Right hot dogs anyone!......you must be all starving in here
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Verification
Quote by Mister_Discreet
So I take it that those that have been genuine swingers, but no longer swing and still enjoy the social side, are not welcome in the chatroom.
No, you are jumping to conclusions there.
If the system works as it is intended, then you'll actually be better off, since you won't have a +, new people should not pester you for meets, and you can get on with chatting to your friends.
The chatroom does have a rule that says "Keep on topic. This is an adult chat room where people come to talk about swinging, dogging and activities of a sexual nature. If you wish to discuss the latest episode of "Bore the Nation Street" or "Bellenders" or even the best exhaust to fit to a 1997 Nova then either take it into a private conversation or find a more suitable chat room. This does not mean of course that we do not encourage general chat in the room - we just prefer it not to be dominated by chat from other interest areas." but that has been in place for ages, and I've only seen it invoked very rarely and gently by the ops when a few people are taking up most of the chat discussing something that everyone else is unlikley to beinterested in.
Totally agree with you about the explanation. But the quote you used was taken from an above quote that said that if you weren't an active swinger then you shouldn't be in the chat room. If you re-read the part of the thread that started with TJ you will see what was asked.
The explanation you gave was what I believed the chatroom was for. However, this seems to have changed. If it hasn't, then somebody should clarify what it is
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dawn_Mids
It's never gonna happen Dawn:x
To maintain the integrity of the site something must happen Steve
Dawn
I know it and you know it and by the size of this thread many others know it as well..
Its just whether the ones behind it give a stuff....
Integrity is something that was lacking in the first bout of verifications so there are no promises it will be displayed at a later date..
Quote by Dave__Notts
Totally agree with you about the explanation. But the quote you used was taken from an above quote that said that if you weren't an active swinger then you shouldn't be in the chat room. If you re-read the part of the thread that started with TJ you will see what was asked.
The explanation you gave was what I believed the chatroom was for. However, this seems to have changed. If it hasn't, then somebody should clarify what it is.
Thanks. I'm not the right person to the answer to TJ's question, which is why I replied to that specific quote.
I'm going to open a can of worms here, but I hope it will close itself... One solution to the newbie issue would be splitting the chatroom in two, in the same way that 'the cafe' and 'let's meet up' are split. However, even if the technical problems involved in multi-channel java chat were solved, and the extra op work was taken on by suitable volunteers, the 'let's meet up' room would be doomed to failure, since so little actual meeting up goes on in the current channel that no-one would stay there very long. This means that there has to be some sort of balance between cafe and meet-up style chat going on in the current single channel, which I feel isn't a problem given the gentle way the ops are enforcing that particular rule.
Quote by Dawn_Mids
Ok so we now have several OPs, ex-OPs, OPs wives, Mods who are all chatroom users and 'normal' users all objecting to this verification and asking for it to be stopped. But still there is no comment frm adminnot even anonymously.
It is now causing personal insult and in my opinion, is getting way out of control. This is a website where we all come here for fun and excitment.
So please can we have the answers we deserve from admin ?
Dawn
I've just checked my sent box and I sent mails to the Admin - as requested - on Thurs at and Saturday at and am still waiting for a reply to either of them. Perhaps I don't count any more since I revoked my +v :dunno:
Sex God
Quote by Mister_Discreet
No, you are jumping to conclusions there.
If the system works as it is intended, then you'll actually be better off, since you won't have a +, new people should not pester you for meets, and you can get on with chatting to your friends.
So... you're saying that people with a + will be pestered for meets? When several people feared that this would happen we were poo-pooed by the supporters of this system. Thank you for at least clarifying Mr D!
It seems the ops are engaged in some sort of battle at the mo.... have you all seen the amount of times many of the ops are logging on to the forum lately, much more than they used to... something's going on behind the scenes, right?????? :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:
I think if certain ops are trying to make it a "meet arrangement" only room they would very quickly find themselves out of a job..... hey, now there's a thought! :rascal: :rascal: :rascal:
Sex God
Quote by Angel Chat
Ok so we now have several OPs, ex-OPs, OPs wives, Mods who are all chatroom users and 'normal' users all objecting to this verification and asking for it to be stopped. But still there is no comment frm admin
It is now causing personal insult and in my opinion, is getting way out of control. This is a website where we all come here for fun and excitment.
So please can we have the answers we deserve from admin ?
Dawn
I've just checked my sent box and I sent mails to the Admin - as requested - on Thurs at and Saturday at and am still waiting for a reply to either of them. Perhaps I don't count any more since I revoked my +v :dunno:
This is completely unacceptable Angel Chat. A few days ago I would have said cut them some slack cos they are bound to be busy, but no more.............
The sooner all the shit that surrounds this issue is out in the open the better. If the admin aren't going to answer questions sent to the "correct" email address, who can blame people for kicking up a fuss. I vote we start shouting louder and louder
8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) Not being a chatroom user I don't care if I have a +, a gold star, a silver stocking or a metal plate... but it all looks a tad fishy. And Blue's right - there are a lot of room ops coming into the forum and making waves, and not the Mexican type ones either.
<puts on thinking hat to get the conspiracy theories working>
<puts on thinking hat to get the conspiracy theories working>
well so now more and more are coming to the conclusion that there could be some other agends here?
it's already been established that The Topic is being pushed, cos ex-ops and users have said as much here that certain convos are out as far some are concerned, and T-J quoted comments that suggest that is the intention. that pushes the membership down a certain road in itself. users freedom in the room is changed. we've been arguing about that all along.
we've also been saying all along that this damages the site, and has potential to tear the site to shreds. obviously that's already happening on every level.
we've also been saying that it calls the integrity of the site into question. if it's not open and transparent, and if it can be seen in any way that there's been a touch of dishonesty here, even if it's only a little white lie, obviously that raises questions.
we're all asking the same things, and getting no answers. and i just wanna point out that every single question i've put forward on this thread has come up in convos with members. if they are asking those questions, then it's likely other users are. they deserve a public answer. if simple answers to simple questions aren't forthcoming, then more questions will be asked, and if they go off on tangents it's only cos those questions naturally arise.
even now, i still think the depth of feeling, leading to real frustration and even real anger, of LOTS of users, is bein seriously underestimated.
neil x x x ;)
it's already been established that The Topic is being pushed, cos ex-ops and users have said as much here that certain convos are out as far some are concerned, and T-J quoted comments that suggest that is the intention. that pushes the membership down a certain road in itself. users freedom in the room is changed. we've been arguing about that all along.
we've also been saying all along that this damages the site, and has potential to tear the site to shreds. obviously that's already happening on every level.
we've also been saying that it calls the integrity of the site into question. if it's not open and transparent, and if it can be seen in any way that there's been a touch of dishonesty here, even if it's only a little white lie, obviously that raises questions.
we're all asking the same things, and getting no answers. and i just wanna point out that every single question i've put forward on this thread has come up in convos with members. if they are asking those questions, then it's likely other users are. they deserve a public answer. if simple answers to simple questions aren't forthcoming, then more questions will be asked, and if they go off on tangents it's only cos those questions naturally arise.
even now, i still think the depth of feeling, leading to real frustration and even real anger, of LOTS of users, is bein seriously underestimated.
neil x x x ;)
Sex God
This site is completely free, and dedicated to swinging in the UK. If you are a swinger or simply interested in learning more about swinging then you have arrived at the right place. You'll find a photo ads system where you can browse other swingers adverts and/or place one of your own. There is also a forum message board where you can place simple messages quickly and easily; perhaps exchanging useful links with others, arranging parties, web cam meets etc. A live chatroom is also available for people to load up and chat to each other about swinging in a real time chat room. Along with general swinging advice and information, we have a dogging section full of UK locations for dogging and tips on how to proceed. We also have a large directory of swingers clubs around the UK. So, UK swingers should find all you need here.
It seems to me that the people running this new system should have a look at the SH Home page. I would also say that so long as it is the SH chat room and not the "Get a shag quick" chat room surely it should conform to the principals of the site.
Roger the Dragon, Genuinely un-verified.
Quote by bluexxx
So... you're saying that people with a + will be pestered for meets? When several people feared that this would happen we were poo-pooed by the supporters of this system. Thank you for at least clarifying Mr D!
Yes, but the implication of that is that unwanted pvt-ers will be dealt with more quickly, since the + people are far more aware of (and keen to use) the 'name and shame' system. This will mean that while the + people get a larger share of the unwanted pvts, the total number of unwanted pvts will decrease.
Quote by Jags
Not being a chatroom user I don't care if I have a +, a gold star, a silver stocking or a metal plate... but it all looks a tad fishy. And Blue's right - there are a lot of room ops coming into the forum and making waves, and not the Mexican type ones either.
Conversely, there are a lot of forum people coming into the chatroom under assumed names to see how newbies are treated there!
Quote by Mister_Discreet
Not being a chatroom user I don't care if I have a +, a gold star, a silver stocking or a metal plate... but it all looks a tad fishy. And Blue's right - there are a lot of room ops coming into the forum and making waves, and not the Mexican type ones either.
Conversely, there are a lot of forum people coming into the chatroom under assumed names to see how newbies are treated there!
Not me - haven't ventured in there since Adam was a rib... way too scarey.
Quote by Mister_Discreet
Not being a chatroom user I don't care if I have a +, a gold star, a silver stocking or a metal plate... but it all looks a tad fishy. And Blue's right - there are a lot of room ops coming into the forum and making waves, and not the Mexican type ones either.
Conversely, there are a lot of forum people coming into the chatroom under assumed names to see how newbies are treated there!
And..................
Quote by Sgt Bilko
Not being a chatroom user I don't care if I have a +, a gold star, a silver stocking or a metal plate... but it all looks a tad fishy. And Blue's right - there are a lot of room ops coming into the forum and making waves, and not the Mexican type ones either.
Conversely, there are a lot of forum people coming into the chatroom under assumed names to see how newbies are treated there!
And..................
Then it seems I have a confession to make...............
My...my mynamesnotreallyVenus! :shock:
I`m so sorry to have misled you all :cry:
Ok, ok, I know. I`ll sign back off and stop being obnoxious about something I know bugger all about shall I?! :mrgreen:
Venusxxx
Quote by Mister_Discreet
So... you're saying that people with a + will be pestered for meets? When several people feared that this would happen we were poo-pooed by the supporters of this system. Thank you for at least clarifying Mr D!
Yes, but the implication of that is that unwanted pvt-ers will be dealt with more quickly, since the + people are far more aware of (and keen to use) the 'name and shame' system. This will mean that while the + people get a larger share of the unwanted pvts, the total number of unwanted pvts will decrease.
Hang on ... I'm unverified and whenever I've been in the chatroom and had unwelcome pm's I've named them (after asking the individual politely to be left alone), when I have it's always been dealt with promptly .... your logic above doesn't quite follow.
The idea of the verification system was to cut down on unwanted pm's ... now you're saying that if you have a +V you're likely to get more unwanted pm's ........
Have I missed something????????
I will add that my treatment in the chatroom since the introduction hasn't changed at all ... but I'm seriously wondering if I am welcome now (as i don't go in to make arrangements). I can't be verified because I refuse to shag someone to be part of the in crowd and I am also open in that I am not looking for any arrangements as hubby and I are on a 3 month hiatus whilst we get straight again - this doesn't make me any less genuine ... in fact I'd say it makes me more because I am honest in my intentions!
I go into the chatroom because some of the people I have met at munches don't come into the forum and I want to keep in touch ... yet now it appears the chatroom is purely about meeting up and arrangements ...
I can feel my brain frying ...... :shock:
:banghead: Sex God
Quote by Mister_Discreet
Yes, but the implication of that is that unwanted pvt-ers will be dealt with more quickly, since the + people are far more aware of (and keen to use) the 'name and shame' system. This will mean that while the + people get a larger share of the unwanted pvts, the total number of unwanted pvts will decrease.
Utter nonsense! I've been in the chat room a fair bit over the weekend, both as bluexxx and as someone called cranky :shock: . bluexxx gets spoken to a lot but cranky, despite every effort to join in has never been spoken to once by anyone.... hellos and goodbyes go ignored. Funny that.... Anyway, back to the point......
Where is your evidence to suggest that +ed people are more likely to report uninvited pvts? I've had a few myself and I have named and shamed, each time the ops warn them and all is sorted. Come on, let's stick to valid arguements shall we!
Quote by bluexxx
Utter nonsense! I've been in the chat room a fair bit over the weekend, both as bluexxx and as someone called cranky :shock: . bluexxx gets spoken to a lot but cranky, despite every effort to join in has never been spoken to once by anyone.... hellos and goodbyes go ignored. Funny that.... Anyway, back to the point......
To be fair, I'd think twice about talking to someone named after a 1980s comedy double-act... ;) ;) ;)
Quote by roger743
Utter nonsense! I've been in the chat room a fair bit over the weekend, both as bluexxx and as someone called cranky :shock: . bluexxx gets spoken to a lot but cranky, despite every effort to join in has never been spoken to once by anyone.... hellos and goodbyes go ignored. Funny that.... Anyway, back to the point......
To be fair, I'd think twice about talking to someone named after a 1980s comedy double-act... ;) ;) ;)
Didn't you have a duck called Orville attached to your left arm once?????
:shock:
Quote by Calista
Hang on ... I'm unverified and whenever I've been in the chatroom and had unwelcome pm's I've named them (after asking the individual politely to be left alone), when I have it's always been dealt with promptly .... your logic above doesn't quite follow.:
That's why I used the words "more likely" in my post rather than something more definite- I'd expect all of the + people and only some of the non+ people to behave like this.
Quote by Calista
The idea of the verification system was to cut down on unwanted pm's ...
actually, that was more of a byproduct of the verification system, as I understand it, the stated aim was so newbies could tell that we had genuine people, and who some of them were.
Quote by Calista
now you're saying that if you have a +V you're likely to get more unwanted pm's ........
Have I missed something????????
Yes, the total number of unwanted PMs will go down, so while + people will get a higher percentage of them, you'll actually get less numerically.
Quote by Jags
Utter nonsense! I've been in the chat room a fair bit over the weekend, both as bluexxx and as someone called cranky :shock: . bluexxx gets spoken to a lot but cranky, despite every effort to join in has never been spoken to once by anyone.... hellos and goodbyes go ignored. Funny that.... Anyway, back to the point......
To be fair, I'd think twice about talking to someone named after a 1980s comedy double-act... ;) ;) ;)
Didn't you have a duck called Orville attached to your left arm once?????
:shock:
No, I think you are thinking of Keith Harris, but meaning Roger DeCorsey and Nookie Bear
Quote by marmalaid
Utter nonsense! I've been in the chat room a fair bit over the weekend, both as bluexxx and as someone called cranky :shock: . bluexxx gets spoken to a lot but cranky, despite every effort to join in has never been spoken to once by anyone.... hellos and goodbyes go ignored. Funny that.... Anyway, back to the point......
To be fair, I'd think twice about talking to someone named after a 1980s comedy double-act... ;) ;) ;)
Didn't you have a duck called Orville attached to your left arm once?????
:shock:
No, I think you are thinking of Keith Harris, but meaning Roger DeCorsey
Ah... yes!!! Nooky Bear :lol: :lol: Even worse I think.
:lol:
Quote by marmalaid
Utter nonsense! I've been in the chat room a fair bit over the weekend, both as bluexxx and as someone called cranky :shock: . bluexxx gets spoken to a lot but cranky, despite every effort to join in has never been spoken to once by anyone.... hellos and goodbyes go ignored. Funny that.... Anyway, back to the point......
To be fair, I'd think twice about talking to someone named after a 1980s comedy double-act... ;) ;) ;)
Didn't you have a duck called Orville attached to your left arm once?????
:shock:
No, I think you are thinking of Keith Harris, but meaning Roger DeCorsey
Woohoo ... did someone mention Nookie??????????????? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
i'll get my coat shall I ?(edit: beaten to it by Jags :doh: but you can't blame a horny woman for trying can you?)
i find it incredibly sad that we are now 47 pages into this discussion and still no further forward. I'm sorry that i feel that the integrity of the site which i thought was based enitrely on openess and honesty is proving itself to be not of that nature.
The verification thread was dealing with some real issues by the people posting, and asking real and valid questions, or, requesting that concerns raised be explained. All of this has been done in an open, respectful and honest way.
The fact that we are all still awaiting some sort of response is fueling the debate about there being alternative theories behind the implementation and quite frankly, is now also leading me to a similar conclusion. Since there has been no response, it seems obvious that an alterior motive is in the working.
The integrity of this site, which i have never before questioned, as i have never had to, as the intergrity has always been open and honest, now has me questioning that very principle. What is this site without integrity????
I haven't posted very much of late, as i have felt that until answers are forthcoming, my opinion is irrelevant anyway. There isn't any point to post something where opionions are blatantly ignored.
The other point i would like to make, and this is without any critisism to anybody at all, is that to get anywhere, we have to stick with this issue.
To allow our views to wander onto other ways in which to fulfill verification systems only detracts our attention away from the issue at hand. Some of the ideas have been well worth thinking about, but until we have a move forward within this debate regarding verification, and the entire integrity of this site, then discussion is pointless.
With all my love hugs and kisses
Little
XXX
The verification thread was dealing with some real issues by the people posting, and asking real and valid questions, or, requesting that concerns raised be explained. All of this has been done in an open, respectful and honest way.
The fact that we are all still awaiting some sort of response is fueling the debate about there being alternative theories behind the implementation and quite frankly, is now also leading me to a similar conclusion. Since there has been no response, it seems obvious that an alterior motive is in the working.
The integrity of this site, which i have never before questioned, as i have never had to, as the intergrity has always been open and honest, now has me questioning that very principle. What is this site without integrity????
I haven't posted very much of late, as i have felt that until answers are forthcoming, my opinion is irrelevant anyway. There isn't any point to post something where opionions are blatantly ignored.
The other point i would like to make, and this is without any critisism to anybody at all, is that to get anywhere, we have to stick with this issue.
To allow our views to wander onto other ways in which to fulfill verification systems only detracts our attention away from the issue at hand. Some of the ideas have been well worth thinking about, but until we have a move forward within this debate regarding verification, and the entire integrity of this site, then discussion is pointless.
With all my love hugs and kisses
Little
XXX
Quote by bluexxx
Where is your evidence to suggest that +ed people are more likely to report uninvited pvts? I've had a few myself and I have named and shamed, each time the ops warn them and all is sorted. Come on, let's stick to valid arguements shall we!
1) Newbies tend not to know/folow follow the rules, or be confident enough to name and shame.
2) none of the + people are newbies
Therefore
3) non + people are more likely not to report an unwanted pvt.
Quote by Mister_Discreet
Yes, the total number of unwanted PMs will go down, so while + people will get a higher percentage of them, you'll actually get less numerically.
That's predicated on people learning from their mistakes though, isn't it? The times I've been in the chatroom, people told off for PVT-ing without permission just seem to come back under another name and do it again a hell of a lot...
Quote by Mister_Discreet
Where is your evidence to suggest that +ed people are more likely to report uninvited pvts? I've had a few myself and I have named and shamed, each time the ops warn them and all is sorted. Come on, let's stick to valid arguements shall we!
1) Newbies tend not to know/folow follow the rules, or be confident enough to name and shame.
2) none of the + people are newbies
Therefore
3) non + people are more likely not to report an unwanted pvt.
TWADDLE!!
