Quote by DeniseBabe
If someone was that worried they wouldnt have used their real name would they
But maybe they didn't realise that people do use alias's in chatrooms.... We didn't when we started out.....
Shireen
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Verification
Quote by DeniseBabe
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.
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?.
If someone was that worried they wouldnt have used their real name would they
neil x x x ;)
If someone was that worried they wouldnt have used their real name would they :?
denise that's not the point. it's not whether that worries anyone, it's whether there is a possibility that legally the DPA comes into force if it can in anyway be said that the databse holds confidential info. that's all. i suspect it doesn't.
n x x x ;)
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
denise that's not the point. it's not whether that worries anyone, it's whether there is a possibility that legally the DPA comes into force if it can in anyway be said that the databse holds confidential info. that's all. i suspect it doesn't.
n x x x ;)
But..... If information is being held about you, you have a right to know who holds it.....
Shireen
Quote by shireen-steve
denise that's not the point. it's not whether that worries anyone, it's whether there is a possibility that legally the DPA comes into force if it can in anyway be said that the databse holds confidential info. that's all. i suspect it doesn't.
n x x x ;)
But..... If information is being held about you, you have a right to know who holds it.....
Shireen
true. so the mere existence of it means you have certain rights, if it is within DPA. i'm no lawyer. i really have no idea if it comes within DPA or not.
neil x x x ;)
Sex God
Quote by shireen-steve
denise that's not the point. it's not whether that worries anyone, it's whether there is a possibility that legally the DPA comes into force if it can in anyway be said that the databse holds confidential info. that's all. i suspect it doesn't.
n x x x ;)
But..... If information is being held about you, you have a right to know who holds it.....
Shireen
All this uncertainty just makes it more important for the powers to come and answer some of the fears that people have about this system.
And no Denise, I do go and have a giggle on other thread. This one happens to be important, so although I'm sure the powers would like all this to be brushed under the carpet so that they can go and get on with being important, the forum doesn't work like that. People do not like to have their intelligence insulted by the diverting tactics that certain ops are trying to use
. No amount of bullying from the ops is going to stop me from saying what I think 
- what's the worst they can do - ban me from the room? Oooooh scary! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: 
:wink: :wink: :wink: Sex God
Quote by redstilletto
so like what are you lot trying to say......................... :twisted:
Just that the new verification system is shite, that's all :giggle:
Sexpert
the reason we "swing" is that we can enjoy playing with other ppl
does is matter if they got a + in their name or not
if u like them and enjoy there company go for it
bye chatting with some one a cpl of times u can tell if they genuine or not,
although u do get a few that are timewasters (dont understand that, but shit happens)
we like the" new" thing of playing with ppl, so a + dont mean shit
just having our say on the matter
:smug: :smug: :smug: :smug:
does is matter if they got a + in their name or not
if u like them and enjoy there company go for it
bye chatting with some one a cpl of times u can tell if they genuine or not,
although u do get a few that are timewasters (dont understand that, but shit happens)
we like the" new" thing of playing with ppl, so a + dont mean shit
just having our say on the matter
:smug: :smug: :smug: :smug:
Sex God
Quote by DeniseBabe
so like what are you lot trying to say......................... :twisted:
Just that the new verification system is shite, that's all :giggle:
What total crap !!! how can you say something is shite after 4 days when ur not a chatroom user !!!
Cos logically the system makes very little sense. If you read back the last 30 odd pages you will see the amount of eloquent debates that have concluded that the system is.... errrr.... how shall I put it...... "less than ideal". I was just summerising for redstilletto, that's all :giggle: I take it you HAVE read the whole debate, Denise?
I have just come out of the chat room after more then an hour.
I used the nick "perplexed".
During that time I said Hello and Hi Peeps on countless occaisions and got nearly a 100% rating of ignorance.
I said Nite All and got no reply.
It was not untill I changed my nick back to medic1 that I was spoken too.
So who says its not a clique. ????
Disgusted, and if people can not tell the truth the very least they can do is to ""Shut Up""
Any Room Ops read this it is in the Room Logs maybe ???
Fred(aka medic1}
I used the nick "perplexed".
During that time I said Hello and Hi Peeps on countless occaisions and got nearly a 100% rating of ignorance.
I said Nite All and got no reply.
It was not untill I changed my nick back to medic1 that I was spoken too.
So who says its not a clique. ????
Disgusted, and if people can not tell the truth the very least they can do is to ""Shut Up""
Any Room Ops read this it is in the Room Logs maybe ???
Fred(aka medic1}
Sexpert
got to say there is a definate "clique" in the room
who cares :scared: :scared:
who cares :scared: :scared:
Sex God
Quote by Fred
I have just come out of the chat room after more then an hour.
I used the nick "perplexed".
During that time I said Hello and Hi Peeps on countless occaisions and got nearly a 100% rating of ignorance.
I said Nite All and got no reply.
It was not untill I changed my nick back to medic1 that I was spoken too.
So who says its not a clique. ????
Disgusted, and if people can not tell the truth the very least they can do is to ""Shut Up""
Any Room Ops read this it is in the Room Logs maybe ???
Fred(aka medic1}
Yep. When I went in as asecret :lol2: no-one bothered to speak to me, nor did any of the ops complain that I was idling..... however, when I went in as bluexxx, completely different story....... :grin: :grin: :grin:
Sorry, getting flippant now, I do that at this late hour :silly:
am i right in thinking it's been said that Ops are not adminstering this? cos if that's true, then it raises an interesting point
now the auto-voice database must be located on a StarChat server for +V to be automatically assigned when you enter the room. that means that at least one database of SH members exists off site. SH does not own Starchat.
Admin could simply forward requests to a non-SH member with StarChat Op priveleges to add +V. that would mean again that Admin is at least a site member, but there are then 2 databases, one on site run by Admin, and one on Starchat that may or may not be run by an SH member.
we have no way of knowing whether the op actually adding the +V is an SH member in that case. so there could be an issue there of breach of confidentiality? i don't know?
alternatively, Admin are maintaining a single database on StarChat, and adding +V themselves, which means Admin are an SH Op, which IIRC, has been denied.
neil x x x ;)
now the auto-voice database must be located on a StarChat server for +V to be automatically assigned when you enter the room. that means that at least one database of SH members exists off site. SH does not own Starchat.
Admin could simply forward requests to a non-SH member with StarChat Op priveleges to add +V. that would mean again that Admin is at least a site member, but there are then 2 databases, one on site run by Admin, and one on Starchat that may or may not be run by an SH member.
we have no way of knowing whether the op actually adding the +V is an SH member in that case. so there could be an issue there of breach of confidentiality? i don't know?
alternatively, Admin are maintaining a single database on StarChat, and adding +V themselves, which means Admin are an SH Op, which IIRC, has been denied.
neil x x x ;)
Well seeing as it was me that opened this particular can of worms (ie the question of whether the administrator(s) were site members or not)I feel I should point out again that it was merely poorly worded in the email I received. My questions have been answered now, so I'll probably stay out of this now (note the use of the word probably lol) but I'm now led to believe that the List Admin is/are member(s) of the site and that's good enough to allay that particular worry for me.
I know who verified me, and that person verified me as a genuine person. I don't have a problem with that, and while I don't agree that the verification is necessary, I do see that if the system was to be implemented, then a starting list of genuine people was required.
It all seems to come down to poor communication of the actual requirements in the very early stages
That's me done anyway, and there are no hard feelings on my part - even if I still don't see the need for the system
I know who verified me, and that person verified me as a genuine person. I don't have a problem with that, and while I don't agree that the verification is necessary, I do see that if the system was to be implemented, then a starting list of genuine people was required.
It all seems to come down to poor communication of the actual requirements in the very early stages
That's me done anyway, and there are no hard feelings on my part - even if I still don't see the need for the system
Sorry Neil you lost me mate lol
Being nothing more than a Chat Room layabout (with a Tongue I might add
) and a thicky to boot I know nowt about Starchat (? Startreck) or any of the other silent ghosts who call themselves, and are called, Admin.You have known me long enough to know that I am usualy a quiet type who goes with the flow but after the platitudes that have been passed about I felt it time to try them out. The result is what you see in my post above.
Nice to see you again .
Fred (aka medic1)
Quote by Jon_TJ
I am not here to argue about it - nor can I offer an official view
Then who the (BEEP) can offer an official (BEEP) view, and don't tell me to email the admin, tell this nameless person to get in here and answer some (BEEP) questions
Thank God I gave up on the chatroom months ago, as obviously as a voyeur I am not welcome, and all those who know and like me should disown me for not dropping my trousers like a trained monkey...
AS for those having a go at bluexxx, leave it out please. Our mods have a hard time as well, unlike chatroom mods they also seem to (beep) well listen and WILL give an official reply...
hiya fred mate!
good to see you, and ta for confirming all our fears about the effect this is likely to have on new and unknown users who can't claim +V status! ;)
right. StarChat hosts the SH chatroom. it's a collection of servers linked together, and run by StarChat ops. it has nowt to do with SH whatsoever. they just allow us to have a chatroom running on their machines. some SH ops are Starchat ops, but most are not. an SH op has a much lower status than a Starchat op, and only has opping powers in the SH chatroom.
when you go into the chatroom now, and find a + next to your name, that's cos a particular command, the voice command, is being run against your nick. as it happens automatically, you are being auto-voiced from a database that holds a +V next to your nick in some way.
that database is therefore being held off site, and we have no way of knowing who is adding you to that database. it may be an SH member, and most likely is, but equally it may not be. Admin could just be requesting the addition of a nick for us.
neil x x x ;)
good to see you, and ta for confirming all our fears about the effect this is likely to have on new and unknown users who can't claim +V status! ;)
right. StarChat hosts the SH chatroom. it's a collection of servers linked together, and run by StarChat ops. it has nowt to do with SH whatsoever. they just allow us to have a chatroom running on their machines. some SH ops are Starchat ops, but most are not. an SH op has a much lower status than a Starchat op, and only has opping powers in the SH chatroom.
when you go into the chatroom now, and find a + next to your name, that's cos a particular command, the voice command, is being run against your nick. as it happens automatically, you are being auto-voiced from a database that holds a +V next to your nick in some way.
that database is therefore being held off site, and we have no way of knowing who is adding you to that database. it may be an SH member, and most likely is, but equally it may not be. Admin could just be requesting the addition of a nick for us.
neil x x x ;)
Quote by DeniseBabe
so like what are you lot trying to say......................... :twisted:
Just that the new verification system is shite, that's all :giggle:
What total crap !!! how can you say something is shite after 4 days when ur not a chatroom user !!!
Cos logically the system makes very little sense. If you read back the last 30 odd pages you will see the amount of eloquent debates that have concluded that the system is.... errrr.... how shall I put it...... "less than ideal". I was just summerising for redstilletto, that's all :giggle: I take it you HAVE read the whole debate, Denise?
Nope i dont sit in forum all day to be able to read all 30 pages.......... read bits and from what i can see from post one is that nothing has changed the + is still in place and no matter what is said in here it will be......... its up to chatroom members to not want it........ and judging by this thread they are happy with it .......... so as far as im concerned im out of this........... ill leave you all to discuss its values
It doesn't take all day, taken me less than an hour to get up to speed, not that it matters as the 'powers' in the chatroom don't give a damn what we think, even those of us who use the chatroom as well as here. If you read a few have said they can't see what it adds, but also don't care, as many have said they DO care and don't want any part of it, and yet more (me included) have said it puts them off returning.
So just as I not a regular, oh and I don't 'shag' I know when I not welcome. Hate to be accused of spying (as Blue was, WTF is that in a public forum) or kicked for asking about the + (as someone else was). Nice and friendly for newbe's, if they genuine and meet the requirement of wanting casual penetrative sex, no other kind, and only with the verified members....
Ok I ranting again, bed I think...
I'm not even going to atteempt the multi-quote thing but there a couple of points iI wish to raise:
The verification scheme is being run on a trial basis only - to see if it "works", right?
The chatroom ops are not the same people who are responsible for the running and maintenance of the verification scheme - right?
So far, it appears the verification scheme is "working".
The verification scheme is for the benefit of newbies - for "reassurance", I believe was said.
OK, how exactly is it "working"? Does that mean, that simply, people are still using the chatroom or that people are asking to be verified?
How is the scheme being assessed? Will all newbies be asked to fill in a customer satisfaction report or will this be based on successful shagfests based purely on the + Factor?
When does the trial end and again, how will the scheme be assessed as a success?
When will we get some answers?
Why do people run away when the questions get too hard but are quick to give their opinions as and when it suits them?
Why is this becoming more and more infuriating the longer we are ignored. Do we not deserve a response?
The verification scheme is being run on a trial basis only - to see if it "works", right?
The chatroom ops are not the same people who are responsible for the running and maintenance of the verification scheme - right?
So far, it appears the verification scheme is "working".
The verification scheme is for the benefit of newbies - for "reassurance", I believe was said.
OK, how exactly is it "working"? Does that mean, that simply, people are still using the chatroom or that people are asking to be verified?
How is the scheme being assessed? Will all newbies be asked to fill in a customer satisfaction report or will this be based on successful shagfests based purely on the + Factor?
When does the trial end and again, how will the scheme be assessed as a success?
When will we get some answers?
Why do people run away when the questions get too hard but are quick to give their opinions as and when it suits them?
Why is this becoming more and more infuriating the longer we are ignored. Do we not deserve a response?
Quote by DeniseBabe
so like what are you lot trying to say......................... :twisted:
Just that the new verification system is shite, that's all :giggle:
What total crap !!! how can you say something is shite after 4 days when ur not a chatroom user !!!
Cos logically the system makes very little sense. If you read back the last 30 odd pages you will see the amount of eloquent debates that have concluded that the system is.... errrr.... how shall I put it...... "less than ideal". I was just summerising for redstilletto, that's all :giggle: I take it you HAVE read the whole debate, Denise?
Nope i dont sit in forum all day to be able to read all 30 pages.......... read bits and from what i can see from post one is that nothing has changed the + is still in place and no matter what is said in here it will be......... its up to chatroom members to not want it........ and judging by this thread they are happy with it .......... so as far as im concerned im out of this........... ill leave you all to discuss its values
It doesn't take all day, taken me less than an hour to get up to speed, not that it matters as the 'powers' in the chatroom don't give a damn what we think, even those of us who use the chatroom as well as here. If you read a few have said they can't see what it adds, but also don't care, as many have said they DO care and don't want any part of it, and yet more (me included) have said it puts them off returning.
So just as I not a regular, oh and I don't 'shag' I know when I not welcome. Hate to be accused of spying (as Blue was, WTF is that in a public forum) or kicked for asking about the + (as someone else was). Nice and friendly for newbe's, if they genuine and meet the requirement of wanting casual penetrative sex, no other kind, and only with the verified members....
Ok I ranting again, bed I think...
Maybe you dont have a job ands kids to see too................. or maybe i need glasses to stay focused :roll:
Thanks for the personal insults, I have 2 jobs, a full time office job, a part time job as an ambulance medic (voluntary) spending my weekends helping injured kids, I can give you the gory details if you want. A wife and 2 kids of my own, oh yeah and I do martial arts in my spare time... Happy now??
I just organise my time and I happen to agree with some of the others that this strikes at the heart of what a swinger is. The Cafe is very open, I don't play physically as I don't have my wifes permission to do so, I do watch, and socialise. From the chatroom definition I am not a swinger, and seem to be unwelcome there...
Ok thats it, really off to bed now.
denise
the reason this thread has gone on so long, is cos we are arguing on a point of principle about something that fundamentally changes the nature of SH! it has nothing to do with whether we use the room or not, or would have the + or not if we did, or anything.
there are huge, real concerns from god knows how many members, that this is just plain wrong in conception, and badly handled in implementation.
most of those arguing in favour of +, are room members of long standing, already have a +, and so do not seem to grasp why we have an issue with it. they are defending their + status, and not arguing on principle.
noone has yet answered a single one of god knows how many questions brought up here?
and it's all well and good saying, we have it, there's no point arguing, cos that is one of the arguments we have. if we aren't allowed to question it, and have to accept it, then some members of this site have taken it upon themselves to forever change SH! i challenge their right to impose this on us and force us to accept it without at least having the decency to come here and respond to criticism without flaming those who challenge it. we are simply to assume they know what's best, and any questioning of it is out. they cannot even give us a reasonable summary of their thinking on it.
this issue will simply not go away till all these questions are answered in the same way that they have been asked. reasonably. logically. openly. honestly. with respect.
neil x x x ;)
the reason this thread has gone on so long, is cos we are arguing on a point of principle about something that fundamentally changes the nature of SH! it has nothing to do with whether we use the room or not, or would have the + or not if we did, or anything.
there are huge, real concerns from god knows how many members, that this is just plain wrong in conception, and badly handled in implementation.
most of those arguing in favour of +, are room members of long standing, already have a +, and so do not seem to grasp why we have an issue with it. they are defending their + status, and not arguing on principle.
noone has yet answered a single one of god knows how many questions brought up here?
and it's all well and good saying, we have it, there's no point arguing, cos that is one of the arguments we have. if we aren't allowed to question it, and have to accept it, then some members of this site have taken it upon themselves to forever change SH! i challenge their right to impose this on us and force us to accept it without at least having the decency to come here and respond to criticism without flaming those who challenge it. we are simply to assume they know what's best, and any questioning of it is out. they cannot even give us a reasonable summary of their thinking on it.
this issue will simply not go away till all these questions are answered in the same way that they have been asked. reasonably. logically. openly. honestly. with respect.
neil x x x ;)
Quote by DeniseBabe
so like what are you lot trying to say......................... :twisted:
Just that the new verification system is shite, that's all :giggle:
What total crap !!! how can you say something is shite after 4 days when ur not a chatroom user !!!
Cos logically the system makes very little sense. If you read back the last 30 odd pages you will see the amount of eloquent debates that have concluded that the system is.... errrr.... how shall I put it...... "less than ideal". I was just summerising for redstilletto, that's all :giggle: I take it you HAVE read the whole debate, Denise?
Nope i dont sit in forum all day to be able to read all 30 pages.......... read bits and from what i can see from post one is that nothing has changed the + is still in place and no matter what is said in here it will be......... its up to chatroom members to not want it........ and judging by this thread they are happy with it .......... so as far as im concerned im out of this........... ill leave you all to discuss its values
It doesn't take all day, taken me less than an hour to get up to speed, not that it matters as the 'powers' in the chatroom don't give a damn what we think, even those of us who use the chatroom as well as here. If you read a few have said they can't see what it adds, but also don't care, as many have said they DO care and don't want any part of it, and yet more (me included) have said it puts them off returning.
So just as I not a regular, oh and I don't 'shag' I know when I not welcome. Hate to be accused of spying (as Blue was, WTF is that in a public forum) or kicked for asking about the + (as someone else was). Nice and friendly for newbe's, if they genuine and meet the requirement of wanting casual penetrative sex, no other kind, and only with the verified members....
Ok I ranting again, bed I think...
Maybe you dont have a job ands kids to see too................. or maybe i need glasses to stay focused :roll:
Thanks for the personal insults, I have 2 jobs, a full time office job, a part time job as an ambulance medic (voluntary) spending my weekends helping injured kids, I can give you the gory details if you want. A wife and 2 kids of my own, oh yeah and I do martial arts in my spare time... Happy now??
I just organise my time and I happen to agree with some of the others that this strikes at the heart of what a swinger is. The Cafe is very open, I don't play physically as I don't have my wifes permission to do so, I do watch, and socialise. From the chatroom definition I am not a swinger, and seem to be unwelcome there...
Ok thats it, really off to bed now.
Remember ur a forum user and not a chat user.
As I have said repeatedly I WAS A CHATROOM USER!!! I also used to be an op in a 200+ user room for 3 years, I know the blasted IRC backwards, please don't continue to insult my intelligence especially after I gave you the benefit of the doubt some 10 pages back!!
Quote by DeniseBabe
I'm not even going to atteempt the multi-quote thing but there a couple of points iI wish to raise:
The verification scheme is being run on a trial basis only - to see if it "works", right?
The chatroom ops are not the same people who are responsible for the running and maintenance of the verification scheme - right?
So far, it appears the verification scheme is "working".
The verification scheme is for the benefit of newbies - for "reassurance", I believe was said.
OK, how exactly is it "working"? Does that mean, that simply, people are still using the chatroom or that people are asking to be verified?
How is the scheme being assessed? Will all newbies be asked to fill in a customer satisfaction report or will this be based on successful shagfests based purely on the + Factor?
When does the trial end and again, how will the scheme be assessed as a success?
When will we get some answers?
Why do people run away when the questions get too hard but are quick to give their opinions as and when it suits them?
Why is this becoming more and more infuriating the longer we are ignored. Do we not deserve a response?
I think people have answered pretty well in the 36 pages mister discreet especially............ maybe its a case of people are not listening !!
Says the person who can't be bothered to read the whole thread? Ahem!
I retract the statement regarding the chatroom ops not being the responsible for running the scheme, as Judy pointed out Jon's comments above.
Other than that, I don't believe we have been given sufficient answers. quoting the info from the link is raising more questions than its answering.
How do you think it's "working" then Denise, as a verified chatroom user? are the newbies reassured? Is everyone happy little bunnies now that they've got a + to distinguish the elite from the social lepers?
Not a single newbie i have spoken to even knows what it's all about. Which is why i asked before - who does this scheme benefit? Apart from the "look at me" brigade?
Quote by DeniseBabe
And....... it doesnt matter how much you argue here......... its a chatroom issue... so if u all feel that strongly get your arses in there and say so !!
except - as we've heard earlier - questioning the issue in the chatroom gets you the boot! And of course, the ops in there do not appear to want to give any official viewpoint on it and just post the link. Back to square one.
Quote by DeniseBabe
Ive never seen a circle last so many poxy days......... instead of saying it all 3 times plus here go in chat or pm site owner... simple as
I wasnt questioning anything............ but we all have to agree this has left bickering to people where it shouldnt have... if people want to complain ect then send it to site owner...... nothing is being achieved here.
Something was achieved, for the first time ever I have become annoyed at another site member, oh and been insulted in the forums. I expect it simply that I am knackered after a long day AT WORK, that thing you implied I don't do.
I not going to waste Marks time pulling him into every post, he has ops and mods to run day to day. I am sure when the trial ends he will read this thread and extract what is useful from it. Good to see honest debate being lambasted.
Quote by Marya
I'm not even going to atteempt the multi-quote thing but there a couple of points iI wish to raise:
The verification scheme is being run on a trial basis only - to see if it "works", right?
The chatroom ops are not the same people who are responsible for the running and maintenance of the verification scheme - right?
So far, it appears the verification scheme is "working".
The verification scheme is for the benefit of newbies - for "reassurance", I believe was said.
OK, how exactly is it "working"? Does that mean, that simply, people are still using the chatroom or that people are asking to be verified?
How is the scheme being assessed? Will all newbies be asked to fill in a customer satisfaction report or will this be based on successful shagfests based purely on the + Factor?
When does the trial end and again, how will the scheme be assessed as a success?
When will we get some answers?
Why do people run away when the questions get too hard but are quick to give their opinions as and when it suits them?
Why is this becoming more and more infuriating the longer we are ignored. Do we not deserve a response?
I think people have answered pretty well in the 36 pages mister discreet especially............ maybe its a case of people are not listening !!
Says the person who can't be bothered to read the whole thread? Ahem!
I retract the statement regarding the chatroom ops not being the responsible for running the scheme, as Judy pointed out Jon's comments above.
Other than that, I don't believe we have been given sufficient answers. quoting the info from the link is raising more questions than its answering.
How do you think it's "working" then Denise, as a verified chatroom user? are the newbies reassured? Is everyone happy little bunnies now that they've got a + to distinguish the elite from the social lepers?
Not a single newbie i have spoken to even knows what it's all about. Which is why i asked before - who does this scheme benefit? Apart from the "look at me" brigade?
I (we) have a + in the chatroom against one of our nicks.....We use two cause we have a network and often use the room at the same time...
In no way do we think of ourselves as elite...
In no way do we think of those without a + as social lepers.
And certainly wouldnt say we belong to the look at me brigade.
I have made points for AND against the verification system so I am not banging any particular drum either....
Editied to add....
As for newbies not knowing what its all about...
Hand on heart......How many newbies can you say you know have read the rules and regs etc etc before they go into the chatroom.......??
The classic example is.....
You get an unwanted pm and the stock answer is.....
"Sorry I;m new here"....
DeniseBabe
Would you like to explain the way Perplexed was treated in the Chat Room then ??
I was using Java and two down from the top, underneath the two Room Ops was a fem with the glorious + at the start of her nick and would speak to "medic1" at any time but as I was using "perplexed" and she did not know me I was ignored.
To all but the Room Ops I was a "newbie" and not one of the 14 verified said a word .
You may know the fem whom I refered to in the para above.
Fred (aka medic1)
Would you like to explain the way Perplexed was treated in the Chat Room then ??
I was using Java and two down from the top, underneath the two Room Ops was a fem with the glorious + at the start of her nick and would speak to "medic1" at any time but as I was using "perplexed" and she did not know me I was ignored.
To all but the Room Ops I was a "newbie" and not one of the 14 verified said a word .
You may know the fem whom I refered to in the para above.
Fred (aka medic1)
