:lol: Mike.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Verification
Quote by MikeNorth
I'm hoping the trial period is long enough to keep this thread going for a while longer. If this becomes the longest thread, do I win a prize at the next NW munch for starting it?
Mike.
you naughty man
i am keeping me fingers crossed that they dont say you have to have a x against ya name to go to Munches! :shock: as you no peeps one thing can lead to anouther! :eeek:
Debbsxxxxxxxxx...
Quote by HornyBear
1) No one can possibly object to any system that recognises (rewards?) genuine people or removes / identifies Timewasters. And for the record I believe that 'genuine' can easily be defined as: "Someone who is who they say they are, turns up at pre-arranged meets or socail events and is both polite and courteous at those meets or events". Along with Steve_D I await the scrutiny of the learned Barrack Room lawyers but I hope you all understand the intent of the statement.
By whose standards/principles are you establishing timewasters?
Quote by HornyBear
I have looked at other chatrooms and one that has addressed this issue rather well I feel has introduced a '5star' system. At the start (and any new joiners) everyone has 3 stars. So equality for all here. Anyone can post a comment upgrading or dowgrading someone but these comments are visible and the source is identified. So it is also transparent. And it is solely based on personal genuineness / courtesy etc and nothing to do with sexual aspects. So privacy is respected. Now like any system it is open to abuse but at least all the key elements are in place and you are also not identified in the chatroom as 'different'. (They use the + to identify 'helpers' who new people can chat to and have stuff explained privately). Your star rating is displayed as part of your profile along with the other information you supply.
Can't see how this is workable personally - there isn't room for "comments" in the chatroom or a way of logging them and anyone you piss off could abuse the system.
Am interested in hearing more though.
Quote by HornyBear
Maybe that is one failing of SH in that you can chat without having any ad / profile. So a saturday night piss artist looking for a quick f*** comes in without any effort. Maybe we ought to have it as a requirement that anyone in the chatroom has to display their ad number. Just a thought as people in the forum have immediate access to a profile from a link.
For chatroom purposes I have neither an ad or profile (although that is easily checked on here and I am prolific and therefore known) I don't like having an ad ... I have a webpage and prefer to choose partners from what I like about their personalities. This would exclude me from chatting ... the software doesn't really allow this to happen in mirc or the chatroom software either (profiling that is).
If the chatroom verification was about genuineness in terms that people with a +V have met others .. either privately or at munches/parties then that addresses the needs really - the problem is that however set it up wanted to know things about people that they don't really need to know to establish genuineness ... they have turned it into a "player/non-player" mode ... and then decided that you are only a genuine player if you have shagged someone already rated ... that is just discriminatory ...
Sex God
Quote by HornyBear
It appears to me that we who have been debating the issues also have a responsibility to propose an alternative as well as (rightly!) criticising this 'player' system. Can I ask that all those who have made this one of the longest, most interesting and widely read Threads please just take a step back and look back at where we all started?
1) No one can possibly object to any system that recognises (rewards?) genuine people or removes / identifies Timewasters. And for the record I believe that 'genuine' can easily be defined as: "Someone who is who they say they are, turns up at pre-arranged meets or socail events and is both polite and courteous at those meets or events". Along with Steve_D I await the scrutiny of the learned Barrack Room lawyers but I hope you all understand the intent of the statement.
As everyone who has followed the whole of this thread will know, I have been one of the most vocal opposers of the current "player" vs "non player" system. I believe that an alternative system has already been proposed. Namely, that is to change the + to denote not "player" but "genuine". The above definition proposed by HornyBear is a good start. I don't honestly think that anyone would be in disagreement (though I might be wrong) that a symbol that showed newbies (and others) who was a genuine person in the room would be a bad thing. I would certainly have supported the system had it been of this type rather than the one that is in place now. The problems with defining" player" would simply not happen if all the + denoted was someone who was genuine, as defined by HornyBear above. I have asked the admin via this thread seveal times why they feel that the "player" definition was preferred to one that denotes "genuine". I am still waiting for an answer.
Further I think that attempting to stifle the debate by not allowing people to discuss it in the room, and how several of the ops have behaved throughout this thread has made people overly suspicious. Failing to answer questions via the list email has further annoyed people. The admin could have ended suspicion and speculation early on, but they chose not to... WHY?
I think it is a fair question to ask how long the current trial system will last.... is there actually a time limit on the trial, or is this another lie?
Sex God
Quote by Calista
For chatroom purposes I have neither an ad or profile (although that is easily checked on here and I am prolific and therefore known) I don't like having an ad ... I have a webpage and prefer to choose partners from what I like about their personalities. This would exclude me from chatting ... the software doesn't really allow this to happen in mirc or the chatroom software either (profiling that is).
Good point Calista. I don't think people should be forced to place an ad or have a profile for chat room purposes.... some people haven't got that far, some people aren't actively looking, some are here just for the social aspects of the site etc etc.... making any system this strict would be disadvantageous to the open approach SH has had up to now.
Orgasminator
Ok, we might now be a little late posting on this thread, especially as there are some forty-odd pages. And no.........we haven't read them all, so our point has probably already been made.
But, by the same token,
Can we emphasize the point "If you are a swinger or simply interested in learning more about swinging"
Where does it suggest that to be able to use the chatroom, there is a prerequisite of being a hardened swinger?
What is wrong with 'hardened swingers' meeting with inexperienced or relatively inexperienced swingers? Or vice-versa, of course? What is wrong with people with similar interests meeting as friends if that is what they really want to do?
Whatever happened to the format of building up a rapport between interested singles and couples, exchanging a few e-mails, perhaps a few photos, maybe even a telephone conversation?
Maybe then, a social meeting with no ties or expectations?
And then, if all are in agreement, some fun?
It always used to work.
Would a '+' really prevent incompatability from happening?
Would a '+' really reduce chances of a person, or persons, not showing up for a meet?
We would second that comment.
We think that although some serious thought has gone into the verification system, the sooner the system is finished, the better. The problems and bad feeling that it is causing certainly outweighs the advantages that it was supposed to produce.
Stuart & Tanina
xxx
Quote by northwest-cpl
A verified user is one who is active on the swing scene and who actually meets others on the scene for consensual, recreational sex.
But, by the same token,
Quote by Swinging Heaven Home Page
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.
Can we emphasize the point "If you are a swinger or simply interested in learning more about swinging"
Where does it suggest that to be able to use the chatroom, there is a prerequisite of being a hardened swinger?
What is wrong with 'hardened swingers' meeting with inexperienced or relatively inexperienced swingers? Or vice-versa, of course? What is wrong with people with similar interests meeting as friends if that is what they really want to do?
Whatever happened to the format of building up a rapport between interested singles and couples, exchanging a few e-mails, perhaps a few photos, maybe even a telephone conversation?
Maybe then, a social meeting with no ties or expectations?
And then, if all are in agreement, some fun?
It always used to work.
Would a '+' really prevent incompatability from happening?
Would a '+' really reduce chances of a person, or persons, not showing up for a meet?
Quote by steveg_nw
The sooner this trial is brought to an end and I can have my say about recommending the idea to the dustbin the better.
We would second that comment.
We think that although some serious thought has gone into the verification system, the sooner the system is finished, the better. The problems and bad feeling that it is causing certainly outweighs the advantages that it was supposed to produce.
Stuart & Tanina
xxx 
Sex God
Dissent? ooo' that begins with a _D doesn't it? 
Quote by HornyBear
1) No one can possibly object to any system that recognises (rewards?) genuine people or removes / identifies Timewasters.
I'll admit I was saying the same thing at the start of this thread, but since then I have been swung by the points made by blue, Fred and others. Any such system also creates other categories of people: those who don't fit easily into a category, those not yet rated, and those who don't want to take part. There will always be objections somewhere. Even something as innocuous as forum post counts being visible has had it's effects here.
Quote by HornyBear
So can I ask that we focus our efforts on defining / supporting a 'genuine' system and trust to others that the current 'player' system is consigned to history. After all Mark will read this and we have to be constructive as well as critical.
Yes, definitely time for some constructive criticism here!
Quote by HornyBear
I have looked at other chatrooms and one that has addressed this issue rather well I feel has introduced a '5star' system. At the start (and any new joiners) everyone has 3 stars. So equality for all here. Anyone can post a comment upgrading or dowgrading someone but these comments are visible and the source is identified. So it is also transparent. And it is solely based on personal genuineness / courtesy etc and nothing to do with sexual aspects. So privacy is respected.
Hmmm. I've seen similar things tried in the past, and they have generally devolved into farce fairly quickly. Take for example ebay's feedback system - people with 300 positives and 1 negative are treated as pariahs, and every feedback comment begins with "AAAAAAAAAAAA+++++++++++++". Slashdot (the geek news site) had been refining it's Karma/modpoints system for years on end, so it's a complete laybrynth now, and it's still open to abuse.
Quote by HornyBear
Now like any system it is open to abuse but at least all the key elements are in place and you are also not identified in the chatroom as 'different'.
Ah, here's a big issue... The reason this system was introduced (conspiracy theorists please play along for a bit here!) is solely for the benefit of new chatroom users, so the whole point is to differentiate people in the chatroom!
I think over the course of this debate we've lost sight of what the system was designed to do (help new chatters identifiy people) and turned into a discussion about how to verify swingers in general. Given such institutions as munches, post-count, and even chatroom cliques, I don't believe SH would benefit at all from having a general purpose rating system grafted onto it, for all the reasons others have stated in this topic.
Quote by HornyBear
(They use the + to identify 'helpers' who new people can chat to and have stuff explained privately).
I'm in favour of this - in fact I suggested something similar about 18 pages ago (I suggested "welcoming comittee" rather then helper, but you get the idea).
I think it's worth going back to basics and restating the following:
+ is widely used and understood by chatters in most of the millions of other chatrooms out there in the world. It's a facility that already exists and that many newbies will be familiar with from elsewhere, just like the concept of chatroom Ops.
I think it is far more constructive to debate the question "Is there a good use to be made of the + facility in #swingingheaven?" than to broaden it out to "how can we structure an ideal rating system?"
Quote by HornyBear
Your star rating is displayed as part of your profile along with the other information you supply. Maybe that is one failing of SH in that you can chat without having any ad / profile. So a saturday night piss artist looking for a quick f*** comes in without any effort. Maybe we ought to have it as a requirement that anyone in the chatroom has to display their ad number. Just a thought as people in the forum have immediate access to a profile from a link.
Interesting points, but I suspect that opening those particular cans of worms might be better done in other threads, this debate over a small matter like the + is already heading for 50 pages, and I can see issues like a requirement for an ad, or a star rating being far bigger and more controvertial!
As I have said numerous times.....
The system we were used to was much less indicative of how many peeps you have shagged and more indicative of how many you have MET.......Not just for sex but for social meets as well...........Parties included.....
Against your profile/advert there was a points tally.......Everytime you meet someone with a verified profile and BOTH parties agreed then profiles would be signed and each profile would be awarded 60 points....
Purely by looking at how many points a profile had you would know what others thought of them ....
But hey......I guess no-one will take any more notice of this post than any of my others..
The system we were used to was much less indicative of how many peeps you have shagged and more indicative of how many you have MET.......Not just for sex but for social meets as well...........Parties included.....
Against your profile/advert there was a points tally.......Everytime you meet someone with a verified profile and BOTH parties agreed then profiles would be signed and each profile would be awarded 60 points....
Purely by looking at how many points a profile had you would know what others thought of them ....
But hey......I guess no-one will take any more notice of this post than any of my others..
Well I like Medic have been in the chatroom using another name and guess what...
Apart from a welcome from the op as I went in..(something this op does to everybody who enters the room).....Not one person spoke to me.......Nil......Zilch.....
I was not trolling "Hi....w/e guy looking to shag any sluty fems today " or anything as insignificant as that.....
Just trying to engage in normal chit-chat
So it doesnt seem to provide much of a welcome atmosphere for "newbies" does it??
Apart from a welcome from the op as I went in..(something this op does to everybody who enters the room).....Not one person spoke to me.......Nil......Zilch.....
I was not trolling "Hi....w/e guy looking to shag any sluty fems today " or anything as insignificant as that.....
Just trying to engage in normal chit-chat
So it doesnt seem to provide much of a welcome atmosphere for "newbies" does it??
Quote by HornyBear
I have to make a formal apology to Wishmaster.
In an earlier post I called him an optimistic rodent (Wishamster!) and while he is a very happy sort of chap the rodent aspect really does not fit!
...and I was really so chuffed at now typing with three fingers...
Someone please certify me and lock me away...wurp wurp...
Chris
hehehe.... Chris..... been called that several times before ..... s'just a mis-type though..... was good to chat with you at the munch, we may have differences of opinion on issues but I like the banter mate.
Regards,
Wishmaster ... aka.......... Wishamster .... (gonna have to register that nick too if ppl are gonna insist on calling me it)
Quote by steve-shireen
As I have said numerous times.....
The system we were used to was much less indicative of how many peeps you have shagged and more indicative of how many you have MET.......Not just for sex but for social meets as well...........Parties included.....
Against your profile/advert there was a points tally.......Everytime you meet someone with a verified profile and BOTH parties agreed then profiles would be signed and each profile would be awarded 60 points....
Purely by looking at how many points a profile had you would know what others thought of them ....
But hey......I guess no-one will take any more notice of this post than any of my others..
Personally I would hate to have a "points tally" against my name. For us, we do not attend many parties, have not so far been to any munches, and have swung with only a handful of known regular members of this site.
We have however met lots of people via the ads section, and most of these have never posted on forum, joined the chatroom or been to any functions.
We would therefore have a very low points count compared to many others who attend every function going, although we are regular known members here.
That said, I am not entirely against a system to show that we are regular users of the site, but what I do object to strongly is the system as it now stands, that is to show that we are "genuine shaggers"
It has been pointed out to me by an op (not Jon) that the chatroom should be used as a place for people who want to arrange a meet with other members.
When I pointed out that surely the room is not an extension of the "Lets meet up" forum, but there for like minded people to enjoy a chat and banter, I got the reply that this is a swingers site and that's what swingers chatrooms are for - not for idle chat!!!
Ok so we're quite new to this lifestyle, but it never occured to me that a "chatroom" was for anything other than "chat"
If this chat then leads on to personal contact and meetings at some stage, then that is fine, but I now feel a fraud going in the room when I have no intention of arranging a quick shag to verify my position
As far as we are concerned, this system was badly thought out, inappropriately implemented and cannot hope to gain anything apart from division of members :evil:
I also agree with everyone else - we need answers from the Admin and we need them NOW.
HOW MUCH LONGER CAN THEY LEAVE THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND AND HOPE IT WILL ALL BLOW OVER IF THEY IGNORE IT LONG ENOUGH :?: :!:
Tracy-Jayne
It has been pointed out to me by an op (not Jon) that the chatroom should be used as a place for people who want to arrange a meet with other members.
When I pointed out that surely the room is not an extension of the "Lets meet up" forum, but there for like minded people to enjoy a chat and banter, I got the reply that this is a swingers site and that's what swingers chatrooms are for - not for idle chat!!!
Ok so we're quite new to this lifestyle, but it never occured to me that a "chatroom" was for anything other than "chat"
If this chat then leads on to personal contact and meetings at some stage, then that is fine, but I now feel a fraud going in the room when I have no intention of arranging a quick shag to verify my position
As far as we are concerned, this system was badly thought out, inappropriately implemented and cannot hope to gain anything apart from division of members
I also agree with everyone else - we need answers from the Admin and we need them NOW.
HOW MUCH LONGER CAN THEY LEAVE THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND AND HOPE IT WILL ALL BLOW OVER IF THEY IGNORE IT LONG ENOUGH
ta t-j
saves me any more typing! me poor calloused fingers need a damn long rest i can tell you! :lol2:
n x x x ;)
Quote by RedHot
When I pointed out that surely the room is not an extension of the "Lets meet up" forum, but there for like minded people to enjoy a chat and banter, I got the reply that this is a swingers site and that's what swingers chatrooms are for - not for idle chat!!!
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. Am I allowed in, or am I a fraud for going in? Be nice for someone to answer this one cos I would not like to be somewhere where I am breaking the rules.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
When I pointed out that surely the room is not an extension of the "Lets meet up" forum, but there for like minded people to enjoy a chat and banter, I got the reply that this is a swingers site and that's what swingers chatrooms are for - not for idle chat!!!
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. Am I allowed in, or am I a fraud for going in? Be nice for someone to answer this one cos I would not like to be somewhere where I am breaking the rules.
Dave_Notts
I'm feeling the same... was just getting into the chatroom and using it (and trying to keep up) but it certainly wasn't to arrange meets. As many know we are giving up the 'sex' side of swinging but will hopefully be sticking around for the social side of things. Does this mean I'm not allowed in chat?!
Sex God
Quote by YouAintSeenMeRite
saves me any more typing! me poor calloused fingers need a damn long rest i can tell you! :lol2:
n x x x ;)
Offers to massage those poor tired hands of yours :rascal:
Sex God
mmm, well point in me in the direction of your many tired bits :rascal: and I'm sure a slow sensual massage won't be too much trouble ;)
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
:twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Quote by xxdevil69
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.
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 not 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
not 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
:x