Quote by KitKat- what about ¬ then - we had a whole string asking what that key was for.
lhk
Kat
Good point ... what is it for??????
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Verification
Sex God
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 @.
- 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
You will notice such structures already forming on SH as we speak. I have already set up the KINKY SLAPPER club. Some members are identified by their flashing KINKY SLAPPER avatars. However, not all kinky slappers are using the said avatar, therefore actually it is imposssible to tell who is and who isn't a kinky slapper. Anyone in any doubt.... a kinky slapper is someone who has shagged or been shagged by my good self 8-) . Members are openly and freely allowed to disclose their kinky slapper status (or not) as they choose. You will also notice a small set of kinky slapper wannabes who are also using various different flashing avatars. These are rougues.... though most are on the list for kinky slapper verification :twisted:
You will also notice that warwick has set up his own forum certification system. The rules are simple. If warwick knows you to be a loon he will certify you and after which you are allowed to post this: :shock: after your name in any post.
This verification stuff can be fun you know.....
Ingroups and outgroups - don't you just love 'em.... and can't you tell I did a psych degree
:roll: :roll: Blue xxx :shock: (certified loon and kinky slapper)
Quote by bluexxx
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
You will notice such structures already forming on SH as we speak. I have already set up the KINKY SLAPPER club. Some members are identified by their flashing KINKY SLAPPER avatars. However, not all kinky slappers are using the said avatar, therefore actually it is imposssible to tell who is and who isn't a kinky slapper. Anyone in any doubt.... a kinky slapper is someone who has shagged or been shagged by my good self 8-) . Members are openly and freely allowed to disclose their kinky slapper status (or not) as they choose. You will also notice a small set of kinky slapper wannabes who are also using various different flashing avatars. These are rougues.... though most are on the list for kinky slapper verification :twisted:
You will also notice that warwick has set up his own forum certification system. The rules are simple. If warwick knows you to be a loon he will certify you and after which you are allowed to post this: :shock: after your name in any post.
This verification stuff can be fun you know.....
Ingroups and outgroups - don't you just love 'em.... and can't you tell I did a psych degree
:roll: :roll: Blue xxx :shock: (certified loon and kinky slapper)
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
blue?
do i take it to mean then that i'm not yet a Kinky Slapper cos we haven't yet consummated our relationship in that way, despite disgustingly pervy goings on at a recent social function, that have been plastered all over the World Wide Web??
please clarify my status re: Kinky Slapper versus Rogue??
many thanks
neil x x x ;)
Quote by bluexxx
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
You will notice such structures already forming on SH as we speak. I have already set up the KINKY SLAPPER club. Some members are identified by their flashing KINKY SLAPPER avatars. However, not all kinky slappers are using the said avatar, therefore actually it is imposssible to tell who is and who isn't a kinky slapper. Anyone in any doubt.... a kinky slapper is someone who has shagged or been shagged by my good self 8-) . Members are openly and freely allowed to disclose their kinky slapper status (or not) as they choose. You will also notice a small set of kinky slapper wannabes who are also using various different flashing avatars. These are rougues.... though most are on the list for kinky slapper verification :twisted:
You will also notice that warwick has set up his own forum certification system. The rules are simple. If warwick knows you to be a loon he will certify you and after which you are allowed to post this: :shock: after your name in any post.
This verification stuff can be fun you know.....
Ingroups and outgroups - don't you just love 'em.... and can't you tell I did a psych degree
:roll: :roll: Blue xxx :shock: (certified loon and kinky slapper) ahh, but what are you going to do when we ALL have one? - apart from me of course, cos that is just in your dreams sweetie!
Sex God
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
blue?
do i take it to mean then that i'm not yet a Kinky Slapper cos we haven't yet consummated our relationship in that way, despite disgustingly pervy goings on at a recent social function, that have been plastered all over the World Wide Web??
please clarify my status re: Kinky Slapper versus Rogue??
many thanks
neil x x x ;)
Well, what's an inch between friends :rotflmao: . I think the law states that penetration however slight counts as shagging..... and as the leader of the kinky slapper club I have the right to change the rules at any time..... and as I have a pic of you very definately giving me head when I was tied to a chair :shock: (and as oral counts, even though I didn't know it was you...... I think that you well and truly can be a member of the kinky slapper club!
8-) 8-) Sex God
Quote by KitKatahh, but what are you going to do when we ALL have one? - apart from me of course, cos that is just in your dreams sweetie!
Blue xxx :shock: (certified loon and kinky slapper)
That's an easy one to answer.... I'll just start preying on naive newbies, and continue to drag 'em in from the photo ads, kicking and screaming....
Quote by HornyBear
by 'self appointed' I meant the initial tranche of + verifications were issued to people by the Ops without permission of those people and clearly in diregard for the declared rules. Some have chosen to retain them and some to reject them. I defend anyone's right to choose either action but its a pity they were not asked to choose in the first place. I did not mean in any way those like Shireen and Judy appointed themselves and apologise if this was the impression given.
Just for the record it was Steve that made that comment, I hate to see people mistake his postings for mine....
Be back later, just off to watch Harry Potter Prisoner of Azkaban
Shireen
Quote by shireen-steve
by 'self appointed' I meant the initial tranche of + verifications were issued to people by the Ops without permission of those people and clearly in diregard for the declared rules. Some have chosen to retain them and some to reject them. I defend anyone's right to choose either action but its a pity they were not asked to choose in the first place. I did not mean in any way those like Shireen and Judy appointed themselves and apologise if this was the impression given.
Just for the record it was Steve that made that comment, I hate to see people mistake his postings for mine....
Be back later, just off to watch Harry Potter Prisoner of Azkaban
Shireen
Hey Shireen
When you gonna put a pic back up? really beginning to miss your belly piercing ;)
Would definitely stop me from mixing you and Steve up ..... ;) ;) although a pic of steve's belly would be welcome too :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Sex God
Quote by dazandlou
i know i said i'd shut up but i have a burning question.............. what happens if someone signs up with a username like +dazandlou??
They can't apparently cos +'s are not allowed in chat room names
Quote by Calista
Hey Shireen
When you gonna put a pic back up? really beginning to miss your belly piercing ;)
Would definitely stop me from mixing you and Steve up ..... ;) ;) although a pic of steve's belly would be welcome too :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
You want to see Steve's belly???..... :shock: :shock: :therethere:
Ok you convinced me... I'll put the belly back up but only because it's gonna stop you and Morbius from mixing with us
Shireen
xxx
ok we've been going round the houses nit-picking and poking holes and going off into vaguer and vaguer territory to try and show just how far reaching the possible implications of +V are. we have hopefully demonstrated by now exactly where the problems lie with +V, in all kinds of practical and theoretical ways.
it's far too late to play the peacemaker now, cos i well understand how some would see me as having an axe to grind, and so might just say pretty much every argument i've made has been an attack on them personally. that could not be further from the truth, but i'm gonna make an open apology to those who i suspect have taken offence. i have put the opinion of those i always got on with on the line to make my case. every single statement i've made has been based on real beliefs, and as far as i can possibly tell, is grounded in fact!
i best apologise now cos i'm about to do it again.
the people who have mainly been continuing this little row, for the last 15 pages or so at least, are largely mods ((( 3 or 4 ))) ex ops ((( 4 or 5 ))) and long standing, well respected, members of this site ((( loads ))) who have between them made massive contributions in terms of time and effort out of love for SH.
i think it's fair to say, without seeming too arrogant, that we truly understand the mechanics of SH, on many levels, because we have seen it from all angles, inside and out. i know that the ops who made this decision understand those same things.
given that that's the case, i have to conclude that those proponents of +V know full well that there are massive problems with this sytem. i also know they know full well what it's possible effect on the site could be. i am forced to question the intention of +V.
i have to conclude then that this is an opping decision, and the benefits of this sytem relate purely to opping SH, to the detriment of the site and it's users.
it has nothing to do with helping newbies as has been stated. it is pure and simple an opping tool, to police the chatroom in some way. that is one of my major concerns. it adds an extra dimension to opping powers, which is unneccessary because ops already have all the necessary tools ((( +R, Akick, Ban, Kick, Warn, Advise ))) and yet it detracts in huge ways from the site itself. it is easy to see why ops might vote for a system that increases their powers.
i'm not even go down the road of suggesting practical applications of +V for ops depending on Channel Mode cos i think that would be seen to be grossly unfair. i'm prepared to risk that though if that's what it takes to protect the fairness of SH.
i also have to conclude that Admin could only be an Op, otherwise the system is completely unworkable, and raises all kinds of questions. that has been consistently denied.
while i understand full well why Admin would wish to remain anonymous, the fact that they have chosen to issue that denial, rather than just remain silent on that particular issue, as they have remained silent on every other issue, calls the integrity of their statements into question. that is deeply regrettable.
after trawling the IRC forums plastered all over the net, to check i fully understand the mechanics of implementing +V, i have to conclude that Admin can only be an Op, and i also have to conclude with some educated guesswork that Admin could only be one of half a dozen or so people. i don't wanna push that button either, cos that too would be seen to be grossly unfair of me.
take off the +V and rethink it, or come here to explain it! please.
neil x x x ;)
it's far too late to play the peacemaker now, cos i well understand how some would see me as having an axe to grind, and so might just say pretty much every argument i've made has been an attack on them personally. that could not be further from the truth, but i'm gonna make an open apology to those who i suspect have taken offence. i have put the opinion of those i always got on with on the line to make my case. every single statement i've made has been based on real beliefs, and as far as i can possibly tell, is grounded in fact!
i best apologise now cos i'm about to do it again.
the people who have mainly been continuing this little row, for the last 15 pages or so at least, are largely mods ((( 3 or 4 ))) ex ops ((( 4 or 5 ))) and long standing, well respected, members of this site ((( loads ))) who have between them made massive contributions in terms of time and effort out of love for SH.
i think it's fair to say, without seeming too arrogant, that we truly understand the mechanics of SH, on many levels, because we have seen it from all angles, inside and out. i know that the ops who made this decision understand those same things.
given that that's the case, i have to conclude that those proponents of +V know full well that there are massive problems with this sytem. i also know they know full well what it's possible effect on the site could be. i am forced to question the intention of +V.
i have to conclude then that this is an opping decision, and the benefits of this sytem relate purely to opping SH, to the detriment of the site and it's users.
it has nothing to do with helping newbies as has been stated. it is pure and simple an opping tool, to police the chatroom in some way. that is one of my major concerns. it adds an extra dimension to opping powers, which is unneccessary because ops already have all the necessary tools ((( +R, Akick, Ban, Kick, Warn, Advise ))) and yet it detracts in huge ways from the site itself. it is easy to see why ops might vote for a system that increases their powers.
i'm not even go down the road of suggesting practical applications of +V for ops depending on Channel Mode cos i think that would be seen to be grossly unfair. i'm prepared to risk that though if that's what it takes to protect the fairness of SH.
i also have to conclude that Admin could only be an Op, otherwise the system is completely unworkable, and raises all kinds of questions. that has been consistently denied.
while i understand full well why Admin would wish to remain anonymous, the fact that they have chosen to issue that denial, rather than just remain silent on that particular issue, as they have remained silent on every other issue, calls the integrity of their statements into question. that is deeply regrettable.
after trawling the IRC forums plastered all over the net, to check i fully understand the mechanics of implementing +V, i have to conclude that Admin can only be an Op, and i also have to conclude with some educated guesswork that Admin could only be one of half a dozen or so people. i don't wanna push that button either, cos that too would be seen to be grossly unfair of me.
take off the +V and rethink it, or come here to explain it! please.
neil x x x ;)
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
i have to conclude that Admin can only be an Op, and i also have to conclude with some educated guesswork that Admin could only be one of half a dozen or so people.
I conluded that after the first OP posted their comments Neil
Being an ex-OP gives you an insight as to how things have come to be, plus it gives you an idea of who suggested it... But like Neil I am keeping quiet on that front....
Shireen
Sex God
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
i also have to conclude that Admin could only be an Op, otherwise the system is completely unworkable, and raises all kinds of questions. that has been consistently denied.
while i understand full well why Admin would wish to remain anonymous, the fact that they have chosen to issue that denial, rather than just remain silent on that particular issue, as they have remained silent on every other issue, calls the integrity of their statements into question. that is deeply regrettable.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the admin can be anyone but an op/ops. I too can understand why the admin would need to be anonymous to users in case they are accused of abusing their position or whatever, but it is also clear to a lot of people that their refusal to answer questions based on their wish to remain anonymous is rubbish. It has already been said that the ops could talk anonymously through the forum mods, or better still by the use of an anonymous forum username. I cannot understand why they have not spoken via this route????
I also wish to openly apologise to the ops who have nothing to do with this situation......
As requested by chatroom users saying the argument needs to be made in chatroom, i have just just consigned myself forever to the chatroom dustbin on your behalf. so shoot me!
just posted in SH chat room. complete deactivation / Kline / Akick for ban evasion now follows! i have just abused my knowledge to evade a chatroom ban. if that gets me permanently banned from SH / forum completely so be it. freely admitted!!!
OPEN LETTER TO SH OPS!
guys please believe me i am not here to have a go at you. i respect some of you immensely. i like some of you personally. i would not be an SH member now were it not for some of you. nor would i have gained anything whatsoever from SH were it not for some of you. i could not have discovered what it is like to like to fuck 6-7 people simultaneously without you. i would have had less love in my life without you. i would not be ***me*** without you. need i go on? do you imagine for one minute i don't know i owe you masses for what i've got from SH?
i would not have chosen to OPUP with you were i not concerned about SH and it's members. i opped up out of love for SH, and it's members. i well remember the debate on +R, and the numerous debates in Ops Channel about how we were gonna keep the room usable for legitimate members. i opped down cos it changed that love, and i wasn't adding anything to the room to achieve those ends, and i didn't much like it. i freely admit i was a bloody shite op, but i like to believe i was a principled one. i threw my reputation, that i painstakingly had to build, away completely when i opped up. i had to rebuild that on forum all over again. the room was never the same again. opping killed it for me. i genuinely respect those who can do it, cos i know full well i couldn't.
but we all know what +V is, and it's uses. i've checked and rechecked my thinking on this again and again. we all know this is an Op tool. that is all it is. please take it down and think again. i could nearly accept +V if it had any kind of positive effect. it doesn't.
i know you know what i know you know! ((( does that make any sense! )))
i don't wanna be seen to be launching something personal, cos i truly ain't. i might have flamed an OP knowing i'd get Akicked. i did that to demonstrate exactly how the kind of language used by Ops on forum could be perceived. i used the same kind of language here, but just made sure *my* comments could be seen to be directed personally. the akick says it's Op Abuse ((( i checked it ok? ))) i was willing to lose the chatroom forever to try and get that message across. i still can only see certain actions as extreme arrogance. there is no place for ego on SH! you have not the right to impose this to make opping easier!!
i have no grudge here. had i not chosen a ban, you and i know i could / would have been +v'ed cos a +v can +v me. in fact several +v's can +v me. but that is not the point! i would reject it absolutely even then. i have lost nothing that i have not rejected out of hand. many users *WILL* lose many things with +V.
please remove +V. it has potential to destroy this site as far as the possibility of newbies learning what i have learned here goes. cliques we do not need. nor should *anyone* use a tool that establishes one! this room is hard enough for newbies. you have just ensured it is now inpenetrable. users have already demonstrated that. take it off!
i don't wanna go into the use of +V in a +M room, cos i believe that to be a disservice to you. i hope noone has that intention. i will use that argument if that's what it takes. and i will name those who i have sussed could possibly be Admin. stop lying to the site. Admin is an Op. why are you denying that? it's easily worked out by god knows how many members who have reached that conclusion.
regards
neil x x x ;)
oooooo btw good akick. sweeping ban on anyone who ID's as mirc on aol dialup? bit sweeping just on my behalf eh? wonder how many that took out? lolol ;)
adios guys i won't try again honest.
just posted in SH chat room. complete deactivation / Kline / Akick for ban evasion now follows! i have just abused my knowledge to evade a chatroom ban. if that gets me permanently banned from SH / forum completely so be it. freely admitted!!!
OPEN LETTER TO SH OPS!
guys please believe me i am not here to have a go at you. i respect some of you immensely. i like some of you personally. i would not be an SH member now were it not for some of you. nor would i have gained anything whatsoever from SH were it not for some of you. i could not have discovered what it is like to like to fuck 6-7 people simultaneously without you. i would have had less love in my life without you. i would not be ***me*** without you. need i go on? do you imagine for one minute i don't know i owe you masses for what i've got from SH?
i would not have chosen to OPUP with you were i not concerned about SH and it's members. i opped up out of love for SH, and it's members. i well remember the debate on +R, and the numerous debates in Ops Channel about how we were gonna keep the room usable for legitimate members. i opped down cos it changed that love, and i wasn't adding anything to the room to achieve those ends, and i didn't much like it. i freely admit i was a bloody shite op, but i like to believe i was a principled one. i threw my reputation, that i painstakingly had to build, away completely when i opped up. i had to rebuild that on forum all over again. the room was never the same again. opping killed it for me. i genuinely respect those who can do it, cos i know full well i couldn't.
but we all know what +V is, and it's uses. i've checked and rechecked my thinking on this again and again. we all know this is an Op tool. that is all it is. please take it down and think again. i could nearly accept +V if it had any kind of positive effect. it doesn't.
i know you know what i know you know! ((( does that make any sense! )))
i don't wanna be seen to be launching something personal, cos i truly ain't. i might have flamed an OP knowing i'd get Akicked. i did that to demonstrate exactly how the kind of language used by Ops on forum could be perceived. i used the same kind of language here, but just made sure *my* comments could be seen to be directed personally. the akick says it's Op Abuse ((( i checked it ok? ))) i was willing to lose the chatroom forever to try and get that message across. i still can only see certain actions as extreme arrogance. there is no place for ego on SH! you have not the right to impose this to make opping easier!!
i have no grudge here. had i not chosen a ban, you and i know i could / would have been +v'ed cos a +v can +v me. in fact several +v's can +v me. but that is not the point! i would reject it absolutely even then. i have lost nothing that i have not rejected out of hand. many users *WILL* lose many things with +V.
please remove +V. it has potential to destroy this site as far as the possibility of newbies learning what i have learned here goes. cliques we do not need. nor should *anyone* use a tool that establishes one! this room is hard enough for newbies. you have just ensured it is now inpenetrable. users have already demonstrated that. take it off!
i don't wanna go into the use of +V in a +M room, cos i believe that to be a disservice to you. i hope noone has that intention. i will use that argument if that's what it takes. and i will name those who i have sussed could possibly be Admin. stop lying to the site. Admin is an Op. why are you denying that? it's easily worked out by god knows how many members who have reached that conclusion.
regards
neil x x x ;)
oooooo btw good akick. sweeping ban on anyone who ID's as mirc on aol dialup? bit sweeping just on my behalf eh? wonder how many that took out? lolol ;)
adios guys i won't try again honest.
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
i freely admit i was a bloody shite op, but i like to believe i was a principled one. i threw my reputation, that i painstakingly had to build, away completely when i opped up. i had to rebuild that on forum all over again. the room was never the same again. opping killed it for me. i genuinely respect those who can do it, cos i know full well i couldn't.
I can relate to this having been in Neil's position.... I would like to think both Steve and I were good fair OP's but the "clique" within the OP's did not enable us to "fit in"... Now I am sure that there will be people that would disagree with that comment but it is water under the bridge and therefore not worthy of any comments....
However, Neil is right... Because we care so much about the site the people that accept OP status have to leave their reputation behind and once their opping days are over you have to re-build it again....
Neil I wholeheartedly agree with your posting and stand beside you 100%
Shireen
xxx
For me personally I have never been able to enjoy the chatroom again knowing what I do..... And to re-iterate Fred's (aka Medic1) comment about not being spoken to, when I do go into the chatroom these days with my unknown nick people do not talk to me like they used to, either pre OP status or as an OP...
OPS . . .
how much further down this line do you want us to go?
ADMIN HAS TO BE AN OP!
quite a few of us with an ounce of intelligence have worked that out by the arguments on this thread!
ADMIN IS NOT . . . .
Mark . . . too open to abuse . . he'd never do it!
Steve_d / Debs_uk . . . likewise . . IRCops . . too much power to abuse!
Steve_g . . . i sincerely hope i know him better than that!
it ain't Level 8! that won't work! i checked that for 2 days to make sure! i trawled IRC sites to work that out, and most of you are out! it takes level 10!
ADMIN IS . . . .
i ain't feckin' saying ok! but there ain't that many names left!
kill it! what do you want me to do?
the cannon i have to shoot you down is here! i *** do not *** wanna load that particular gun, but i have the bullets in my hand ok? naming names out of 4 or 5 of you to prove you lied. +V in +M. if you don't want the mere suggestion of it kill +V! :mad:
n x x x
how much further down this line do you want us to go?
ADMIN HAS TO BE AN OP!
quite a few of us with an ounce of intelligence have worked that out by the arguments on this thread!
ADMIN IS NOT . . . .
Mark . . . too open to abuse . . he'd never do it!
Steve_d / Debs_uk . . . likewise . . IRCops . . too much power to abuse!
Steve_g . . . i sincerely hope i know him better than that!
it ain't Level 8! that won't work! i checked that for 2 days to make sure! i trawled IRC sites to work that out, and most of you are out! it takes level 10!
ADMIN IS . . . .
i ain't feckin' saying ok! but there ain't that many names left!
kill it! what do you want me to do?
the cannon i have to shoot you down is here! i *** do not *** wanna load that particular gun, but i have the bullets in my hand ok? naming names out of 4 or 5 of you to prove you lied. +V in +M. if you don't want the mere suggestion of it kill +V! :mad:
n x x x
For one reason or another I've hardly been on line this week but after being in the chatroom tonight the one thing I can say for sure is that on the whole the chatroom users don't seem to be having a problem with this. It's a trial and in the chatroom the trial is going pretty much as expected.
Neilinleeds, you seem to be on some kind of personal crusade. You've been on the site, you've flounced, you've been back on the site, you've left again, you're now back again. Make your mind up mate, nothing personal but how are people supposed to take you seriously??
You know as well as anyone that going into the chatroom and trying to copy and paste an essay into the main room is only going to result in one outcome, you're going to get kicked out. It's not the first time you've done it but for some reason you think it's a good idea to evade the previous ban and do the same thing again. Go figure?
For the record I was one of the people that wasn't keen on seeing this introduced but after some thought I agreed to give it a trial. I'm still waiting to see the results of that trial but at the moment the chatroom users seem quite happy with it.
What I can't understand is why somebody that has left the site keeps coming back to try by whatever means at his disposal to try to discredit everything that other people are trying to do? How many ways do you want de-activating/banning before you get the message that this site isn't about you? It's about the people that use it.
Steve
Neilinleeds, you seem to be on some kind of personal crusade. You've been on the site, you've flounced, you've been back on the site, you've left again, you're now back again. Make your mind up mate, nothing personal but how are people supposed to take you seriously??
You know as well as anyone that going into the chatroom and trying to copy and paste an essay into the main room is only going to result in one outcome, you're going to get kicked out. It's not the first time you've done it but for some reason you think it's a good idea to evade the previous ban and do the same thing again. Go figure?
For the record I was one of the people that wasn't keen on seeing this introduced but after some thought I agreed to give it a trial. I'm still waiting to see the results of that trial but at the moment the chatroom users seem quite happy with it.
What I can't understand is why somebody that has left the site keeps coming back to try by whatever means at his disposal to try to discredit everything that other people are trying to do? How many ways do you want de-activating/banning before you get the message that this site isn't about you? It's about the people that use it.
Steve
Quote by HornyBear
I am happy to rewind the brain and correct any misunderstandings so...
by 'self appointed' I meant the initial tranche of + verifications were issued to people by the Ops without permission of those people and clearly in diregard for the declared rules. Some have chosen to retain them and some to reject them. I defend anyone's right to choose either action but its a pity they were not asked to choose in the first place. I did not mean in any way those like Shireen and Judy appointed themselves and apologise if this was the impression given. I was solely referring to the fact that people were 'appointed' as + holders to start the system off. (The increasingly cynical part of me says it was to show how successful it is rather than rely on people coming forward progressively under the declared rules). I would have been prepared to grant some credibility to a system that relies on itself for success rather than have it kick started outside of the rules.
Talking of which I see some people are now saying it is not necessary to have shagged someone simply to have met 'with the intention'. Heelllooo? Goal post moving again? As we are all on here to 'swing / play/ whatever surely we all meet to see if we can play / swing? so why the need to have that?
Remove the need to show you shagged a + holder (or intended to!) and use the system to kick out timewasters and I will happily and openly support it.
Anyone else agree with that idea? (Given any system is open to abuse!)
Chris
Understand u on the self appointed bit now....
The system you speak of later in your post is almost identical to the one I have mentioned several times during this thread...
People were verified by meeting someone else.....No shaggin had to take place and the meeting could have been purely for a drink as long as everyone turned out to be who they siaid they were then all was ok....
A much more workable system if you ask me.....
Hi Steve,
Read back through the thread and you will see a lot more of us than Neal have posted. Maybe he has come and gone, he has also (as have others) raised some good points. This thread is the culmination of a lot of worries about the precedents and principles of what is being done in the name of SH. Not just the chatroom and use of the voice command. It is the concept of non players not being welcome, as a 'non player' myself I must say I am worried by this.
Maybe those in the chatroom are happy, how many are not there who are unhappy?
TnH
Read back through the thread and you will see a lot more of us than Neal have posted. Maybe he has come and gone, he has also (as have others) raised some good points. This thread is the culmination of a lot of worries about the precedents and principles of what is being done in the name of SH. Not just the chatroom and use of the voice command. It is the concept of non players not being welcome, as a 'non player' myself I must say I am worried by this.
Maybe those in the chatroom are happy, how many are not there who are unhappy?
TnH
Quote by Calista
by 'self appointed' I meant the initial tranche of + verifications were issued to people by the Ops without permission of those people and clearly in diregard for the declared rules. Some have chosen to retain them and some to reject them. I defend anyone's right to choose either action but its a pity they were not asked to choose in the first place. I did not mean in any way those like Shireen and Judy appointed themselves and apologise if this was the impression given.
Just for the record it was Steve that made that comment, I hate to see people mistake his postings for mine....
Be back later, just off to watch Harry Potter Prisoner of Azkaban
Shireen
Hey Shireen
When you gonna put a pic back up? really beginning to miss your belly piercing ;)
Would definitely stop me from mixing you and Steve up ..... ;) ;) although a pic of steve's belly would be welcome too :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
The limitations on avatar size forbid it :cry:
i could get a pic of my todger in but its against AUP tho...... :wink:
Sexpert
was just in the chatroom asking a few shall we say" hard" quetions bout all this + thing
got told to STFU
WELL.......THERE U GO
got told to STFU
WELL.......THERE U GO
Quote by secksy_cpl
was just in the chatroom asking a few shall we say" hard" quetions bout all this + thing
got told to STFU
WELL.......THERE U GO
Free speech obviously... don't discuss here as you out of touch, don't discuss there as you annoying people looking for a shag with petty questions about your rights and what you think...
steve
i hope people take me seriously because every single argument i have made can be seen by anyone who actually reads the thread to be a serious, well thought out one, that is based in fact, and real belief that this changes everything the site has previously been about!
dismissing me as a flouncer is no argument! i have come back cos this is wrong! all my posts are on this thread, not cos i need to come back, cos i simply don't? the site has served it's purpose for me. for that i am immensely grateful! that the purpose of the site as i see it could be denied to others is my concern, pure and simple? how many times do i need to say that? you and i both know what +V does!
yes steve i know damn well posting an essay into channel will get me akicked. i did it before knowing that and requested it. i did it again knowing full well that ban evasion will likely result in an attempt to Kline me. i do not care about my status as a site member over this, but i do care about the status of other site members who do not know what i know, and most likely never will given the implications of +V?
i know that! and knowing that i fully took a full deactivation from this site upon myself, not cos of a personal crusade, or because i have a personal axe to grind, as my arguments make clear, but out of real passion that this is simply arguments are the same as many on this thread? you cannt dismiss them quite so easily?
maybe you'd like to use the same argument against the mods who have been flamed on this very thread? i ain't the only one on this thread to say what i've had to say?. in fact i've made about 25 posts out of 700'ish? it is wrong steve! and if you don't know that i have no personal axe to grind then i . . . well . . . i simply dunno? we opped together? we have done munches together? you know me to be gen? so all my arguments are suddenly false?
would you like to dismiss the entire thread or can ***all*** of us raising the same issues to protect what we believe to be the ethos of SH have some answers?
deactivate away?
n x x x ;)
i hope people take me seriously because every single argument i have made can be seen by anyone who actually reads the thread to be a serious, well thought out one, that is based in fact, and real belief that this changes everything the site has previously been about!
dismissing me as a flouncer is no argument! i have come back cos this is wrong! all my posts are on this thread, not cos i need to come back, cos i simply don't? the site has served it's purpose for me. for that i am immensely grateful! that the purpose of the site as i see it could be denied to others is my concern, pure and simple? how many times do i need to say that? you and i both know what +V does!
yes steve i know damn well posting an essay into channel will get me akicked. i did it before knowing that and requested it. i did it again knowing full well that ban evasion will likely result in an attempt to Kline me. i do not care about my status as a site member over this, but i do care about the status of other site members who do not know what i know, and most likely never will given the implications of +V?
i know that! and knowing that i fully took a full deactivation from this site upon myself, not cos of a personal crusade, or because i have a personal axe to grind, as my arguments make clear, but out of real passion that this is simply arguments are the same as many on this thread? you cannt dismiss them quite so easily?
maybe you'd like to use the same argument against the mods who have been flamed on this very thread? i ain't the only one on this thread to say what i've had to say?. in fact i've made about 25 posts out of 700'ish? it is wrong steve! and if you don't know that i have no personal axe to grind then i . . . well . . . i simply dunno? we opped together? we have done munches together? you know me to be gen? so all my arguments are suddenly false?
would you like to dismiss the entire thread or can ***all*** of us raising the same issues to protect what we believe to be the ethos of SH have some answers?
deactivate away?
n x x x ;)
Quote by Steve_D
and how many times must we say
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS EMAIL THE SCHEME ADMIN
Why cant the scheme admin debate this in the open forum the cafe provides? Not one to one emails, but simple in public debate. You telling me the scheme admin has no idea of this thread, or is it that it so big. It big because they wont come and discuss it.
The +V from my side is not the issue, it is this concept of an active swinger that really gets my goat. Who is anyone else to poke into my sex life? Genuine person yes, active swinger, take a hike it NONE of your business...
