Verification

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx

God knows, blue
I haven't seen anyone in favour answer any of the many questions raised in the thread convincingly, and repeated deflections on the lines of "read the page" are merely a cop out, ignoring the fact that page contains contradictions as I've pointed out above.
I feel the topic is going round in circles a bit now, the proponents of the scheme are either unwilling or unable to defend it with reasoned argument, in particular, repeated concerns about the non-consensual inclusion of people on the initial list have been completely ignored. I resign myself to the fact that this issue will not be answered, and I have nothing further to add to the debate.
Ice

16 Nov 2004

Well I'm no further than i was yesterday.
I'm trying to decide if I should be a + or not and I've deliberatly stayed out of the room and looked at all these posts to see if anything could make me decide either way.
I love SH and SteveG is my friend and as he says in an early post "known genuine members have to be a + for it to even stand a chance of working" ... these are the 2 reasons why i should probably be a + .... so it's out of loyalty i guess...
But I cant help thinkng i'm sticking a label on myself that I dont really want.... and I certainly dont want to be seen as being in a clique. or want the hassle of being a target cos it's known to the room I've shagged about in the room a bit.. sad

When i've decided I'll stick to it.... when ......

16 Nov 2004

.... J J Hun
Let Friendship and love rule you heart by all means hun but not your head
Fred (aka Medic1)

16 Nov 2004

Jewcy_Joanne wrote:
Really!!! no playing at a munch !!!
NW munch 1 a certain sexy lady in the guys gents giving mucho "active" pleasure.
followed by 75% of us going a couple of doors up to indulge in "active" muckyness
I missed NW munch 2
NW Munch 3 lots of snogging and boob groping was had by many and lots carried on the "active" muckyness to a club....
next time you goto a munch hun stand with me cos you seem to have missed all the jewcy bits.
.xX Joanne Xx.
Plenty of action to be heard in the toilets at Nottingham too Joanne !!

and we saw someone getting a hand job in the bar where the munch was taking place

16 Nov 2004

Quote by tallnhairy
In fact those who were 'verified' without their knowledge I doubt would have any problem with being simply said that the are who they say they are. It is this indication of being a 'player' that they don't like.

This is precisely my point TnH. I am, undoubtedly, who I say I am. There are hundreds of people on this site who would be happy to verify that. I am not however, a "player"

Quote by Wishmaster
The qualification conditions are, as per the Guideline Document:
Only those that actually have sex and it is verified by the other participant can recieve verified status themselves. One of the parties involved must be verified themselves in order to verify another.

So again, I ask my question, why was I verified?
The longer this question is ignored, the more annoyed I become. Somebody (can't remember who, it's a bloody long thread!) said that the list admin has to stay anonymous. That's fair enough. I'm sure though, that a forum name of "ListAdmin" could very easily be created to answer mine and others' questions without revealing the identity of the admin person/people. I also understand that the person who verified me in the first place should have the right to remain anonymous, and to a degree I respect that (I say "to a degree" because I wasn't afforded the same) but it would be nice to know WHY I was verified dunno

So come on admin, you must be reading this. Can we have some of these specifics answered please?

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Angel Chat
I am, undoubtedly, who I say I am. There are hundreds of people on this site who would be happy to verify that. I am not however, a "player"

Ah, but your definition and the powers' definition of a "player" are obviously different!
Herein lies the problem..... the definition being used at the mo has been imposed on users who, believe it or not, have minds of their own as to whether or not they play and are quite able to suss out the players from the socialisers from the timewasters rolleyes

I am also waiting for the answers to the questions that have been posed on this thread. I assume there actually are answers????

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
I am, undoubtedly, who I say I am. There are hundreds of people on this site who would be happy to verify that. I am not however, a "player"

Ah, but your definition and the powers' definition of a "player" are obviously different!
Herein lies the problem..... the definition being used at the mo
So what IS the definition being used at the mo? Do you know? Does anybody know? dunno

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Angel Chat
So what IS the definition being used at the mo? Do you know? Does anybody know?

This is the definition on the Info page:
Guidelines for 'signing' a fellow chatroom user as 'genuine'
Definition, "A verified user is one who is active on the swing scene and who actually meets others on the scene for consensual, recreational sex."
.... but apparently it changes depending on how the wind is blowing...... dunno

16 Nov 2004

well that's just it isn't it Angel Chat?
the system has been imposed by a select few, without any discussion whatsoever, and despite this thread now running at 16 pages, in the main all comments from the ops who imposed this system have been along the lines of just STFU and don't question it?
well sorry but the ops do not a site make. it's members do. and the longer those members are kept in the dark, the greater the speculation as to the real agenda here?
they have taken it upon themselves to make judgements about your private life! whether you like it or not! you no longer define yourself or your involvement here. a shadowy committee does that for you, and if you chose not to play along then you are effectively categorised as a non-genuine member of this site. is that what any of us want to see, because that is what has just happened!
i think it's time someone posted something sensible. i know this must have been discussed among the ops, so clearly it has been reasoned out at some point? we however are not privy to that reasoning?
neil x x x ;)

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
So what IS the definition being used at the mo? Do you know? Does anybody know?

Ah so the wind was blowing in the direction of "anyone who some unnamed person has met" on the night that I was verified then? Cheers Bluexxx ;)
As it happens, I suppose I AM fairly active on the swinging scene. I've been to 3 munches, my name is down for the Medieval Banquet, the Blackpool weekend (yes, we may have decided to play by then), the Scottish Munch and I hosted one and attended another Bi Fem Ann Summers party. I also socialise with one or two people from the site. This doesn't mean I have consensual recreational sex though evil

Where's the bloody list admin???
It's been pointed out to me that if someone was to register a second forum name then the mods would immediately be aware of it because of IP addresses. Does this mean that I'm never going to get my answer? Or is there a way around it? Hmmmmmmmm maybe I should be asking this in PM, mods aren't likely to give us ways of creating a second screenname now are they?
This is so frustrating!!! I've just re-read this and realised that it could be taken as me having a go at Blue in particular and mods in general. This is NOT the case, I'm fully aware that Blue is just as interested in the answers to this question as I am, but we're all sitting here, asking questions and not getting any kind of answer!

Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
despite this thread now running at 16 pages, in the main all comments from the ops who imposed this system have been along the lines of just STFU and don't question it?----------------------------clearly it has been reasoned out at some point? we however are not privy to that reasoning?

Apparently not. Despite having asked so many questions both in the open forum, AND in an email!!! It's not very often I get a bee in my bonnet, but tonight I definitely have. If my questions had been answered in the first place, I probably wouldn't still be involved in this thread as far as posting goes.
Will someone PLEASE take responsibility for this and post some bluddy answers!!!!!!! :taz: :taz: :taz:

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Angel Chat
As it happens, I suppose I AM fairly active on the swinging scene. I've been to 3 munches, my name is down for the Medieval Banquet, the Blackpool weekend (yes, we may have decided to play by then), the Scottish Munch and I hosted one and attended another Bi Fem Ann Summers party. I also socialise with one or two people from the site. This doesn't mean I have consensual recreational sex though
Where's the bloody list admin???

Nope. Your "activities" cited above cannot be the reason you were verified. Munches don't count as verification apparently, cos they are.......errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........ different!
:undecided: :undecided: :undecided:
The forum mods know no more than everyone else. I haven't a clue who these admin people are and I have asked several times throughout this thread for the relevant people to come and give us all some answers......... rolleyes

Maybe we need to stamp our feet...... that normally works for my 2 year old :shock: :shock: :shock:

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
Maybe we need to stamp our feet...... that normally works for my 2 year old :shock: :shock: :shock:

:lol2: the Taz in my above post was the closest I could find to stamping my feet ;)
:taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz:

16 Nov 2004

OK... let's all try the Taz-stamp! rotflmao

:taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz: :taz:
Phew... I'm knackered now, hope that works! :confused:

17 Nov 2004

Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
they have taken it upon themselves to make judgements about your private life! whether you like it or not! you no longer define yourself or your involvement here. a shadowy committee does that for you, and if you chose not to play along then you are effectively categorised as a non-genuine member of this site. is that what any of us want to see, because that is what has just happened!

I for one don't want people judging what I have and have not done as this questions the issue of discretion. Do I want to tell everyone where I have been and who I have been with, is this necessary?
If I go to a party that is about sex......... :shock: whoa, no, not sex! bloody hell! Not sex! a sex party on a swinging site! :shock: :shock: ....... and I play with various people :shock: I then have to come back and PM a secret society to be given the secret handshake and be welcomed into the club............ that's not what swinging is about! ffs. mad

Woooooohooooooo, welcome to gossipaboutyousexlifeheaven. :shock:
I find it incredibly insulting that I have to send an email to be "branded" genuine. I am gen and people whom I have met with and swung with on here know that.
Single bi female in the chatroom with a plus by her name............ how many unsolicited PMs will I get then? ey?
What happens if two people get together and "cook up" a ficticious meet. Who would know if they didn't tell?
This system in my mind will not and should not work as it is all about gaining more buttons to press , flexing one's personal ego, power trips and nothing about the meeting of people for recreational sex.
I have played after a munch, as have a lot of people, this doesnt count, because it was a munch? I have played at a hardcore party, but that doesn't count because it was a party?I have played in clubs in Europe, of which, we are a member to one, does this not count either?
Was my sex not real enough for verification as a swinger?
The fact I have had other meets which I don't want to tell you all about is My Business and I defend whole heartedly the right to keep my private life private, even on a swinging site. mad

17 Nov 2004

Well .................. I went into the chatroom today and asked the question ...
" and who put a + sign in front of my name without asking me - i havent shagged an op"
and guess what ... I got kicked out ! Seems it is a very sensitive subject in the chatroom at the moment !

Quote by little gem
Single bi female in the chatroom with a plus by her name............ how many unsolicited PMs will I get then? ey?

My sentiments exactly. I've had the + sign removed now .... but like Angel_Chat .. I would like to know why someone said i was 'active' in the first place and why the verification squad didn't contact me to ascertain if I wanted to be shown as verified.
Lucy xx

17 Nov 2004

The way a similar system used to work on another site (am sure many of you will know which one) was like this.....
Each member be they single guy.....single gal.....or couple had to have a profile with voicemail (site owners way of getting a little bit of funding)....
By setting up this voicemail you then became elligable to have your profile "signed " by any other people you met who had a voicemail profile ......But this was only with the consent of all parties involved.....
We have been in the chatroom today and found out we have a + next to our name.....
We dont know who validated us as to be honest meets have been hard to come by for us but thats another story.....
We dont particularly mind if we have a + or not but we believe it would have nice to have been told we had been nominated for want of a better word....
Also it really has no bearing to us as to who we arrange to meet or not as the case may be because we make the usual checks i.e we like to see clothed facial pics and also like to have a chat on the phone etc before we arrange anything and to be honest most who have been part of this lifestyle for a while can generally suss out whether the other party is for real or just another timewaster without the aid of a + or any other sign...
Time will tell if it will be a workable system or not but the other option which was mentioned many many pages ago.....Simply banning non-swingers from the chatroom is even more un workable as how do you base your opinion as to who is a swinger and who isnt ??
P.S.
Forgot to say that to have your profile signed by others you did not have to have had sex with anyone....Just arrange a meet and turn up as planed.....It could have been at a party or a simple meet between 2 people.....

17 Nov 2004

this is a hell of an essay, but please bear with me, cos i want everyone here to be very very clear, that i have no axe to grind here with anybody, but this issue is of huge importance to members of this site!
since posting the 2 farewell threads, i have barely looked at SH. in general for me at least, it is not the place it was, mainly for personal reasons that are unrelated to SH as such. but then last night i was made aware of the existence of the verification thread, so i took a quick peak at it.
reading the first post, which btw was raised not by a mod or an op by way of explanation of the process, but by someone who had stumbled across the new pages on verification, i knew immediately what i felt about it. but i read through every post on every one of ten pages, to see where the reasoning lay, and if i was wrong in my opinion.
it was with mounting disbelief that i followed this thread, until finally i activated a new account, so i could post my feelings on it. i can tell you hand on heart i would not have reactivated without this thread.
IMHO, SH as i have known it, no longer exists! i am arguing on this thread out of real conviction that potentially the entire character of a site i love with a passion has been changed forever by this.
this is an OPEN COMMUNITY! we pride ourselves on acceptance of anyone who comes here in the right spirit, no matter who they are, or who they choose to be, or what they choose to do!
what we now have, is a site where the right connections confer a status on you that is denied those who have yet to make those connections. SH now consists of those who know the right people, and those who don't! that is a clique by any definition of the word, something some of us have really tried to avoid with a real effort to welcome those who come here. it will serve to EXCLUDE!
verification, in the way it has been presented, has nothing whatsoever to do with your status as a swinger, or as a member of this site in your own right, on your own terms. it CONFERS a status on a certain clique of individuals, in the least transparent way, and engenders a situation where not knowing members of that clique CONFERS ON YOU A LESSER STATUS!
we also have a situation now where YOUR PRIVATE LIFE IS SUBJECT TO JUDGEMENT by a mere handful of individuals. they NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE YOU but you have no right to be informed of exactly WHAT THE BASIS OF THAT JUDGEMENT IS! they cannot even give adequate response to those who have raised questions on this thread asking for a simple definition of the process. but it is entirely within those individuals power to label you as A NON-GENUINE MEMBER OF THIS SITE! that is what verification does, and they have just ASSUMED THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THAT JUDGEMENT UPON YOU!
every challenge to the idea of verification raised on this thread, has been dismissed by those who have instigated this system. nowhere have they presented any form of reasoned argument why this is either necessary or desirable, or what the specific intention is.
in the abscence of that information, one can only conclude that either, there is a hidden agenda which we are not allowed to know, or alternatively, there is in fact no reasoned argument which can adequately counter the weight of opinion of those horrified by this idea!
we now have something like 350 posts on this thread, yet those who claim the right to judge us in this way are nowhere to be seen. i leave you to draw your own conclusions.
and that's pretty much me done. i only came back to watch SH finally descend into chaos, cliques, and open warfare. and i'm a bit sick seeing it.
neil x x x ;)

17 Nov 2004

Quote by HornyBear
Single males have a place in swinging (or playing as I prefer to call it) but if the intention is to remove single males from the site and make it a female / couples only site then that is fine but lets be told that is the reason. And if this is so why were 4 single male 'wannafucks' in the first tranche of granted + things?

I'm sorry Chris, but you are so way off the mark with this comment. SH welcomes and, indeed, embraces single guys as much as single females and couples because we are as much a part of the swinging community as anyone else. Couples play with single guys and single females look for swinging partners ...... and let's not forget about bimales looking for bimales too.
As to why 4 single guys were granted + status from the first day (myself being one of them) who knows the selection process that took place to select these 4 individuals. I wasn't consulted about it but it really doesn't bother me because I support the system. There was a problem in the chat room that needed addressing and now that it has been addressed its up to us - the users of the chat room - to embrace it, iron out any problems with it, and move forward. To imply that the intention was to remove single males from the site is ludicrous because this site would not have as many users if single guys were denied access to it. You only have to look at some of the successful relationships that have been established BECAUSE single guys have unrestricted access to the entire site.
The system administrators had to start somewhere with the implementation of this system and although it could have been handled a little better it is up and running now and not creating any severe problems in the chat room, as people have suggested it would on this thread, but that is my opinion only and not indicative of the chat room membership as a whole.
Wishmaster.

17 Nov 2004

Sticking to factual corrections as promised....

Quote by little gem
I find it incredibly insulting that I have to send an email to be "branded" genuine

You don't have to send an e-mail. Someone else has to send it, you can't verify yourself.

Quote by little gem
What happens if two people get together and "cook up" a ficticious meet. Who would know if they didn't tell?

Only verified users can verify others, so 2 non-verified people can't achieve anything by cooking up a ficticious meet.

17 Nov 2004

Don't suppose there is any chance this could die a natural death now is there? Come on peeps get a grip. Does it really matter?
confused

17 Nov 2004

Thanks to Ice Pie, Blue and Neil for expressing my views while I've not been about.
I can add nothing to what you three and many others have said.
No one and I mean NO ONE has the right to judge me or anyone else on their swinging experience and how genuine they are.
For the record, I am a chatroom user even if its not that often.
Dawn :silly:
(aka Horny_Dawnie)

17 Nov 2004

Quote by HornyBear
...if there was a problem that needed addressing and a solution had been devised (lets call it verification) then it could have been placed as a Thread in here for everyone to make their contributions good, bad, positive or negative. It could have run for a fortnight and then the Ops and the owner could have taken a very much more informed view. That is called consultation not democracy. Judging by the comments in these 16 pages I would say you would not have touched it with a bargepole!

How many times does it have to be said that the people who use the chatroom are not the same people who use the forum. While there is some overlap, many of the really heavy chatroom users mostly don't have the time or inclination to come in here. It's not a democracy if the forum users get to decide what's best for the chatroom users! The mood in the chatroom is a lot more positive about this scheme than it is in the forums.

Quote by HornyBear
As a single male 'wannafuck' I guess I am the target for what has been put in place.!

Where on earth did you get that idea?

Quote by HornyBear
if the intention is to remove single males from the site and make it a female / couples only site then that is fine but lets be told that is the reason. And if this is so why were 4 single male 'wannafucks' in the first tranche of granted + things?

Then isn't it blindingly obvious that this isn't the intention? I'm sorry, but this does come across to me as you flinging some mud and hoping it will stick.

Quote by HornyBear
May I ask again?:
Precisely what was the perceived problem that needed a solution?

It's right there, in the very first sentence of the explanation page: The most common question we get asked in the chatroom is "How do I know a chatroom user is genuine?"

Quote by HornyBear
why was there no consultation for those who would be required to use it and thus maybe improve it?

Presumably beacuse there is no way of holding this discussion with the chatroom users (as opposed to forum users) without it turning into a rabble of 100 people all talking at once (which, let's face it, is what it is most of the time anyway!)

Quote by HornyBear
Perception is all in a public situation

Which is why people should stop complaining about what they percieve the scheme to be, and actually take the time to read the explanation. Throwing wild speculation about 'kicking out single men' and 'having to shag an op' or 'the rules keep changing' might well get this scheme shouted down, but it will be a loss to SH if things are influenced by who can stir up the biggest angry mob, rather than a sensible measured debate about the actual scheme, or (god forbid) letting the chatroom users iron out the flaws and then decide if they like it.

17 Nov 2004

Quote by Steve_D
This is the last time I am going to post on this thread as I am sick and tired of the petty whinging from people who don't even use the fucking chatroom.
Steve

I think this is a very revealing comment. What you see as 'petty whinging' I and others see as individuals voicing a legitimate concern over the way in which they and their private lives are subjected to a judgement by other people regardless of their own personal opinions. Doesn't seem like 'petty whinging' to me. To try and discredit the thoughts and opinions of people who choose to express an opinion that is contrary to your own in this manner is quite simply breathtaking arrogance. Futhermore, it's incorrect, since a lot of the people who have posted on this thread DO use the chatroom to a greater or lesser extent. Besides that, what you appear to be saying is that unless you DO use it, your opinion is invalid, and I don't see why this should be the case. Simply because I or anyone else may not be directly involved does not mean these opinions are invalid; if we could only pass opinion on things that directly affected us would lead to a very strange world indeed. However, it's also indicative of the whole ethos behind this validation system 'Unless I know you, you don't count'. As I said, very revealing indeed.

Quote by Steve_D
The main mistake that I can see is that we have given a written definition for the barrack room lawyers to rip apart. In my mind the + was to show that people are genuine. It wasn't there to show that you had shagged someone
Steve

Are you therefore saying that in your opinion (and I take on board your point that this is your opinion, which is fair enough) that you *shouldn't* have provided a written definition? I think that would have lead to even more chaos than we've currently got, quite frankly! And let's be honest here; the + is NOT to show that people are genuine, it's there to say that a group of people who know each other are saying they've fucked each other. It doesn't show that people are genuine at all! We've met several people from this site already (and as others have also indicated, met others who are not from the SH site, or have played in clubs etc), but because they may not be known to this small, self selecting group, we are not apparently 'genuine'.

Quote by Steve_D
You'll note that the "Guidelines" are called exactly that. People are expected to use a little common sense, is that so difficult?
Steve

Given that a lot of people have raised valid concerns (which have so far gone unanswered) I don't, with respect, think that it's those posters who are not showing common sense.

Quote by Steve_D
The reason the admin is kept anonymous is to prevent them becomming the subject of harrassment. Repeated calls for them to "show their face" will do no good.
Steve

It seems to me (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that you feel that it's appropriate for those individuals passing comment on other people should be able to remain anonymous. That's a little bit tacky don't you think? I also think that it's interesting in that you state that they are being kept anonymous so that they don't have to deal with the barrage of complaints about the system! It would seem to me that this is not exactly a common sense approach; if you know lots of people are going to/are complaining, wouldn't it make more sense to actually be open and upfront about this, and to provide a level of transparency, rather than the anonymous back stairs skulking that is currently taking place. Does this lead to a better situation? Quite frankly I don't think that it does. It creates a climate of anonymity, it obfusticates the entire issue, and makes the whole question of who is genuine or not open to question - *exactly the opposite* of what you were trying to achieve!

Quote by Steve_D
Nobody has said that the first tranche of +'s was perfect, what has been said, over and over again, is that shagging an op won't get you a +. So for somebody to come in the room and ask which op they shagged was asking to get kicked IMO.
Steve

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised that this has happened; it was inevitable, due to the botched way in which this disaster has been rolled out. By kicking people who ask legimate questions regarding the way in which the scheme has been implimented you (a generic you here btw) are adding to this whole feeling of anonymity, and rather than creating an open and welcoming climate you are creating a situation where people feel that they cannot voice their concerns, and enhancing an 'us and them' situation, which I don't feel is in the interests of anyone!

Quote by Steve_D
This site belongs to one man, he is advised by the chatroom ops on the running of the chatroom, and the site moderators on the running of the forum and ads.
Steve

This makes sense to me, and I agree that SH is not a democracy. However, what you're saying here is that the site owner listens to, and takes guidance from chatroom ops, and you're implying (quite rightly IMO) that it's a good thing. Equally however, you're also saying that you (generic you again) are not doing that yourselves when other people (in the next tier down from ops) are also advising you and passing comment. Instead, you're referring to it as 'petty whinging'. At least try and be consistent in your approach here; advice and comment is either a good thing or it isn't; you can't have it both ways.
Elsewhere in your post you've also stated that you're not going to post to this thread again, and that is of course your choice, which I respect. However, that approach does tend to at the very least imply that you're making your opinion known, and are not interested in listening to, commenting on, or debating the issue with other people who have equally strong opinions on the matter, but who come at it from a different angle. Once again this is clearly indicating (in my view and please feel free to correct me if this isn't the case) that you are not interested in any views other than your own and that of your friends/people who agree with you. Once again we're back right at the start, with your own comment 'If I don't know you, and my friends don't know you, you don't matter'. It's not an approach that I'd take personally, but it's entirely your choice, of course. However, as I said earlier, I think it reveals at least in part, the true motivation behind this whole validation issue, and I think it's sad that which should be an open and enjoyable place to be (ie. the chatroom) is turning into something quite different, and I think that's a shame.
Phil.

17 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
but it will be a loss to SH if things are influenced by who can stir up the biggest angry mob, rather than a sensible measured debate about the actual scheme

17 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
but it will be a loss to SH if things are influenced by who can stir up the biggest angry mob, rather than a sensible measured debate about the actual scheme

I think, by and large, the contributers to this thread, such as blue, have put together a sensible measured debate about the actual scheme. To suggest they are trying to stir up the biggest angry mob seems unfair at best, rude at worst.
I sincerely hope I've not given that impression, it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. I used the word "if" in that sentence to indicate I was talking about something that hasn't happend but might be in danger of happening, and my reply was directed only ay HornyBear's comment about public perceptions, not at anyone else.

17 Nov 2004

Quote by JandPUK
And let's be honest here; the + is NOT to show that people are genuine, it's there to say that a group of people who know each other are saying they've fucked each other. It doesn't show that people are genuine at all!

Quote by JandPUK
We've met several people from this site already (and as others have also indicated, met others who are not from the SH site, or have played in clubs etc). but because they may not be known to this small, self selecting group, we are not apparently 'genuine'.

If you've met people from the site, then they can verify you. It's only a small group at the moment because the verification process has only just started.
I'll say this for the third or fourth time: Not having the + does not mean you are not genuine. I don't know why that seems to be so hard to grasp (well, apart from a rather tricky triple negative, of course)!

17 Nov 2004

Quote by juliett49
Don't suppose there is any chance this could die a natural death now is there? Come on peeps get a grip. Does it really matter?

Depends if you want to use the chatroom or not, I guess. Certainly I'd like to use the chatroom more than I currently do... or at least I'd like to use a chatroom more than I currently do. Doesn't necessarily have to be this one. (I'm just too lazy to find another.)
But you're right, in that I think everything that could be said has been said. Some people (okay, I'm one of them) think this is one of the worst ideas since Mr Hitler said to Mrs Hitler "Hey, wanna get jiggy with it tonight?". Others think it will solve the chatroom's epidemic problem of single males pvt-ing uninvited and people pretending to be what they are not. We're just treading and retreading the same muddy piece of ground now, and really what's the point? If the Shadowy Administrrator wants to get a sampling of other people's reasoned opinions, they're there waiting for him on the sixteen preceding pages of this thread.
Personally, I was very disappointed that the people operating this system were unwilling to offer it up for peer review beforehand. But then, I guess that's part of Them being in charge and Me not. dunno

17 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
And let's be honest here; the + is NOT to show that people are genuine, it's there to say that a group of people who know each other are saying they've fucked each other. It doesn't show that people are genuine at all!

I'm sorry but that accusation doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. The regulars and active people already know who each other are, so what would the point of introducing such a scheme at all if you were right? Even if it was there for the reason you suggest, then how could the people in it not be genuine?
The system is there so new people can see that certain people are genuine. End of story.
!
Because it's not a transparent system. The administrator of this scheme has chosen to remain anonymous. The system itself is open to abuse; how would someone know that a person is 'genuine' if they don't know who 'nominated' them (for want of a better word)? I can easily see how someone could say 'oh yes, you're my mate, I'll validate you' based on friendship rather than anything else. Already in this thread we've seen puzzlement and confusion as to why someone has been validated when they didn't ask for it, and don't regard themselves in that category. The criteria isn't based on anything else - not time spent in the chatroom, or meeting people at munches etc. It's basically a group of people self validating each other, which is no validation at all.

Quote by Mister_Discreet
If you've met people from the site, then they can verify you. It's only a small group at the moment because the verification process has only just started.
I'll say this for the third or fourth time: Not having the + does not mean you are not genuine. I don't know why that seems to be so hard to grasp (well, apart from a rather tricky triple negative, of course)!

No, this isn't the case since we can only be validated by people who are themselves validated. If you get two people who meet in the chatroom, they get together and do whatever they do, they clearly can't validate each other, despite the fact that they're actually 'genuine'. The entire criteria depends on meeting someone who is already validated.
I clearly understand what you're saying with the triple negative smile

However, my point back to you would be that since you've admitted that validation doesn't actually mean you're not genuine, and genuine people are not always validated, what's the point in having it there in the first place?

17 Nov 2004

Well this debate does not look like ending !
For what it's worth, I think it is a great shame that what was once a friendly, easygoing site, has now degenerated into a "them" and "us" situation. I used to be in the chat room all the time under my chat name of neandy. i stopped because it was becoming more and more obvious that there was a large element who did not want single guys in there. It had become very clique and It was almost impossible to get anyone, other than bi guys (not that there is any thing wrong in being bi) who were willing to talk to you.
Hopefully this can be resolved (by dropping the silly idea) and we can get back to just having a bit of fun.
At the end of the day, who really cares who has shagged who !

17 Nov 2004

FAO Sarge.......

You're now up to date with the verification thread!!!! rotflmao