Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Verification
Quote by DeniseBabe
I never said you didnt work !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ahem...
Quote by DeniseBabe
Maybe you dont have a job ands kids to see too................. or maybe i need glasses to stay focused
Regardless I not going to post further on that point, you did say certain things, you did irritate me, a rare gift, and to be honest you are right. It is going in circles, which is what the ops want, and we wont achieve anything. So there another occasional chatroom user, nice guy, genuine, who will not be wasting his time in there again. As a 'non player' he is not what they want in 'their' room.
I hope they enjoy it. I also plan to avoid this thread from now on, I have raised my points and like everyone elses they were ignored.
Quote by DeniseBabe
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 !!
The forum is surely best for debating, where's the chatroom is better for...
chatting, i guess.
It seems to me that the idea of the MIRC verify facility has been corrupted somewhat. If verfiication was simply a means of saying 'this person is who they say there are' rather than a means of establishing a swinging elite then this thread would have finished round about page 3. I dare say this point has been made at least five times so far, but hey...we are going for the record longest posting ever on a forum, aren't we??
Moving on, as i am a newbie perhaps I can ask - has SH experienced such controversies before? How have they been resolved?
Quote by steve-shireen
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"....
Exactly my point. If this is for the benefit of the newbies who we all know don't even read the bluddy rules, what's the point of it?
i really do not want to have to go back and look for who said that this scheme was for reassurance for new users to the chatroom.
denise
no it is not a chatroom issue. it is a site issue. chat is just part of SH. something we are all members of. and lots of people arguing here are chat members, who cannot raise this in there, cos for one you can't argue this point in a medium designed for one line banter, and more to the point, if you do bring it up in there you risk a kick / ban!
you say say this to the site owner? what do you think we are doing here on his forum? maybe mark would prefer us to send him 600 mails every time a new question arises? i somehow doubt that?
neil x x ;)
no it is not a chatroom issue. it is a site issue. chat is just part of SH. something we are all members of. and lots of people arguing here are chat members, who cannot raise this in there, cos for one you can't argue this point in a medium designed for one line banter, and more to the point, if you do bring it up in there you risk a kick / ban!
you say say this to the site owner? what do you think we are doing here on his forum? maybe mark would prefer us to send him 600 mails every time a new question arises? i somehow doubt that?
neil x x ;)
DeniseBabe
I would have thought that saying "Hi medic hun" to me on nearly every time we met in the Chat Room was different than saying nowt and ignoring the newbie "perplexed" all night.
So pointing that out now I will expect to be ingnored as Medic1 on every occasion from now on then .
Fred(aka medic1 & perplexed) the latter for to-night only
I would have thought that saying "Hi medic hun" to me on nearly every time we met in the Chat Room was different than saying nowt and ignoring the newbie "perplexed" all night.
So pointing that out now I will expect to be ingnored as Medic1 on every occasion from now on then .
Fred(aka medic1 & perplexed) the latter for to-night only
Right, i'm hoping i've come up with some kind of a solution that won't please all but i guess it's a compromise of sorts.
Why not start with a poll asking people if they *want* a system of verification based on a person having met other site users at a Munch.
This obviously has flaws but I'm trying to find a compromise because very few are happy with the present situation and in the unlikely event that the whole thing is scrapped, those that were for it are going to have something to complain about too.
I'm suggesting that you don't have to be a swinger (or an active swinger, or prove that you've shagged someone who's shagged someone who ..... well, anyway .....) but you are a *genuine* member of the site and you are who you say you are because dozens of people met you!
The poll can at least give some indication as to whether this system is even wanted. THEN you can have your trial run followed by another poll to assess how people are finding it. If there's still a majority vote against it, then off it goes.
Personally, I'd like to see the whole thing scrapped and never mentioned again but I'm trying to be a reasonable and fair person. You can't make everyone happy.
Why not start with a poll asking people if they *want* a system of verification based on a person having met other site users at a Munch.
This obviously has flaws but I'm trying to find a compromise because very few are happy with the present situation and in the unlikely event that the whole thing is scrapped, those that were for it are going to have something to complain about too.
I'm suggesting that you don't have to be a swinger (or an active swinger, or prove that you've shagged someone who's shagged someone who ..... well, anyway .....) but you are a *genuine* member of the site and you are who you say you are because dozens of people met you!
The poll can at least give some indication as to whether this system is even wanted. THEN you can have your trial run followed by another poll to assess how people are finding it. If there's still a majority vote against it, then off it goes.
Personally, I'd like to see the whole thing scrapped and never mentioned again but I'm trying to be a reasonable and fair person. You can't make everyone happy.
denise we're not bickering.
we're having a free and frank exchange of views in a respectful adult manner, which is what the cafe is for. except it ain't actually a free and frank exchange cos we're being told by some to STFU about it in a completely unadult, disrespectful way by some ops who would rather flame and launch personal attacks than discuss it with us?
well we care about this too much just to STFU, cos we love SH too much to let the place be dragged down to that level.
neil x x x ;)
we're having a free and frank exchange of views in a respectful adult manner, which is what the cafe is for. except it ain't actually a free and frank exchange cos we're being told by some to STFU about it in a completely unadult, disrespectful way by some ops who would rather flame and launch personal attacks than discuss it with us?
well we care about this too much just to STFU, cos we love SH too much to let the place be dragged down to that level.
neil x x x ;)
:evil:
Sex God
Quote by DeniseBabe
I hardley spoke in the room as you would have seen...... installed mirc and i can hardley follow it........ sorry
Hey, I got told the other night by an op that if you don't speak in the room you get kicked out for idling..... therefore I would speak more if I were you, just so there is no ambiguity about why you are in the room. However, I suspect seeing as youa re you and I am me that the rules don't apply to you anyway.
OK..... so another 3 pages have been added over night...... :shock: , where are we now...... no further forward are we? The reason being cos we are all still awaiting answers from the powers that be! OK, OK, I know they won't answer, but as long as people have problems with the system they will carry on commenting about it! There is no way any of the chat room ops or reg users of the room will silence this debate. The thread will be allowed to run and run until it reaches its natural conclusion, whatever that may be. Making personal insults to reg users of the forum or the forum mods will not work either. In fact, personal insults will probably make us shout louder..... we will put our case across again and again, articulately and eloquently, and we have no need to resort to insults or abuse cos we have genuine points to make that are in no way personal, insulting or abusive - just points of principle really.
Just for the record.... I have a full time professional job, I am highly qualified (PhD level), I have a family, I own my house and teeth, I have literally thousands and thousands in the bank from sale of property (all legal btw, and no, no-one can have a loan
), and I have a hamster..... what does any of that matter, either in this thread or on the site? It doesn't matter a bit, but hey I wasn't the one who brought it up! Much more relevant to this debate is the fact that I am a genuine VERY active swinger and I have been for a long time. I have been a moderator on this forum for... oh... it must be a year now...(?)... and I think I and the rest of the mods do a damn fine job............ we however admit when we are wrong, we rarely are, but hey..... :wink: :wink: :wink: ..... Anyways..... this debate has never been about forum vs room, ops vs. mods, though in some ways it has become like that. I know the ops do a great job controlling timewasters and nutters in the room.... all we want are some answers and some respect please! And of course the it must be some of the ops (certainly not ALL the ops) who developed and imposed this system.... only they have the power to do it. So there. 
Quote by bluexxx
we however admit when we are wrong, we rarely are, but hey.....
'rarely' applies to all.............. except one :uhoh:
I've kinda read all the pages ...... and still can't see any 'pros' to this?
What about the people that are 'if it happens it happens, a no pressure, go with the flow' type person? They're not active, or even looking, but it doesn't mean they won't swing if the right circumstances occurred. And it certainly doensn't mean they're not genuine.
Those people won't get a +, they are lumped in with the minority of non genuine people. I know it's completely obvious that the majority of non plussed people are also genuine ......... this is where the idea falls flat. If everyone knows there are also genuine people who aren't plussed, then the little symbol holds absolutely no weight at all - apart from getting your name at the top of the room list and creating a clique :undecided:
OK confused myself now :confused: only wanted to respond to Blues comment lol, but felt I also had to contribute something to the thread for fear of hijacking :lol2:
Quote by bluexxx
Hey, I got told the other night by an op that if you don't speak in the room you get kicked out for idling.....
Oh, you do... to be fair, I think it's always been this way. I can certainly remember getting kicked for idling many times when I used to hang out in the chatroom earlier in the year.
The problem I find is there's so little being said in there that I feel I have anything to contribute to...
Sex God
Quote by roger743
Hey, I got told the other night by an op that if you don't speak in the room you get kicked out for idling.....
Oh, you do... to be fair, I think it's always been this way. I can certainly remember getting kicked for idling many times when I used to hang out in the chatroom earlier in the year.
The problem I find is there's so little being said in there that I feel I have anything to contribute to...
Yes, I can see the point in the rule - I said in a previous post, waaaaaaaaaay back in the thread somewhere that I do understand the rule completely. However, at the time I was in the room I genuinely wasn't sure what to say (as a chat room newbie) and cos there really wasn't much of a conversation going on at the time
. That is why when I go into the room in future..... yes, of course I am going to watch the conversation as well , but I am going to make sure I get lots of guys to pvt me, cos it was quite fun the other night actually The idling rule is an op rule more than a SH rule.... it's initiated if you idle for an hour or so... constant logging in and never typing a line will get you noticed and raise alarms.... Why is this person sitting in the room and never ever saying anything...it's obvious they are at there kb cos they re-log in...So then you have to surmise the person is not there to chat but to either collate information or for other devious reasons.
As for having your say in the chatroom... That isn't the place. Rules are strict and the topic locked. Veer from the topic of swinging and you're nudged with a " this is a swinging chatroom please keep to that topic". ( I.E. football cars bingo ) As this is more about admin and new structuring of the room I can't see this being allowed to happen in the chatroom.
Finally the comment that cos 4 or so people ( who are a + ) are happy with it, so everyone should end this post is ludicrous... Sounds to me you want this hushed up ASAP so that you few don't lose your + if it's scrapped.
Whatever the right or wrongs of this new scheme ... I repeat this. We have the right to have an opinion and voice it ...... I'm not arsed about the + now. I was never against it just against a few of the ways it's been initiated... but I am bothered that some people want to squash this thread.
As for having your say in the chatroom... That isn't the place. Rules are strict and the topic locked. Veer from the topic of swinging and you're nudged with a " this is a swinging chatroom please keep to that topic". ( I.E. football cars bingo ) As this is more about admin and new structuring of the room I can't see this being allowed to happen in the chatroom.
Finally the comment that cos 4 or so people ( who are a + ) are happy with it, so everyone should end this post is ludicrous... Sounds to me you want this hushed up ASAP so that you few don't lose your + if it's scrapped.
Whatever the right or wrongs of this new scheme ... I repeat this. We have the right to have an opinion and voice it ...... I'm not arsed about the + now. I was never against it just against a few of the ways it's been initiated... but I am bothered that some people want to squash this thread.
Quote by Jewcy_Joanne
Veer from the topic of swinging and you're nudged with a " this is a swinging chatroom please keep to that topic".
Oooooh that's not good, not good at all :undecided:
I would want to be able to see how I click with someones personality before meeting them - just talking about swinging isn't gonna do that
Misschief - now feeling a right berk for nattering away about Morris Dancing the other night
Quote by JudyTV
With regard to DPA I have made tentative enquiries (Purely for academic reasons) to UCL and the general answer is that the DPA would not be up-help or stand in British Law due to it being a intangible cyber issue and could not be controlled due to international complications regarding the super highway spanning worldwide laws.
I'm quite surprised to hear that, since the act does actually contain a specific provision that is designed to stop peopel simply moving their data 'off shore' and claiming exemption from the act... "Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection for the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data."
If you want to read the full text of the DPA, go here. I am considering posting this link in the 'insomina' thread too :sleeping:
Quote by JudyTV
Not that anyone would want to go there, like I say it was purely academic anyway. The Uni lecturer did say it was a very grey area and no legal representative would touch it with a barge pole. So in effect DPA does not apply here and to be honest I don't think it should.
Hmm, if I was Mark, I'd be inclined to take a less optimistic view, and sprinkle the AUP liberally with disclaimers just in case... but we are drifting off topic now.
Misschief
Just a quick quote from a Room Ops script folio =====
It goes along the line of "" a room op is always right even when they are wrong"" just to prove that a Room Op is Law.
That script is used often and I have often wondered does it enter into the room ops log in case of complaint to a higher level.
Fred (aka Medic1) must watch my P & Q's
Just a quick quote from a Room Ops script folio =====
It goes along the line of "" a room op is always right even when they are wrong"" just to prove that a Room Op is Law.
That script is used often and I have often wondered does it enter into the room ops log in case of complaint to a higher level.
Fred (aka Medic1) must watch my P & Q's
Thankfully cos it is an op rule it's down to the active op/ops to decide on how to enforce the topic rule. Normally there isn't a problem... It's there to stop a group of people ..say football fans on sat afternoon.... taking over the whole room with the subject....but it can be used as it is to kill the verification topic after one line in the room if the ops dont want any debating on verification and from the posts it dont take a genius to work out they dont .... As i keep on saying... this is the only place where you have free ( slightly moderated :P ) speech...
morning guys. ;)
don't dismiss HB too much please, cos it was an excellent summary to start the day with.
after a bit of discussion last night, i've been told that DPA could quite possibly apply, and that mere possibility is a massive mess of legalities.
now i know IP isn't likely to be stored. when you log onto StarChat your IP is scrambled so not available info anyways, unless a specific command only available to Ops is run, where StarChat will send the IP to an SH Op, usually for the purposes of a ban. so it's not needed on the auto-voice. nor is it likely your real name on there. not necessary. so it should only consist of your nick, and the +V alongside it. it might have your email on there too, as your verified address for +R. but still if that can be said to be in anyway confidential, it comes within DPA. i still say it doesn't, but it's no small issue there.
so far it seems the pro camp is arguing it's purpose is to make it easier for gen people to be known, depending of course on your definition of gen. and that having it does not change anything anyway. these arguments come from a mere handful of people who have either voted for it as implememntors, or are users who now have their +.
to counter that are god knows how many people who do and don't uses chat, do and don't have +, or have a + and don't want it, or don't want it but could have it etc etc raising huge questions about the presumptions, assumptions, implications and consequences of this on all kinds of levels.
exactly when will anyone say, in a rational way we can understand, just why this is not simply a massive, huge mistake, that strikes to the core of SH, and the principles it stands for.
neil x x x ;)
don't dismiss HB too much please, cos it was an excellent summary to start the day with.
after a bit of discussion last night, i've been told that DPA could quite possibly apply, and that mere possibility is a massive mess of legalities.
the passing of details to the external d'base sails exceedingly close to the wind wrt the DPA. Essentially for the the 'rating' to be worth anything, it's necessary to be able to assert that hairy_cornflake (on the forum) = daveleetravis (on the chatroom) = = Dave from Surrey = Dave from Surrey's IP address.
now i know IP isn't likely to be stored. when you log onto StarChat your IP is scrambled so not available info anyways, unless a specific command only available to Ops is run, where StarChat will send the IP to an SH Op, usually for the purposes of a ban. so it's not needed on the auto-voice. nor is it likely your real name on there. not necessary. so it should only consist of your nick, and the +V alongside it. it might have your email on there too, as your verified address for +R. but still if that can be said to be in anyway confidential, it comes within DPA. i still say it doesn't, but it's no small issue there.
so far it seems the pro camp is arguing it's purpose is to make it easier for gen people to be known, depending of course on your definition of gen. and that having it does not change anything anyway. these arguments come from a mere handful of people who have either voted for it as implememntors, or are users who now have their +.
to counter that are god knows how many people who do and don't uses chat, do and don't have +, or have a + and don't want it, or don't want it but could have it etc etc raising huge questions about the presumptions, assumptions, implications and consequences of this on all kinds of levels.
exactly when will anyone say, in a rational way we can understand, just why this is not simply a massive, huge mistake, that strikes to the core of SH, and the principles it stands for.
neil x x x ;)
oh and fred you asked about logs.
yep. every single comment, script, command executed is logged and indicated in some way. all ops keep logs of every single channel they are opped up in. that includes ops channel, main room, and even personal PM's, cos you need to be able to validate any decision made if a complaint arises, or risk being deopped.
neil x x x ;)
yep. every single comment, script, command executed is logged and indicated in some way. all ops keep logs of every single channel they are opped up in. that includes ops channel, main room, and even personal PM's, cos you need to be able to validate any decision made if a complaint arises, or risk being deopped.
neil x x x ;)
Marya hunni
I know you mean well but please , please ,please NOT yet another damn pole. We have had pole after pole after pole over the last six months.
Judy
Sounds like the site is working for you, all those poles
Must be sore by now! 
:lol: :lol:
Just thought a little light humour in this 39 page thread wouldn't go amiss.
I know you mean well but please , please ,please NOT yet another damn pole. We have had pole after pole after pole over the last six months.
Judy
Sounds like the site is working for you, all those poles
Must be sore by now! :lol: :lol: Just thought a little light humour in this 39 page thread wouldn't go amiss.
judy 
yep. as i understand it, if it can in any way be said that what is being stored is confidential information, and if it can in any way be said that that data is being transferred from SH to a remote site on Foreign Shores, then we could be in breach of DPA. all depends on very grey definitions.
the mere possibility that it is possible for that suggestion to be made ((( sorry did that make sense? ))) puts us on very shaky legal ground. even the most unlikely legal challenge over a technicality within DPA would probably bankrupt the site in legal arguments. reason in itself to bin it.
the fact that it is verification that could bring this about is worrying. as things stood before DPA had no application. as soon as +V is brought into effect it might. the mere posibility it might, purely for the sake of an unworkable system that we object to in the strongest possible terms, is insane.
neil x x x ;)
neil x x x ;)
yep. as i understand it, if it can in any way be said that what is being stored is confidential information, and if it can in any way be said that that data is being transferred from SH to a remote site on Foreign Shores, then we could be in breach of DPA. all depends on very grey definitions.
the mere possibility that it is possible for that suggestion to be made ((( sorry did that make sense?
))) puts us on very shaky legal ground. even the most unlikely legal challenge over a technicality within DPA would probably bankrupt the site in legal arguments. reason in itself to bin it.the fact that it is verification that could bring this about is worrying. as things stood before DPA had no application. as soon as +V is brought into effect it might. the mere posibility it might, purely for the sake of an unworkable system that we object to in the strongest possible terms, is insane.
neil x x x ;)
neil x x x ;)
Time for a compromise .......
Forget the official verification
All those who want to be verified, simply re-register with a + at the beginning of your user name.
Those who like the idea - keep a list of those who are genuine. Because everyone with a genuine + will be a regular user, you will soon get to know who is genuine and who is not.
It seems to achieve the original aim, but with all the work being done by those who want the system.
lhk
Kat
Forget the official verification
All those who want to be verified, simply re-register with a + at the beginning of your user name.
Those who like the idea - keep a list of those who are genuine. Because everyone with a genuine + will be a regular user, you will soon get to know who is genuine and who is not.
It seems to achieve the original aim, but with all the work being done by those who want the system.
lhk
Kat
Quote by KitKat
All those who want to be verified, simply re-register with a + at the beginning of your user name
I'm sorry, but this isn't technically possible, the IRC chartoom system doesn't allow + in user names (or the "@" that signifies ops for that matter). This is something that's beyond SH's control.
The + doesn't even show up as a + in some software... for ircle users, they will see people's names in green rather then with a +, and ops appear as red instead of with a @.
Quote by Mister_Discreet
All those who want to be verified, simply re-register with a + at the beginning of your user name
I'm sorry, but this isn't technically possible, the IRC chartoom system doesn't allow + in user names (or the "@" that signifies ops for that matter). This is something that's beyond SH's control.
The + doesn't even show up as a + in some software... for ircle users, they will see people's names in green rather then with a +, and ops appear as red instead of with a @.
- what about ¬then - we had a whole string asking what that key was for. However it is shown - the principle remains, that if there are a group of people who want to say "we are a group of people" let them set up a system to identify themselves, and administer it themselves.
lhk
Kat
