Verification

20 Nov 2004

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.
...
It's already been explained why the scheme admin has to remain anonymous.
Steve
No explanation has been given, an excuse has, but no explanation. The site mods have offered to post for them, or a 'Scheme Admin' account could be created without any hassle. The simple conclusion I have come to is the 'Scheme Admin' couldn't give a sh*t about our opinions. As was stated in some previous responses, we are 'only' forum users.
Well I was a chatroom user, other chatroom users have posted in here that they not allowed to discuss this in the chatroom, and since the god of an 'admin' wont talk to them here they will have to accept it, or email an address and hope they get a reply.
Yes I may sound bitter, I am. As I said I personally most worried about this concept of players, it is wrong, and makes me feel like a second class member of SH (not just your chatroom). The chatroom and SH are linked, to me it is like the photo adds and the forums. You just another tab on the site, a tab I now not as welcome at.
Maybe now you see why some of us put in such a complaint, and how this hit 41 pages. Is the definition of Player V Genuine so important to this 'Admin' or the ops there? Are social, voyeuristic, or non physical swingers that unwelcome?

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Steve_D
steve
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?
n x x x ;)

Ok neil, what exactly ARE the implications of +v (that only you know)
Steve
steve you know damn well what a +V in a +M room can do? do you wanna post it or shall i?
you also know damn well that this is purely an opping decision? do you wanna post why that is or shall i?
you also know damn well what the dynamics of this site are? i've already posted them? you have flamed? what does that say?
at least we have now got a response, which is all god knows how many of us have asked of you for 30 odd pages?
you know damn well anyone can discover exactly how to op a chatroom, and how +V might assist that, by doing a simple search on google?
perhaps you'd now like to summarise your argument in ops channel over +V before you bin me completely?
neil x x x ;)

20 Nov 2004

i've thought long and hard about what follows on this post, cos i've been very, very reluctant to fire this particular bullet. i want to make it clear i am not suggesting that what follows is the intention of anyone here! but it's been asked by ops, so now i'll tell you!
let me say that again . . a bit louder . .
i am ***NOT*** suggesting ***for one minute*** that what follows is the intention of anyone here!
i am merely stating that what follows exists in possibility.
technical shit first. . .
your status as a "Verified Genuine Swinger" is being denoted using the Voice command. ((( +V )))
when you enter the room to find a + beside your nick, you are being Auto-Voiced from a database. that is to say, the Voice command is being run automatically from a database that assigns +V to a "Verified Genuine Swinger"
Practical application of +V ((( Voice ))) in +M ((( Moderated ))) chatrooms
It is possible to set the SH chatroom Channel Mode to +M ((( Moderated ))) at present it is not.
with a +M channel mode, only those with a +V can speak in channel. hence Voice.
with a big enough database of +V users, it is feasible to reduce the chatroom to "Verified Genuine Swinger" with a simple tweak of Channel Mode to +M
other users can still log in and watch the room, but they cannot contribute to it.
in order for them to contribute they would have to have +V ((( Voice )) awarded.
chatroom verification can only be assigned on recommendation by another +V user. i.e. an existing +V member would have to apply on your behalf to have you assigned +V status before you could contribute to the room.
now let me say it again . . .
i am ***NOT*** suggesting ***for one minute*** that what follows is the intention of anyone here!
but the mere possibility that such a course of action would actually be feasible at some point, and ***could*** be contemplated, is IMO more than adequate reason to kill this.
i await a deconstruction of why my argument is technically inaccurate. i believe it is possible, given a fair amount of research.
neil x x x ;)

20 Nov 2004

Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
but the mere possibility that such a course of action would actually be feasible at some point, and ***could*** be contemplated, is IMO more than adequate reason to kill this.
neil x x x ;)

/Venus enters half cocked and completely ignorant about the chatroom, techs, or what happened after page ten
Why? There are all kinds of ways Admins (which I do know a little about) and Ops (which I know sod all about) could abuse thier positions. If we headed each possibilty off at the pass, we`d have no PM system (for example). Obviously this verification is under much scrutiny, even just the trial. As such I`m pretty sure the kind of abuse scenario you suggest (albeit theoretically) would never be allowed to take off.
Perhaps a little faith in humanity?
Venusxxx

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Steve_D
+m (and it's m not M) is a useful tool if the channel gets hit by a flooder. This has only happened once since I've been opping SH. And that was tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psssst - What's a flooder?? :shock: confused

:? :? :?

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Sgt Bilko
+m (and it's m not M) is a useful tool if the channel gets hit by a flooder. This has only happened once since I've been opping SH. And that was tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psssst - What's a flooder?? :shock: confused

:? :? :?
Possibly something I might acheive if Mars gets his way tonight! :twisted:
I`m off to bed! :bounce:
Nite all :mrgreen:
Venusxxx

20 Nov 2004

Quote by VenusnMars
Possibly something I might acheive if Mars gets his way tonight! :twisted:
I`m off to bed! :bounce:

Ah!!! So it's a water bed!! confused

:? :? :?

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Steve_D
+m (and it's m not M) is a useful tool if the channel gets hit by a flooder. This has only happened once since I've been opping SH. And that was tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psssst - What's a flooder?? :shock: confused

:? :? :?
It's someone (usually young and frustrated) that posts loads (and I mean loads) of irrelevant crap with the sole intention of disrupting the room sarge.
Steve
FFS!!! We've got a Forum full of them !!!
:shock: lol

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Steve_D
i've thought long and hard about what follows on this post, cos i've been very, very reluctant to fire this particular bullet. i want to make it clear i am not suggesting that what follows is the intention of anyone here! but it's been asked by ops, so now i'll tell you!
let me say that again . . a bit louder . .
neil x x x ;)

It's also possible to Akick *!*@* (effectively everyone) wtf would we do that for???
you akicked every single user that might ever ID as mirc on aol dial up? just so you could silence me in chat? i checked the akick? a little OTT surely? you and i know that . . . well opping secrets so best not go there? i evaded that ban anyways so it's imposition as you know was pretty pointless, yet kept people out of the room in theory. i know you know that steve? you didn't get IRCop for nowt??
Neil, you are reading too much into this.
i may well be reading too much into things, cos we have had no answers till you were provoked. heavy handedness ain't me, but i'll do it if that's what it takes? and loads of us had to progressively force your hand? do you think we enjoyed that? i have had the respect of some users tarnished forever to get this far? that doesn't make me at all happy steve? fortunately some of those i respect know my true intention, and respect me still! i put that on the line to get you here!
It's use in SH is purely a way of adding (pun intended) something to a nick.
steve i think it's been established that it adds nowt. and it puts the entire membership under threat? and it prevents in some way further addition to the membership by serving to exclude?
This has already been explained a looooooooooooong way up this thread.
no it hasn't? we have been dismissed and flamed! all we asked for was your presence and a clear exoplanation?
+m (and it's m not M) is a useful tool if the channel gets hit by a flooder. This has only happened once since I've been opping SH. And that was tonight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it took me flooding the room to get you into the thread? so in that regard, my akick was useful for many members?
Steve
steve?
we ain't debating technicalities really? we are debating principle? there are 30 odd pages of reasons why +V has huge implications not only for users, be they newbie or not, but for the entire existence of the site?
is it really worth jeopardising everything *we* as members ((( forgive the arrogance there, i happen to believe this site *is* it's members! )) for the sake of an opping tool?
that is what we are arguing about? i am ***genuinely*** glad we now have ops in this thread to debate this? that is all we have asked for for 30 odd pages? that ops who voted for this explain their reasoning?
and please believe me, cos i can't keep saying this, i am ***not*** engaged in a flame war cos of a personal axe i have to grind! i don't give a flying one about my SH status, which is why i feel free enough to make arguments on behalf of those who do care about there status, and tell me off site that they are afraid their status will be jeopardised?
steve our only intention was explanation, which has not been forthcoming. we have pointed out fundamental flaws in this to provoke that explanation admittedly, but at least you are now here?
and again i will ******genuinely****** apologise to *****anyone***** who thinks my intention was to flame them. i have met the vast majority of you IRL, and that is not something i would seek to do. i truly hope you realise that! i really, sincerely, genuinely, in absolute honesty, hope you realise that!
n x x x ;)

20 Nov 2004

ok steve, so you had your own objections to start with but must have found reasons to change your mind?
that's pretty much all we've been after. with all the objections, what compelling reason is there for +V.
neil x x x

20 Nov 2004

A step into the near future follows :-
(1)the first "Plus Munch" will be ?????
Only those with a verified nick allowed
(2)the first "None-Plus Munch" will be ?????
Only those not verified allowed.
And dont say it can't or won't happen cos we all know it can and more than likely will.
Fred (aka medic1)

20 Nov 2004

Yes, there are commands which ops could use to do nasty things relating to +V. There are also commands which the ops could use to automatically give op powers anyone with an 's' in their name, or to automatically file transfer the complete works of Leo Tolstoy to anyone using mirc at 2pm on a Wednesday. The fact that such powers exist does not mean that they will be used in #swingingheaven.
The specific command that Neil is thinking of would mean that the only thing non + people could do to be heard is to PVT people without asking, which makes it about as useful in the context of a channel with a no pvts rule as a chocolate teapot.

20 Nov 2004

Why have a +Munch and a non +Munch if attendance to a munch doesn't improve your status one iota????????????
If it did happen, I would not go for the simple reason that it's separatist and divisive by it's definition. We are a community here and the intention is to verify as many people as possible - who want to be verified - as GENUINE PEOPLE so that we can have our parties, munches etc secure in the knowledge that the people attending are known and trusted by each other. Is that such a bad thing?
There are already too many paranoid, conspiracy theorists in this world already - why bring it in here?
Wishmaster.

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Fred

A step into the near future follows :-
(1) the first "Plus Munch" will be ?????
Only those with a verified nick allowed
(2) the first "None-Plus Munch" will be ?????
Only those not verified allowed.
And dont say it can't or won't happen cos we all know it can and more than likely will.
Fred (aka medic1)

As munches are for EVERYONE on SH if someone did decide to set one up under the above type of system we would not allow it to be advertised on the forum cool

8-) 8-) ... not as a "Munch" anyway.... they would have to think of another name rolleyes

However, I can see where you're going with this Fred. And yes, I can see this sort of division happening too. It is human nature that once groups are formed people run with them.... as artificial as the plus vs non plus ones are they are still groups, denoted by the + sign (or not).... psychologically the same as team colours, flags, etc etc..... once a symbol is in place it signifies something..... if it doesn't the system is not a system anyway.... so assuming we have groups denoted by + and non +, we have two opposing groups........ people within those groups will see themselves as "us" and those in the other group as "them". There is no way around this. It is basic Psych 101. You cannot get around the formation of "them" and "us" in situations like this, but you can change what "them and "us" means. If + meant "genuine" rather than"player" I can guarantee that people would have more faith in it and would be prepared to give it a chance. I say yet again.... could the creators of this system please come forward and say why the" player" status is necessary in the good running of this system?
Round and round and round we go again..... but hey ho.... I have all the time in the world and I ain't going anywhere..... I don't flounce..... therefore no-one can discredit my arguements in that way 8-) 8-) 8-)
And yes, people might be appearing to accept it in the room, but that is only cos they are not allowed to mention it and if they do they get booted! confused

They come on here instead and join this thread! lol

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
to automatically file transfer the complete works of Leo Tolstoy to anyone using mirc at 2pm on a Wednesday.

Sarge checks hiis diary. :shock: :shock:
Wednesday
1pm - Teaching WBB the 24 hour clock
2pm - Inspecting GFZ.
3pm - Using mirc.
Phew!!! That was a close thing!! :shock: confused

:? :? :? :? :?

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Steve_D
There is no "conspiracy" theory

I have two questions.........
1). Was it the Mafia or the CIA that shot Kennedy?
2). If the second gunman was on the grassy Knoll, where was the third?

20 Nov 2004

Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
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?

I am staggered beyond belief here!
I've got visions on Neil on a white charger, shiny suit of armour, galloping out of the mists at the last minute to save us stupid townsfolk from the big bad sheriff of Nottingham!.... To even think that you can speak for all of us coz we're too stupid to do it ourselves is conceited, to publicly infer it is downright fucking arrogant!
Wishmaster.

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Wishmaster
galloping out of the mists at the last minute to save us stupid townsfolk from the big bad sheriff of Nottingham!....

So, are you saying that the admin people live in Nottingham? Well, that's a start I suppose! rotflmao

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Steve_D
I have absolutely nothing to add to the +v argument above what I said earler. The only reason I responded to this was because I couldn't let your (once again) lack of knowledge of IRC go unchallenged.
+v is explained on the info page, we have explained why the scheme admin is not posting here, we have given an email addy that the scheme admin can be contacted on.
I really have no idea why you, and others who never use the chatroom want to stir this up.
Steve

No one has really responded to the +V argument, there has been no 'real' explanation of why this god like admin cant reply to us in here, but needs us to email them. Posting in here is bloody anonymous, that's the idea, that's why we have nicks and don't use our RL names rolleyes

As to why those who never use the chatroom keep attacking this idea, try reading this thread, try reading what I have posted rather than just focusing on a character assassination of Neal. Try reading the comments of chatroom users, and stop stifling debate with your we wont discuss in here, or the chatroom, only by email.
As for this wont create an as and them environment comments that have been made. It already has with all this:

'I really have no idea why you, and others who never use the chatroom want to stir this up.'

Comment...
Are we not all users of SH? Are we not all prospective (and some even current) users of 'your' chatroom? Do we have no right to free open debate about ideas?
If this all conspiracy theory and rumour (and it doesn't seem to be, peoples objections range from the +v system entirely, to your definition of a swinger) then get in here, debate it, and sort it out. You can't act arbitrarily and expect everyones support. You say this is a trial, where is the user input into this trial? Oh yes, all behind closed doors, email only, to an anonymous person who then tells us what we said, and where we are going...
This has been mishandled, so far you and other chatroom users seem to be the only one's who have been abusive. Where you have attacked persons, we have attacked concepts, and raised fears that we have. Now is it really that wrong for us to do that, or should we fall into personal insults? I feel the wrong here is not openly debating this, not having a transparent system, and not running this trial with an open thread to discuss it before it went live. Acting as a place to track responses good and bad to your idea?
Then you go live with a system people know about, have had input into, and take the community with you. It is Marks site, he can close it in a second, I have the greatest of respect for Mark, Ops, and Mods, but work with the community you created. 99.9% of the time we seem to do this well, in this case I am not so sure.
How do I come to this decision, because 'I' as a regular forum and occasionally chatroom user am left nervous and unhappy. None of your posts have made me feel confident in this system, or its administration. It flies in the face of a free open community swinging is supposed to embody, due to the anonymity of its admins and their refusal to public debate.

20 Nov 2004

It has been an interesting and open debate, which I`m sure has attracted non-chatroom users as a result.
If it was kept a friendly debate, then none of this `you don`t even use the room` resentment would have crept in.
Still, it hit over 30 pages before getting nasty, I suppose that`s a SH record in itself!
Time for another commercial break:
Anyone seen my cat?! wink

Venusxxx

20 Nov 2004

Previous post below. Following posts by the Ops and re-reading this it is inaccurate, and does not reflect what I meant to say. I have withdrawn it in a later post. For tidyness putting this comment in for anyone reading through.

Venus it did't get 'nasty' as the chatroom admins wouldn't even debate it initially, our good Mark did, but no one in the first 4 pages (skimmed through) has been from the chatroom ops. When we started getting replies, they were along the lines of Us and Them.

20 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
galloping out of the mists at the last minute to save us stupid townsfolk from the big bad sheriff of Nottingham!....

So, are you saying that the admin people live in Nottingham? Well, that's a start I suppose! rotflmao

Well, Wishmaster... you seem to know an awful lot about this system, so maybe you know more than you are letting on. Maybe YOU would like to answer the questions that have been posed throughout this thread?
I'm not a mod in the forum nor an OP in the chat room. The implementation of this system has nothing to do with me but I can understand why people are both for and against the system. I have expressed my position earlier in this thread about my understanding of this system but it does seem that some people are keeping this thread alive because they belong to the 'conspiracy theorists' camp and see bad in everything. The system works just fine and if Neil hadn't flooded the chat room in a petulant display of temper he wouldn't have been banned and he would have been able to log in and see it working for himself.
Yes the OPs have additional power under this new system, but they had power they could have used b4 and didn't so why do some people think that they have become control-crazy now. They are nice people, I've met a few of them and I'm sure that they are hurt by some of the accusations that have been levelled at them by some of the more vociferous postings on this thread. I guess even the OPs have a new understanding of who their friends are now - and it's a real shame that friendships have been irretrievably broken because of this.
Wishmaster.

20 Nov 2004

Quote by tallnhairy
Venus it did't get 'nasty' as the chatroom admins wouldn't even debate it initially, our good Mark did, but no one in the first 4 pages (skimmed through) has been from the chatroom ops. When we started getting replies, they were along the lines of Us and Them.

FYI
Steveg_NW, Jon_TJ and myself are chat room ops, and we DID post within the first four pages.
Ian

20 Nov 2004

Quote by tallnhairy
Venus it did't get 'nasty' as the chatroom admins wouldn't even debate it initially, our good Mark did, but no one in the first 4 pages (skimmed through) has been from the chatroom ops. When we started getting replies, they were along the lines of Us and Them.

Ok, I`ll take that on board.....primarily because I was just picking up on the tone of the last couple of pages, and I am not in a position to know any better, I can`t be arsed to dissect the entire thead to see if you are right or not.
You probably are biggrin

Venusxxx

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Ian_Mids
Venus it did't get 'nasty' as the chatroom admins wouldn't even debate it initially, our good Mark did, but no one in the first 4 pages (skimmed through) has been from the chatroom ops. When we started getting replies, they were along the lines of Us and Them.

FYI
Steveg_NW, Jon_TJ and myself are chat room ops, and we DID post within the first four pages.
Ian
Or are not...
Anyone for tennis? lol

Venusxxx

20 Nov 2004

Quote by Ian_Mids
Venus it did't get 'nasty' as the chatroom admins wouldn't even debate it initially, our good Mark did, but no one in the first 4 pages (skimmed through) has been from the chatroom ops. When we started getting replies, they were along the lines of Us and Them.

FYI
Steveg_NW, Jon_TJ and myself are chat room ops, and we DID post within the first four pages.
Ian
Yes, in all fairness to the ops, several ops did comment very early on in this thread, and their opinions have always been acknowledged. We know that not all of the ops are admin. It is only certain ops that have come on and been shitty, and it is the ADMIN who should answer the questions posed within this thread.

20 Nov 2004

I've been following this post but not replys and all i ca really come up with
FFS
to be honest i'm don't give a toss if ive got + next to my name or not. i'll chat to anyone in the room regadless of there status. and the end of the day is a Chatroom if everyone chats and enjoys themslef whats the problem.
JGL
Ps Nice to see your back Neil. its not as easy to leave as it looks!!!!

20 Nov 2004

Please can anyone explain to me why I would want a + beside my name?

20 Nov 2004

Quote by JQL
Please can anyone explain to me why I would want a + beside my name?

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
So you get more shags and so everyone knows that you're a player...........
That's it really - maybe :confused:

20 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
Please can anyone explain to me why I would want a + beside my name?

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
So you get more shags and so everyone knows that you're a player...........
That's it really - maybe :confused:
I'm still not quite clear on how it protects females on Fri/Sat after the pubs close and how it particularly helps newbies (esp single females).
but then again i only use the chatroom rarely and it's been made clear that my opinion is worth feck all so why am I worried????
All this could have been cleared up pages and pages ago if the admin person had addressed all the concerns ... I'm sure that it's a damn sight easier to address everyone in one go than receive a load of emails asking the same thing ....
but then I forgot that the chatroom people who rarely use the forum aren't happy about mass broadcasts and would prefer we just all pm one another!!!!
I apologise if this post sounds sour ..... I'm just sick and tired of playground mentality .. we're all adults and therefore capable and having opinions and concerns and expecting them to be addressed in an adult manner.