OK, fair enough, I have met erm... (counts..... ) 3 people from here with a possibility (not even an intention!) to take things further than just a drink. As it turned out, I only had drinks and a meal with 2 of them, and did take things further with the other one. But all of this happened over 6 months ago, and the one I did take things further with isn't active on the forum any longer.
What I object to, is the fact that this was done even though for the last 6 months I've been in an exclusive relationship. Yes, we met at a munch, but in the time we have been together, we haven't played with others. I know you don't really understand why people are objecting to being verified Mr D, but imagine how it could look to my partner? In a less trusting relationship, this could have caused all kinds of hassle for us. Some of my previous exes might well have accused me of "meeting people with intent", or worse, following through with the intent behind their backs!
I didn't ask to be verified, I wasn't told that I HAD been verified, and when I've questioned my own verification I haven't received so much as a "we're sorry, it was a mistake" email in return. You could argue the point that it's now been removed, but if any of the above reactions had occurred, it would have been too late by now, as the damage could have already been done to my non-swinging relationship.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Verification
Quote by bluexxx
In the same way that anyone who attends a munch has to be known or prove to the organiser(s) that they're genuine before they get an invite!!!
Different meaning of "genuine" - "genuine person" as opposed to "genuine player".
SCENARIO: Imagine I want to go to the next munch. Can I? Does it make me a genuine active player? I don't wanna swing with anyone.
Quote by marmalaid
:P Anybody wanna meet me in a pub so I can get one of those special stamps on me ass for the cattle market?
No one taking you seroius Libra? I am, I'd love to meet you in a pub and stamp your ass, do I need to bring a crop?
Chris
From the front of that piccie you've got all you'll be needing to bring hun 
That and a firm hand :twisted:
Quote by Libra-Love
:P Anybody wanna meet me in a pub so I can get one of those special stamps on me ass for the cattle market?
No one taking you seroius Libra? I am, I'd love to meet you in a pub and stamp your ass, do I need to bring a crop?
Chris
From the front of that piccie you've got all you'll be needing to bring hun That and a firm hand :twisted:I think we can manage that hun. It's about time this thread as hijacked, at least for a minute or two...
Sex God
Quote by Angel Chat
OK, fair enough, I have met erm... (counts..... ) 3 people from here with a possibility (not even an intention!) to take things further than just a drink. As it turned out, I only had drinks and a meal with 2 of them, and did take things further with the other one. But all of this happened over 6 months ago, and the one I did take things further with isn't active on the forum any longer.
What I object to, is the fact that this was done even though for the last 6 months I've been in an exclusive relationship. Yes, we met at a munch, but in the time we have been together, we haven't played with others. I know you don't really understand why people are objecting to being verified Mr D, but imagine how it could look to my partner? In a less trusting relationship, this could have caused all kinds of hassle for us. Some of my previous exes might well have accused me of "meeting people with intent", or worse, following through with the intent behind their backs!
I didn't ask to be verified, I wasn't told that I HAD been verified, and when I've questioned my own verification I haven't received so much as a "we're sorry, it was a mistake" email in return. You could argue the point that it's now been removed, but if any of the above reactions had occurred, it would have been too late by now, as the damage could have already been done to my non-swinging relationship.
VERY well explained!!!!
An important part of swinging is DISCRETION!!!! This system totally disregards that issue!
I mean... you could possibly get a verification if one of the powers has seen you at a club - is that right? If so........ who the f*ck are they to start passing that info on? I might have seen powers in clubs who know me, but I don't know them..... how is passing info like that on to others fair or moral, or in any way appropriate for a site that promotes consensuality?
Quote by roger743
SCENARIO: Imagine I want to go to the next munch. Can I? Does it make me a genuine active player? I don't wanna swing with anyone.
I can think of several people that have been to munches who make it clear that they have no intention of playing with anyone. The criteria for a munch are that you are an active and relatively long term member of this site. There is no requirement to be an active swinger at all.
Sex God
Quote by Mister_Discreet
Yeah, you're getting your info from something that is bullshit!
Well, I didn't write it, and I'm getting thoroughly fed up defending it now! :giveup:
Yeah.... well, the people that did create it haven't stood up and admitted it, or come on to properly defend it themselves, so why should you?????
Quote by marmalaid
:P Anybody wanna meet me in a pub so I can get one of those special stamps on me ass for the cattle market?
No one taking you seroius Libra? I am, I'd love to meet you in a pub and stamp your ass, do I need to bring a crop?
Chris
From the front of that piccie you've got all you'll be needing to bring hun That and a firm hand :twisted:I think we can manage that hun. It's about time this thread as hijacked, at least for a minute or two...
:P So you coming down to me, or me to you?
Quote by Libra-Love
:P Anybody wanna meet me in a pub so I can get one of those special stamps on me ass for the cattle market?
No one taking you seroius Libra? I am, I'd love to meet you in a pub and stamp your ass, do I need to bring a crop?
Chris
From the front of that piccie you've got all you'll be needing to bring hun That and a firm hand :twisted:I think we can manage that hun. It's about time this thread as hijacked, at least for a minute or two...
:P So you coming down to me, or me to you?We could meet somewhere in the middle... say... for instance... my place?
But before you try any funny business, don't want you validating me...
Sex God
Quote by northwest-cpl
SCENARIO: Imagine I want to go to the next munch. Can I? Does it make me a genuine active player? I don't wanna swing with anyone.
I can think of several people that have been to munches who make it clear that they have no intention of playing with anyone. The criteria for a munch are that you are an active and relatively long term member of this site. There is no requirement to be an active swinger at all.
Another thing.... it has still not been properly explained why we need to differentiate "active" players (and how is turning up to a drink in a pub being an active swinger????) from people who do not play?????
There is more to this than meets the eye...... the truth is out there!!!!!!
Quote by roger743
My sooper-sekret sauces have revealed that this system is the work of:
Alan Smithee
Actually; that was cruel of me; the person responsible for this system is quite possibly reading this and clearly, whatever the rights and wrongs, did lavish love attention and hard work on creating it. I apologise.
Quote by bluexxx
OK, fair enough, I have met erm... (counts..... ) 3 people from here with a possibility (not even an intention!) to take things further than just a drink. As it turned out, I only had drinks and a meal with 2 of them, and did take things further with the other one. But all of this happened over 6 months ago, and the one I did take things further with isn't active on the forum any longer.
What I object to, is the fact that this was done even though for the last 6 months I've been in an exclusive relationship. Yes, we met at a munch, but in the time we have been together, we haven't played with others. I know you don't really understand why people are objecting to being verified Mr D, but imagine how it could look to my partner? In a less trusting relationship, this could have caused all kinds of hassle for us. Some of my previous exes might well have accused me of "meeting people with intent", or worse, following through with the intent behind their backs!
I didn't ask to be verified, I wasn't told that I HAD been verified, and when I've questioned my own verification I haven't received so much as a "we're sorry, it was a mistake" email in return. You could argue the point that it's now been removed, but if any of the above reactions had occurred, it would have been too late by now, as the damage could have already been done to my non-swinging relationship.
VERY well explained!!!!
An important part of swinging is DISCRETION!!!! This system totally disregards that issue!
I mean... you could possibly get a verification if one of the powers has seen you at a club - is that right? If so........ who the f*ck are they to start passing that info on? I might have seen powers in clubs who know me, but I don't know them..... how is passing info like that on to others fair or moral, or in any way appropriate for a site that promotes consensuality?
I'll say it again, since Angel Chat referred to me, and the first time was several pages back...
I agree that this should have been be entirely discretionary
If anyone else was standing up for this proposal, and representing the views of many chatroom users who don't use the forums, I'd have dropped this thread a long time ago. I'm only defending it because having a completely anti-verification thread on the boards wouldn't (in my opinion) eflect the views of chatroom users.
I'm going to restrict my posts here to clearing up factual issues only from now on.
:giveup:
Sex God
Quote by debs_uk
Ok ive been watching this thread since it started now i think ill just put a word in.
This verification system started 2 days ago. It seems to me that some people aren't even giving it a chance to settle down, i mean you cant really judge it after it has been running 2 days, yes like all things it will have its teething problems, and that will be sorted out by the admin. Lets just see what happens give it chance to settle down and sort itself out.
I know some people have been verified and didnt want the +, and have emailed admin to have it removed which has been done by the admin team.
Debs
The points that people have been making are conceptual, most of which are nothing to do with teething problems. The very idea of "players" vs "non players" is utter rubbish. People have posted very eloquent and well reasoned arguments in this thread....... just saying "give it a chance" is belittling the ideas that people have put forth, although, yes.... people have no choice but to give it a chance!
It is extremely worrying that when the ops contribute to this thread none of them stay around long enough to deal with the issues people have raised.
Funny that
Sex God
Quote by lips-uk
I'll send an email to the verification team to ask for it to be removed, but it just goes to show that there really are some teething problems if this kind of thing is happening.
A self-appointed committee making arbitrary decisions on behalf of people they haven't even had the decency to consult is not a "teething problem", it's a clear indication of the dictatorial thinking behind this whole thing. Although the chat room isn't really part of Swinging Heaven per se, except for the link and the borrowed name, I do worry that this tacky little episode could reflect badly on the reputation of the site by association.
Since when as the chatroom not been part of SH ?????????????
I was referring to the website swingingheaven.co.uk
The chat room #swingingheaven is not part of that, but it is integral to the extended SH community and is identified with the website by association. What happens in the chatroom therefore reflects on the website. I believe the disrepute that the chatroom has brought upon itself with this ill-considered and poorly implemented plan could affect people's perceptions of the community as a whole, including the website.
firstly,i would like to say what a fantastic debate this is,mostly i might add from established members of sh
i would now like to give our opinion on this(newbies)
having never been in the chatroom,i get the impression that some people are worried that there might be exclusive clique formed,is there not one of them on the forum?are there not cliques in all walks of life,from when we were at school,to work,and even down our local,and havent( if we are honest with ourselves) been involved with one at some point in our life.
and now for the dreaded "+"sign,i cant really see the point,reading 100,s of threads on the forum i have a very good idea on whos snogging who,and who would like to snog who,and so on.
so to weed out the timewasters why not try a a club,or go to a munch,meet people,because at the end of the day thats what swinging is all about interaction
thank you for a wonderful debate
i would now like to give our opinion on this(newbies)
having never been in the chatroom,i get the impression that some people are worried that there might be exclusive clique formed,is there not one of them on the forum?are there not cliques in all walks of life,from when we were at school,to work,and even down our local,and havent( if we are honest with ourselves) been involved with one at some point in our life.
and now for the dreaded "+"sign,i cant really see the point,reading 100,s of threads on the forum i have a very good idea on whos snogging who,and who would like to snog who,and so on.
so to weed out the timewasters why not try a a club,or go to a munch,meet people,because at the end of the day thats what swinging is all about interaction
thank you for a wonderful debate
HaHa so it was you then SexySteph !!!! and I was just gonna send Calista lots of wads of money to find out.....
Once again you are a mucky mare and you totally deserve to have your ass branded
but as it was at a meet then i'm sorry you dont qualify..
Are the toilets classed as part of the meet?
.xX Joanne Xx.
Once again you are a mucky mare and you totally deserve to have your ass branded
but as it was at a meet then i'm sorry
you dont qualify..Are the toilets classed as part of the meet?
.xX Joanne Xx.
Sex God
Quote by debs_uk
This verification system started 2 days ago. It seems to me that some people aren't even giving it a chance to settle down, i mean you cant really judge it after it has been running 2 days, yes like all things it will have its teething problems
Putting people on the list without their permission is not a teething problem, it is an arrogant disregard for their privacy, and yes I can judge, any time I like, and so can anyone else. If you're going to criticise people for being judgemental, how do you justify the arbitrary judgements made in compiling the list in the first plae?
Surely, surely ,surely the definition needs to be rewritten.
It appears from our experience that most people want to know whether there was a way to tell whether someone in the chatroom actually existed or not, as oppose to what were the chances of a meet ending in recreational sex with a given person/couple.
"Active on the swing scene", as many threads and hundred of posts have shown in the past ,is impossible to define.
All we would want to know was whether somebody was of their claimed status (eg:single male/fem/couple where BOTH are involved) then, as has aready been mentioned, discussions can carry things forward which is surely what the chatting is all about.
the + sign doesn`t discriminate. The newcomer without the + is in the same position they would be in anyway i.e unverified as genuine.
There are some who reside in the chatroom who are not looking but clearly enjoy the chats and banter.. Maybe a quick nickname change with, for example ,N/L at the end? (not looking)
To us "meets others on the scene for consensual , recreational sex " is a slight over vulgarisation of what we are really here for.
If there is to be a middle ground then it may simply be in the definition.
It appears from our experience that most people want to know whether there was a way to tell whether someone in the chatroom actually existed or not, as oppose to what were the chances of a meet ending in recreational sex with a given person/couple.
"Active on the swing scene", as many threads and hundred of posts have shown in the past ,is impossible to define.
All we would want to know was whether somebody was of their claimed status (eg:single male/fem/couple where BOTH are involved) then, as has aready been mentioned, discussions can carry things forward which is surely what the chatting is all about.
the + sign doesn`t discriminate. The newcomer without the + is in the same position they would be in anyway i.e unverified as genuine.
There are some who reside in the chatroom who are not looking but clearly enjoy the chats and banter.. Maybe a quick nickname change with, for example ,N/L at the end? (not looking)
To us "meets others on the scene for consensual , recreational sex " is a slight over vulgarisation of what we are really here for.
If there is to be a middle ground then it may simply be in the definition.
The guidelines for the verication system are quite clear:
Arranging to meet does not qualify for the + status.
Meeting and finding that you are not sexually attracted to the other person also does not qualify for the + status.
Munches and parties where people actually have sex are also exempt and do not qualify anyone for + status.
The qualification conditions are, as per the Guideline Document:
Only those that actually have sex and it is verified by the other participant can recieve verified status themselves. One of the parties involved must be verified themselves in order to verify another.
There may well be instances where an established and known swinger who does not want the + status can verify another if asked to do so. This, of course, is a private matter between the established swinger, his or her sexual partner and the site Admin Team but one would think that some sort of discussion would take place at the actual meet to confirm whether or not the established swinger is willing to verify another.
The only problem that I see with this system is the way that some people have been veirifed without being consulted - myself included. I should have been given the opportunity to refuse + status before it appeared next to my nick on Tuesday morning.
For the record, I don't have a problem with it so please don't take it away now I've got used to it.............hehehehe. I don't have a problem verifying others either as I feel it helps the site generally. (form a queue please......... hehehe)
Obviously, the system will now operate as intended with new people being verified on an ongoing basis.. ie. as and when they actually swing (above points taken into consideration, naturally).
Wishmaster.
Arranging to meet does not qualify for the + status.
Meeting and finding that you are not sexually attracted to the other person also does not qualify for the + status.
Munches and parties where people actually have sex are also exempt and do not qualify anyone for + status.
The qualification conditions are, as per the Guideline Document:
Only those that actually have sex and it is verified by the other participant can recieve verified status themselves. One of the parties involved must be verified themselves in order to verify another.
There may well be instances where an established and known swinger who does not want the + status can verify another if asked to do so. This, of course, is a private matter between the established swinger, his or her sexual partner and the site Admin Team but one would think that some sort of discussion would take place at the actual meet to confirm whether or not the established swinger is willing to verify another.
The only problem that I see with this system is the way that some people have been veirifed without being consulted - myself included. I should have been given the opportunity to refuse + status before it appeared next to my nick on Tuesday morning.
For the record, I don't have a problem with it so please don't take it away now I've got used to it.............hehehehe. I don't have a problem verifying others either as I feel it helps the site generally. (form a queue please......... hehehe)
Obviously, the system will now operate as intended with new people being verified on an ongoing basis.. ie. as and when they actually swing (above points taken into consideration, naturally).
Wishmaster.
Quote by Wishmaster
The guidelines for the verication system are quite clear:
Meeting and finding that you are not sexually attracted to the other person also does not qualify for the + status.
I think you need to reread the guidelines.
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.
The qualification conditions are, as per the Guideline Document:
Only those that actually have sex and it is verified by the other participant can recieve verified status themselves. One of the parties involved must be verified themselves in order to verify another.
That can't be right.... I was told that you didn't have to have sex with someone to get a +
Sex God
Quote by Jewcy_Joanne
The qualification conditions are, as per the Guideline Document:
Only those that actually have sex and it is verified by the other participant can recieve verified status themselves. One of the parties involved must be verified themselves in order to verify another.
That can't be right.... I was told that you didn't have to have sex with someone to get a +
It depends which way the wind blows, or whether you're liked, as to how the rules apply in each particular case.
One question - does the person who verifies the most users get a prize for being the biggest slapper in the chat room???? If so, verification on the forum might not be such a bad idea... I bet I'd be in the running for 1st place :twisted:
Sorry, getting flippant now but hey....... crap breeds crap
Sex God
Quote by Jewcy_Joanne
The qualification conditions are, as per the Guideline Document:
Only those that actually have sex and it is verified by the other participant can recieve verified status themselves. One of the parties involved must be verified themselves in order to verify another.
That can't be right.... I was told that you didn't have to have sex with someone to get a +
In the Q&A, it says once you're on the list, you don't have to have sex to stay on it,
"nice to meet you guys but sorry we really don't fancy playing with you" does not constitute grounds for a complaint.
which means we actually know nothing about the initial membership of the inner circle since they haven't been verified by anyone who is verified, which contradicts the first quoted passage above.
Ludicrous isn't it?
Sex God
Quote by Ice Pie
[which means we actually know nothing about the initial membership of the inner circle since they haven't been verified by anyone who is verified, which contradicts the first quoted passage above.
Ludicrous isn't it?
Of course Ice... maybe they are the "teething problems" that the Ops have been talking about????
Reading through this I must admit I don't like the idea, I rarely use the chatroom (but used to be an avid IRC addict, and even a chatroom mod for a 200 + concurrent user room) However I doubt I will put my face in our chatroom again as I would feel out of place.
I think as many have said the whole system is bad, I especially don't like the definition of a player. I would hate to feel second class if I follow my wifes wishes and don't have physical sex with people. If the + was simply that the person had been verified as being who they said they were, been to a munch, met socially or sexually with someone, well thats less of an issue. In fact those who were 'verified' without their knowledge I doubt would have any problem with being simply said that the are who they say they are. It is this indication of being a 'player' that they don't like.
Making people jump through hoops and be players seems at the least unjust, and also to be the cause of your problems. Saying the mods have to remain anon so they cant be accused of favouritism, LOL, thats exactly the charge it leaves you open to. The system is not even transparent.
Thank God there are no plans to bring it to here, verify a person is who they say they are sure, lets not try for little boxes on their sexuality and readiness to 'play' on top.
I think as many have said the whole system is bad, I especially don't like the definition of a player. I would hate to feel second class if I follow my wifes wishes and don't have physical sex with people. If the + was simply that the person had been verified as being who they said they were, been to a munch, met socially or sexually with someone, well thats less of an issue. In fact those who were 'verified' without their knowledge I doubt would have any problem with being simply said that the are who they say they are. It is this indication of being a 'player' that they don't like.
Making people jump through hoops and be players seems at the least unjust, and also to be the cause of your problems. Saying the mods have to remain anon so they cant be accused of favouritism, LOL, thats exactly the charge it leaves you open to. The system is not even transparent.
Thank God there are no plans to bring it to here, verify a person is who they say they are sure, lets not try for little boxes on their sexuality and readiness to 'play' on top.
