Sorry Steve but thats the way it reads to us mere Mortals
Fred(medic 1 )
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Verification
I think he may be referring to this bit.
You may sign a user as genuine even though you decided not to take things further. If you are satisfied that they acted in good faith and it's simply a case of, "we really didn't fancy each other" - this is provided you have actually met them.
This is where you make the effort to meet one verified user, apologise and say they're not what you're looking for, or when a verified user knows that their mate swings for definite they just haven't swung with them.
This gets you your verification as genuine and then you can enjoy setting people up til the cows come home.
That might just be me being overly cynical though or bratty 'cos I'm not verified
:lol:
I honestly think that this will cause more problems that it solves but you never know.
Jas
XXX
Jas
XXX
You may sign a user as genuine even though you decided not to take things further. If you are satisfied that they acted in good faith and it's simply a case of, "we really didn't fancy each other" - this is provided you have actually met them.
This is where you make the effort to meet one verified user, apologise and say they're not what you're looking for, or when a verified user knows that their mate swings for definite they just haven't swung with them.
This gets you your verification as genuine and then you can enjoy setting people up til the cows come home.
That might just be me being overly cynical though or bratty 'cos I'm not verified
:lol: I honestly think that this will cause more problems that it solves but you never know.
Jas
XXX
Jas
XXX
Sex God
Quote by Mister_Discreet
If people read the info page they will see that you don't have to shag (or be shagged by) anyone to be verified.
The page says "A verified user is one who is active on the swing scene and who actually meets others on the scene for consensual, recreational sex."
Maybe this needs some clarification?
Perhaps a slight rewording would be useful:
"...one who is known to be active..."
Because as it stands, it implies that those without it are not, and it also doesn't mention that some active members may not wish to wear a badge of office.
Sex God
Quote by Ice Pie
"...one who is known to be active..."
Because as it stands, it implies that those without it are not, and it also doesn't mention that some active members may not wish to wear a badge of office.
I don't think that would help much to be honest. It would still mean that every chancer would pester any fem with the dreaded + and it does nothing for any of the guys, except those that are in the "inner circle " already.....
Let's face it, it's ill thought out and it seems to be both unmanageable and totally not useful.... and unethical, seeing as people have not consented to their status in the first place :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Maybe I'm just being facetious, but it doesn't seem to say anywhere that the one doing the verifying has to be one of the participants in the sexual activity. So if I were verified and I happened to see someone in a swinging club doing it with someone else, could I verify them?
More seriously, I'm sure everyone realises it's only a matter of time until this is abused - either by someone trying to blackmail someone into sex on the promise of being verified, or even worse someone blackmailing a verified someone into sex on the threat of submitting a fake complaint that perhaps leads to their verification being withdrawn. I'm sure the administrators of the system will make every effort to investigate every complaint and discipline offenders to the best of their ability, but all the discipline in the world can't undo harm that is done.
More seriously, I'm sure everyone realises it's only a matter of time until this is abused - either by someone trying to blackmail someone into sex on the promise of being verified, or even worse someone blackmailing a verified someone into sex on the threat of submitting a fake complaint that perhaps leads to their verification being withdrawn. I'm sure the administrators of the system will make every effort to investigate every complaint and discipline offenders to the best of their ability, but all the discipline in the world can't undo harm that is done.
How about... one who consents to be known to be active...?
Sex God
Quote by Ice Pie
it also doesn't mention that some active members may not wish to wear a badge of office.
I agree with Ice and have requested my + be removed asap.
I don't think having this system in place will stop the one liners posting in the room, unless use of the room is restricted to only those members with a +.
I just wonder how long the room could stand alone with only verified members using it?
After all, if you attended a party or munch, would you only talk to people you know were most likely to give you a shag, or chat to anyone regardless?
We want variety in the room, not just everyone who has shagged everyone else in the room ffs!!
Some members add a great deal to the room, even though they may never qualify for the coveted +. Do we really wish to see them all leave in protest?
Tracy-Jayne - still very much a player, but just don't feel the need to advertise it
Sex God
Welll...... it seems that the chat room who have commented on this don't actually like it... so who's idea was it in the first place, and how many room users actually do want it???? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: We have yet to hear from the creators of this new idea, haven't we?
Quote by bluexxx
Welll...... it seems that the chat room who have commented on this don't actually like it... so who's idea was it in the first place, and how many room users actually do want it???? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: We have yet to hear from the creators of this new idea, haven't we?
To be fair, the people posting here are joint forum-chatoorm users, and not allof us are aginst it. To balance that, there an awful lot of beggging for "+" going on in the chatroom that you can't see here!
Sex God
Quote by Mister_Discreet
Welll...... it seems that the chat room who have commented on this don't actually like it... so who's idea was it in the first place, and how many room users actually do want it???? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: We have yet to hear from the creators of this new idea, haven't we?
To be fair, the people posting here are joint forum-chatoorm users, and not allof us are aginst it. To balance that, there an awful lot of beggging for "+" going on in the chatroom that you can't see here!
I know... I've just been hanging around in the room, but I reckon most of 'em haven't thought it through
:lol: :lol: :lol: .... The point is... the points made by the room users here are surely points that have been taken into consideration before this was set up...... but, even the definition isn't clear........ sooooooo, I'm still left thinking that it's ill thought out and unmanageable.... this could get very circular very quickly..... Quote by roger743
strip offenders of their verified status.
hmmm, I had already read that, but it's only just occured to me, how can you revoke history? Maybe a sinbin type char before the name could be used, have a - for bad feedback. So there could be -+Marmalaid meaning that I am a player, but I deserve a bit of a kicking from the ops, or what ever.
Actually just to progress that thought in a slightly silly way why not have a eedback sytem on all of the users like ebay, wanna see my stars anyone?
Chris, not that I've ever used the chatroom though.
Quote by marmalaid
Actually just to progress that thought in a slightly silly way why not have a eedback sytem on all of the users like ebay, wanna see my starts anyone?
That's actually a pretty good idea. "Do you have a profile on " "Yes, number #20568". So I go to , type in 20568, and see a bunch of feedback on you.
Of course, the problem then is that people will keep signing up for new profiles if they get too much negative feedback.
But you can't win them all. Sex God
Quote by roger743
because hundreds of brains are better than ten.
That depends on the brains concerned
The "+" is actually a feature of IRC, and there isn't an equivalent "-" option.
All chatrooms have 3 user levels, normal, voice and op (4 if you include sysop/ircop, but let's keep this simple!). Before only normal and op were used in #swingingheaven, now 'voice' (indicated by a "+" in some irc software, but not all) is being used to denote verified users. In my chat program, I don't see an "@" for ops or a "+" for voices, I see names in red for ops and green for voiced users.
All chatrooms have 3 user levels, normal, voice and op (4 if you include sysop/ircop, but let's keep this simple!). Before only normal and op were used in #swingingheaven, now 'voice' (indicated by a "+" in some irc software, but not all) is being used to denote verified users. In my chat program, I don't see an "@" for ops or a "+" for voices, I see names in red for ops and green for voiced users.
Quote by HornyBear
People meet with good intentions and just don't click and so no 'playing' takes place. Are either party less genuine? I think not but they will not be verified.
To be fair to whomever's baby this is, the rules do allow such meets to be verified.
Great post Chris, obviously well thought-out and very well put.
Sex God
Quote by HornyBear
I made my views known in the chatroom yesterday evening and got some pretty sarccy responses from one Op but I also received 8 pvt messgaes in an hour from couples and fems agreeing with my views but who preferred to say nothing in the room for fear of being ostracised. Which in itself is a sad comment on the room freedom of speech.
Very weel said HornyBear. The above paragraphi is very bad news. I say again..... can the creators of this system please step forward and defend it publically... If you don't I fear this type of response is going to get worse.
Quote by Steve_D
This definition was the subject of a lot of debate, like anything in life it is a compromise. Who's to say what the definition will be this time next year?
Ummm, that's actually quite disturbing Steve. If the definition is a moving target then surely there's no guarantee that verified members actually meet the current definition, as opposed to what it was three weeks ago or last year (if we imagine this system had been around for that long)?
Sex God
Quote by roger743
This definition was the subject of a lot of debate, like anything in life it is a compromise. Who's to say what the definition will be this time next year?
Ummm, that's actually quite disturbing Steve. If the definition is a moving target then surely there's no guarantee that verified members actually meet the current definition, as opposed to what it was three weeks ago or last year (if we imagine this system had been around for that long)?
OMG!!!!! This gets worse and worse! The only way any system like this will ever work is if your definition is bullet proof. If people know that you're even considering moving the goal posts, the system becomes a mockery. You say people have worked hard to put this in place, and I believe you.... but it doesn't mean to say a good job was done!
Now, you are saying that the "sex"part of the definition does not actually mean that sex has to take place and that "intent" is enough..... but attendance at munches are not enough? Errrrrrr.... I'm getting lost here again.....
:roll: :roll: :roll: Sex God
Quote by Steve_D
Blue, I refer you to
I invoke Godwins Law
This thread is over and the pro-verification people are the winners! :P
Discussion over
Steve
Well, up to you.... let's just say it will be interesting to see what happens.......... I jsut thank my lucky stars that here on the forum we are much more sensible than to install such a system
8-) 8-) Quote by keef69
I've read most of this thread, but has anyone suggested a "poll" on the forum, to see who actually wants this or something similar?
That would only tell you what forum users thought of the idea, and there are lots of forum users who don't use the chatroom, and a lot of chatroom regulars who never post here.
Sex God
Quote by Mister_Discreet
I've read most of this thread, but has anyone suggested a "poll" on the forum, to see who actually wants this or something similar?
That would only tell you what forum users thought of the idea, and there are lots of forum users who don't use the chatroom, and a lot of chatroom regulars who never post here.
Yeah, I don't think that would be that constructive really....... but hey..... we've been told that the "discussion is over"......... somehow I think this will run and run
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: 