of the event in the opening post and members would have the info to make their own choices.
Mods already check these posts for info in case they are commercial, so it wouldn't really increase the load to advise some rewording and/or clarification in opening posts.
Jas
XXX
Jas
I think there's a place for socials as a no play event orther than a social or munch. I wouldn't like to see pages of rules and guidelines, just something in writing to refer users to that included:
For example:
House Warming Social
House Warming Party
It would be easy to ask people starting threads to label it as one or the other if they can see a reason for doing so.
In addition, I would like so see in writing:
No exact location given in the forum or open chatroom
No charges
I think there's a place for socials as a no play event orther than a social or munch. I wouldn't like to see pages of rules and guidelines, just something in writing to refer users to that included:
For example:
House Warming Social
House Warming Party
It would be easy to ask people starting threads to label it as one or the other if they can see a reason for doing so.
In addition, I would like so see in writing:
No exact location given in the forum or open chatroom
No charges
I have to say, I'm bitterly dissapointed about the Fuckfest in Finningley. I thought you and Timmy were much closer to here than Finningley.
I'm starting to lean more towards a "definition" than rules/guidelines" - as in "This is what a Social is generally taken to mean" rather than "You can't do this/that/the other"
More a point of reference.
I'm starting to lean more towards a "definition" than rules/guidelines" - as in "This is what a Social is generally taken to mean" rather than "You can't do this/that/the other"
More a point of reference.
Quote by Sharif
Can I ask a question , What happens now when I much is advertised here and it does not comply with the site guide lines?
At the very least, it wouldn't be stickied, and the author/organiser would be told where they've gone wrong.
The thread may well be deleted if the author didn't then comply with the guidelines.
i certainley like the idea of people applying through the forum to attend as,
1) theres a record of peeps attending which has a couple of positive benefits.
2) i may follow one of londons socials thread held last month same day as ours and there last thread after the event was a list of people who actually failed to show, some with valid excuses most with no apology thus naming and shaming in a also has benefits
1) theres a record of peeps attending which has a couple of positive benefits.
2) i may follow one of londons socials thread held last month same day as ours and there last thread after the event was a list of people who actually failed to show, some with valid excuses most with no apology thus naming and shaming in a also has benefits
Quote by Sharif
Can I ask a question , What happens now when I munch is advertised here and it does not comply with the site guide lines?
It depends on why it doesn't comply. But there are rules to state what is and isn't allowed at a munch
If there are attendees who are not members, or it is not in a separate room (e.g. it's been called a munch, but it's 12 people going for a meal in an open pub) then it would not be allowed to be stickied and the organiser would have to change it to a "Social" as per the site rules.
If they knowingly invite a banned member to any event they would be subject to a site ban themselves
Quote by cockslut
i . . . . and there last thread after the event was a list of people who actually failed to show, some with valid excuses most with no apology thus naming and shaming in a also has benefits
I hope there wasn't, or it was deleted.
Naming and shaming is generally frowned upon and, imo, rarely does any good or justice.
Quote by dambuster
i . . . . and there last thread after the event was a list of people who actually failed to show, some with valid excuses most with no apology thus naming and shaming in a also has benefits
I hope there wasn't, or it was deleted.
Naming and shaming is generally frowned upon and, imo, rarely does any good or justice.
Having said that most munch organisers keep lists in private of "No shows" and do make them available to other organisers to keep track of persistent offenders (there's only so many times your cat can die)
Quote by cockslut
2) i may follow one of londons socials thread held last month same day as ours and there last thread after the event was a list of people who actually failed to show, some with valid excuses most with no apology thus naming and shaming in a also has benefits
I'm intrigued that this was allowed as specific naming and shaming isn't usually allowed on the forums. I wouldn't really be happy if that became the norm after these events.
Jas
XXX
Quote by Jas-Tim
I'm intrigued that this was allowed as specific naming and shaming isn't usually allowed on the forums. I wouldn't really be happy if that became the norm after these events.
I don't particularly like it as there are those with genuine reasons.
But again the problem is (and someone tell me if I'm wrong) it doesn't actually say you can't.
Historically it's just been an "unwritten rule" or something that forum users have previously not done, which doesn't make it right or wrong.
Sex God
Quote by Jas-Tim
I'm intrigued that this was allowed as specific naming and shaming isn't usually allowed on the forums. I wouldn't really be happy if that became the norm after these events.
I just looked at the thread - unless it was deleted, there's no post naming and shaming anyone.
Sex God
Hmmm, I looked at the wrong thread then. That's bad, is naming and shaming 
ok i can swing both ways ., but thought i was understanding from long term "forumers" they get a feel of people by there attitude humour etc from there forum postings, so surely to see a persons continual failure to attend meets, socials, munches etc would be beneficial to any further invites especially if numbers are limited at a venue etc, you could put known non showers on the reserve list say. i'm not saying hang them high if they fail once but surely theres a limit.
I think the emphasis of explaining as to what type of event and what to expect at that event should lay with the organiser, when they first post advertising the event in LMU. I assume this is what a good events organiser would do anyways. People can then decide if they want to attend based on the facts given. If the event posted goes against the ethos of the site, if the type of event or what to expect at the event is not explained then the powers that be can have a word with them on how to put it right.
Also as total “newbie’s†aren’t allowed to attend munch’s till they are a bit more well known they should not be allowed to organise a munch either.
Although in theory it’s good to have everything written down, in practice it might prove to be too complicated, with pages and pages and pages or rules to cover every possible eventuality. People would simply not read it saying it far too much to read, as you could see from when Mike attempted it.
Also from what I can understand the only reason the term social’s started to appear is because people wanted to invite ex SH members who were not banned but who moved onto the splinter sites for what ever reason. Munch’s rule’s were so well defined in writing that a new term had to be used to allow the ex members to attend. So what’s stopping people from coming up with new terms to get around written down definition’s of socials, were will it all end.
Also as total “newbie’s†aren’t allowed to attend munch’s till they are a bit more well known they should not be allowed to organise a munch either.
Although in theory it’s good to have everything written down, in practice it might prove to be too complicated, with pages and pages and pages or rules to cover every possible eventuality. People would simply not read it saying it far too much to read, as you could see from when Mike attempted it.
Also from what I can understand the only reason the term social’s started to appear is because people wanted to invite ex SH members who were not banned but who moved onto the splinter sites for what ever reason. Munch’s rule’s were so well defined in writing that a new term had to be used to allow the ex members to attend. So what’s stopping people from coming up with new terms to get around written down definition’s of socials, were will it all end.
Sex God
Quote by cockslut
ok i can swing both ways ., but thought i was understanding from long term "forumers" they get a feel of people by there attitude humour etc from there forum postings, so surely to see a persons continual failure to attend meets, socials, munches etc would be beneficial to any further invites especially if numbers are limited at a venue etc, you could put known non showers on the reserve list say. i'm not saying hang them high if they fail once but surely theres a limit.
yes and no.... but where do you draw the line??? there is a difference for example between someone who has "health problems" and may have to pull out of a munch/social at the last moment, and someone who doesn't let the organisors know they are not coming, which yes would be bad form......
I remember an occasion where there was a london munch (dreamerhelen's) i think where 90 people were on the list, yet only 30 turned up.... and people were rightly disappointed...
I thought the general agreement was that the list of no shows would be given to the mods only... and they can they warn munch organisors if the person asks for an invite....
I think i have been quite lucky with the munches i have organised so far (and the next one coming
) and haven't had many pull outs.... Sex God
Quote by Sassy-Seren
and haven't had many pull outs....
Oh my overactive mind
bloody perves!!!!!!!
:) :) :) :) do i have to proof read everything 3 times for obsure sexual innuendo.... 