Verification

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
when I was grilled by the ops about why I was there

I don't understand that at all. Why were you being grilled?
I think I'll shelve my plan of trying to work out why I can't get into the chatroom over my wireless network as it doesn't sound like a friendly place for forum members.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
when I was grilled by the ops about why I was there

I don't understand that at all. Why were you being grilled?
I think I'll shelve my plan of trying to work out why I can't get into the chatroom over my wireless network as it doesn't sound like a friendly place for forum members.
In balance I've been in a few times this week and not had any problems (except unwanted pm's) at all ....
I have a wireless network and don't have any problems .. what makes you think it's that?

18 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
when I was grilled by the ops about why I was there

I don't understand that at all. Why were you being grilled?
I think I'll shelve my plan of trying to work out why I can't get into the chatroom over my wireless network as it doesn't sound like a friendly place for forum members.
Well, the ops got a bit uptight when I said I was spying rotflmao

.... I got told that just watching the chat wasn't allowed cos it put people off, which I suppose I can understand to be honest.... I also got told that if you don't speak you got kicked out, so anyway, I asked anyone if they wanted to pvt, and some guy did, so while I was arranging for him to email me with a pic and his details, I carried on spying, oops, I mean watching confused

.... so I didn't break any idling rules and I'm hopefully going to get a shag out of it.... so worked out well really lol

:lol: :lol: . BTW, the guy did not have a + !
Anyways, I don't see what the problem is.... of course forum members are going to go and have a look what's going on..... if the ops had nothing to hide they wouldn't worry about it would they! It's just natural curiosity, and if it really isn't a clique in there they'd welcome us all wouldn't they???? And as shed loads of forum members also use the room, what's the big deal...... another illogical happening that is beyond me! :crazy:

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Calista
I have a wireless network and don't have any problems .. what makes you think it's that?

I'll pm you.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Calista
when I was grilled by the ops about why I was there

I don't understand that at all. Why were you being grilled?
I think I'll shelve my plan of trying to work out why I can't get into the chatroom over my wireless network as it doesn't sound like a friendly place for forum members.
In balance I've been in a few times this week and not had any problems (except unwanted pm's) at all ....
I have a wireless network and don't have any problems .. what makes you think it's that?
Yeah, to be fair, that is the only time I've felt uncomfortable in the room... I'm not trying to stop anyone from using it at all...... Satin was greeted and people were friendly this afternoon when he went in. I'm just wondering why the ops are suspicious, that's all.... I'm not saying there's a problem with all forum members who use the room confused

:? :? :?

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
I'm not saying there's a problem with all forum members who use the room :? :? :?

Just you cos you're a stirrer! :shock:
lol

joke!
don't hit me!

18 Nov 2004

Quote by zootle
I'm not saying there's a problem with all forum members who use the room :? :? :?

Just you cos you're a stirrer! :shock:
lol

joke!
don't hit me!
Yeah.... I'm probably banned from the room by now and don't even know it yet rotflmao

Well, to be honest, I'm sticking to my guns here not to incite a riot or revolution, but cos I care about swinging heaven and its reputation, and cos this situation is well out of hand and totally out of order!..... call that sad if you want but hey ho. I don't care what the ops think of me, I say what I see and I will continue to do so. I am stating an opinion, that is all, as are shit loads of other pissed off people!

18 Nov 2004

A few pages ago, Lips suggested I email the list admin in order to get my questions answered. I've received a reply today, but it gives the impression that the list admin isn't even anything to do with Swinging Heaven. Is this the case?

Please understand I can only go on what I'm told by people, had I been
aware
of you're objection to verification you would not have been verified.- - - - - - -
I am sorry this has happened, it should not have, if people at SH had
dealt
with things properly........no user should be verified without their
knowlege although with the initial seed lists there was always a
potential
problem.
Regards
Admin

Quote by Bluexxx
Several people have suggested alternatives, such as still having the verification idea but using the + to denote a genuine person, rather than a "player". It would have been nice if the ops had commented on these ideas, maybe said why this type of system would not work and why their method was chosen instead.

And funnily enough, if the + had merely meant that I was genuine, I really can't imagine that I would have had any problem with it whatsoever. As a genuine person, I wouldn't be arranging meets anyway, and if I was to chat with someone, I would be upfront with them about the fact that I am not playing at the moment. Surely this makes more sense and removes the need for anyone to have to send "I've shagged *whoever* " emails - particularly in light of the comment on the email!

18 Nov 2004

I am PERPLEXED at all this,
does that mean I am NONPLUSSED ???

Fred (aka medic1)

18 Nov 2004

Lets agree the + are gonna be more than happy cos thy're sitting closer to the throne...
it saves peeps having to use < an [ to get to the top of the list. lol

susiedee69 wrote:

so in future please if you can't say anything intelligent or constuctive to help us in keeping the timewasters and idiots out then don't say nowt at all.

The most constructive way of keeping idiots and timewasters out is to keep the R on 24/7.
Once again the forum comes under attack for allowing a debate whether it's crap pointless or just plain annoying! the fact remains that the forum is here exactly for this... It's clear there are many people enjoying this what ever the reasons... and for certain people to try and bully members into silence worries me.... does it matter if it goes on for ever? You dont HAVE to read it.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
call that sad if you want but hey ho

Nowt sad about that at all.

18 Nov 2004

simply breathtaking.
i know some people will think i'm just stirring here too, but what we now have is ops vs users, plussed vs unplussed, chatroom vs forum, pro vs neg etc etc. how many more ways shall we try and slice SH up? i thought SH was SH and we were all equal members of it? seems some are much more equal than others, and some of those others are a bit more equal than some others, etc etc all the way down the line?
the reason people are pointing out the fundamental flaws here, in a logical articulate intelligent way, and asking questions of this, is because nowhere have any of those who actually voted for this and implemented it come forward with anything to explain their thinking in any reasonable way, and some of those are now openly flaming the site rather than answer the questions being put to them? a fine example to set other members, and i suspect this will run and run!

no user should be verified without their knowlege although with the initial seed lists there was always a potential problem.

that is precisely the point. users have been verified with no permission or consultation in even the most cursory way? that is more than a potential problem it's a huge one for quite a lot of people suddenly finding themselves labeled as sexual active members of this site?
if there had been a thread raised explaining the system, asking people to opt in, well i'd still be against it on principle, but at least that lit little problem would never have come up?
neil x x x ;)

18 Nov 2004

Quote by susiedee69
no one has to have a + before they can verify another person or couple

That's, ummm, not what the webpage says:

Only signed genuine users may verify a user as genuine.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Angel Chat
Please understand I can only go on what I'm told by people, had I been
aware
of you're objection to verification you would not have been verified.- - - - - - -
I am sorry this has happened, it should not have, if people at SH had
dealt
with things properly........no user should be verified without their
knowlege although with the initial seed lists there was always a
potential
problem.

Wow.
If the people running the scheme aren't anything to do with Swinging-Heaven then it raises so many questions my head might explode.

18 Nov 2004

i have 4 words to say on the subject then i'm shutting up.............
DOES IT REALLY MATTER??????

18 Nov 2004

Quote by roger743
Wow.
If the people running the scheme aren't anything to do with Swinging-Heaven then it raises so many questions my head might explode.

:wanker: different strokes for different folks........ dunno

(no, I wasn`t calling you a wanker, it was a play on words? Head? Head exploding?? Which head??? Geddit?)
Ok, back to the drawing board........ :undecided:
Venusxxx

18 Nov 2004

Quote by dazandlou
i have 4 words to say on the subject then i'm shutting up.............
DOES IT REALLY MATTER??????

YES.... to a lot of people it obviously DOES matter.
I read Angel Chat's post about an hour ago and can't get my head round it. It might be just a wording thing, but if it IS the case that the admin are not members of swinging heaven, I am just shocked.... I have no other words to describe it, sorry :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

18 Nov 2004

Quote by DeniseBabe
Maybe the admin not being part of the site is a good thing......... at least we dont know them and they dont know us

And Data Protection and Confidentiality comes into that plan where?
Sorry but I don't think having someone unconnected with the site is a good idea .. .whilst a number of us go by nicks there are a fair few that don't as well ... that information shouldn't be given to anyone!!!!!!!

18 Nov 2004

Quote by DeniseBabe
Maybe the admin not being part of the site is a good thing......... at least we dont know them and they dont know us

I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with that.
confused

The point of this discussion is to voice opinion and to suggest ideas for a better system. Are you saying that the people that imposed this system are the only people on the site worthy of having opinions?

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Calista
And Data Protection and Confidentiality comes into that plan where?

I might be wrong but doesn't data protection say that people have a right to know what info is stored about them and who stores that info?
Does anyone know?

18 Nov 2004

Quote by DeniseBabe
The site hasnt stated anywhere about data protection and confidentiality anywhere so i guess we cant argue that out.

Ah Denise but we can.... The Data Protection Act is a very strict one and the fact that some unknown person holds confidential information about us is a very worrying one to be honest...
I think maybe it should be divulged just who is holding or receiving this information...
Shireen

18 Nov 2004

The Data Protection Act is law so applies whatever, whether it's stated or not. I'm not commenting on it's implications here...only stating that the Act does apply.

18 Nov 2004

well i've avoided posting in this post but i thought i'd better now we are up to page 34!!!!!!!
so there you have it.........my post lol

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
ps i think its a bad idea as well

18 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
I might be wrong but doesn't data protection say that people have a right to know what info is stored about them and who stores that info?
Does anyone know?

You are correct Blue....
It is a very complex Act and one which has to be upheld ridgidly.... Any breech of it is looked upon very seriously
Shireen

18 Nov 2004

Quote by DeniseBabe

Maybe the admin not being part of the site is a good thing......... at least we dont know them and they dont know us

And Data Protection and Confidentiality comes into that plan where?
Sorry but I don't think having someone unconnected with the site is a good idea .. .whilst a number of us go by nicks there are a fair few that don't as well ... that information shouldn't be given to anyone!!!!!!!
The site hasnt stated anywhere about data protection and confidentiality anywhere so i guess we cant argue that out.
I suggest you read the Privacy policy stated at the bottom of each webpage ....

This means we will never give any other third party any of your information ,full stop

If this person is not connected with the site then passing information on is breaking this policy and in effect flouting the Data Protection Act. Whilst i am admittedly blowing this out of proportion is opening the site up for potential legal action!

18 Nov 2004

I believe that admin are/is member(s) of Swinging Heaven and it is not being dealt with off site.
Dawn :silly:

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Dawn_Mids
I believe that admin are/is member(s) of Swinging Heaven and it is not being dealt with off site.
Dawn :silly:

Thank you Dawn.....
Yes Denise.... we can't change the rules but we all have a right to express our opinions, in the vain hope that the powers will see the errors in their system and correct them.

18 Nov 2004

Quote by Dawn_Mids
I believe that admin are/is member(s) of Swinging Heaven and it is not being dealt with off site.
Dawn :silly:

Thanks Dawn, it appears that it was just poor wording in the original email, and I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise for bringing it up now redface

If anyone feels the need to smackbottom

me, then please form an orderly queue ;)

18 Nov 2004

well i did wonder about DPA, cos clearly if users are being auto-voiced when they enter channel, then a database is being held somewhere on a server. who administers that database, where that database is located, and whether admin are SH members isn't an issue as far as DPA is concerned i think. just the fact someone somewhere has it on a server could bring it within DPA. that database must be on a SarChat server for the auto-voice to work. it's likely that admin are at least SH members.
but . . i think if it's just a chatroom nick, with a +V against it, it can be argued there is nothing confidential there that leaves you identifiable per se. having said that, it is possible in some roundabout way for some users to be personally identifiable if they use a real name in the room, or use a realname email addy for chatroom registration, and in that case you can argue that the nick and +v and nick registration in combination reveal confidential, personally identifiable info that you are an active swinger? i doubt that is a breach of DPA though, but i simply don't know. just something else should that really needs to be clarified?.
neil x x x ;)

18 Nov 2004

You have to remember though Neil that to get verified someone has to email details to someone..... That's where my concern would lie, as to just who has this information....
Shireen