Verification

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
I don't know why people are so offended that they are being verified

Perhaps because they don't have any say in the matter? Perhaps because they don't want a + next to their name for a whole host of reasons. If you perceive being verified as a good thing I can see where you're coming from. However, if you try and look at it from others perspectives, if they *don't* see it as a good thing, they're not going to be happy about it are they?
But perhaps it's because of the lack of choice? They didn't ask to be verified, they may not know who did it, and they may object to people passing comment on them in such a very public fashion?
For what it's worth (and we do visit the chat room now and then) I think it's a dreadful idea. It's divisive, open to abuse, it panders to cliques, it's unhelpful, unclear, it creates a two tier system, it's unfriendly to new people to the room, and it creates a whole series of assumptions (oh look, she's got +, that means I can fuck her etc.) While I accept that it's been proposed with the best of possible intentions, it's been badly thought out and the roll out of this thing has been botched beyond all belief.
Phil.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Angel Chat
I no longer have a + (it's gone PHEW!) but have had no reply to my email, so I'm still none the wiser as to who verified me or why

To be something that could be mistaken for fair, maybe the admins aren't recording that information. If it were me (and it isn't lol

), I really wouldn't want to have a "who shagged who" database sitting on my computer.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx

I don't know why people are so offended that they are being verified

Maybe because what people do in the private lives is their own business, and who people shag is nothing to do with the powers that be?
Just a thought!
I take your point, but to even get into this site you have to click a big button marked "Genuine UK swingers enter Swinging Heaven here", so is it really so bad to be identified as a "Genuine UK swinger" once you are here?

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
I take your point, but to even get into this site you have to click a big button marked "Genuine UK swingers enter Swinging Heaven here", so is it really so bad to be identified as a "Genuine UK swinger" once you are here?

"Swinging" means different things to different people. It is not all about "playing". The idea of differentiating between players and non players is artificial and created with an agenda that no one apparently is able to explain. Therefore I would say that, yes, being defined with a + if you don't want to be part of a system such as this IS indeed very bad.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by roger743
To be something that could be mistaken for fair, maybe the admins aren't recording that information. If it were me (and it isn't ), I really wouldn't want to have a "who shagged who" database sitting on my computer.

The admins are not getting that information. For a verified user to verify somone else all they send to the admins is the other person's chatroom name.
No description of who did what with who else is required. Since users can be verified if they turned up to a meet where there was no mutual attraction and nothing happened, it doesn't even imply that you've had any form of intercourse at all!

16 Nov 2004

MrD hun
Thats the point. Everyone has to click the big button... and in an ideal world no one who wasn't a swinger would click it .... and if they didn't then the + wouldnt exist.
Clicking that button doesn't mean you are to be divided into sections ... It means the opposite it means you are entering a non judging enlightened adult envoirement where you can feel at home without predjudice or favour..... does the + in chat destroy the whole ethos of this ?
unfortunatly now once you click the big button you now have to start on a ladder from the bottom rung. Not sure if it's good or bad or if it will work or not.
.xX Joanne Xx.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
No description of who did what with who else is required. Since users can be verified if they turned up to a meet where there was no mutual attraction and nothing happened, it doesn't even imply that you've had any form of intercourse at all!

Surely this is a double standard though ... if you can't get verified going to to munch then how can you get verified from turning up at a meet even though nothing happened? How does that prove you're a genuine swinger?

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
"Swinging" means different things to different people. It is not all about "playing". The idea of differentiating between players and non players is artificial and created with an agenda that no one apparently is able to explain. Therefore I would say that, yes, being defined with a + if you don't want to be part of a system such as this IS indeed very bad.

I know it looks like I'm the self-appointed defender of the + in this thread, but I do have to say that I'm entirely in agreement with you on both those points. I think it should be optional, and I think the qualification for a +v should be something more like 'active player and looking to arrange meets via the chatroom' rather than just 'active player'.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
To be something that could be mistaken for fair, maybe the admins aren't recording that information.

The admins are not getting that information. For a verified user to verify somone else all they send to the admins is the other person's chatroom name.
And who sent it is in the From: line of the email message that the admin receives.
I mean, how else do they check that the person doing the verifying is themselves verified? They do make that check, don't they?

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
Since users can be verified if they turned up to a meet where there was no mutual attraction and nothing happened, it doesn't even imply that you've had any form of intercourse at all!

So.... the definition says you need to have had sex.... Steve_D yesterday said that intent to have sex was enough, now you are saying that just turning up to a meet is enough???? Does anyone have any idea what is the REAL truth here..... apart from that the supporters of this utter mess are clutching at straws now they have been questioned?
In other words, the definition of how people are catagorised is all bollocks and what it really comes down to is you get a + if you've shagged (or not? confused

) one of the powers......
Round and round and round and round and round we go again! rolleyes

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
I think the qualification for a +v should be something more like 'active player and looking to arrange meets via the chatroom' rather than just 'active player'.

So, that'll mean that every single guy on there gets a + automatically then .... something I think the powers will not want at all!
Cynical, me, never!
rolleyes

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
So.... the definition says you need to have had sex.... Steve_D yesterday said that intent to have sex was enough, now you are saying that just turning up to a meet is enough????

To be fair, this is one thing (maybe the only thing) the "how to verify other swingers" page is clear about - if you arrange a meet for the purposes of having sex, and both parties turn up as advertised, they can get verified even if they decide not to have sex.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by roger743
So.... the definition says you need to have had sex.... Steve_D yesterday said that intent to have sex was enough, now you are saying that just turning up to a meet is enough????

To be fair, this is one thing (maybe the only thing) the "how to verify other swingers" page is clear about - if you arrange a meet for the purposes of having sex, and both parties turn up as advertised, they can get verified even if they decide not to have sex.
If that is the case, how is turning up, say to a pub to meet someone, but then decided you don't fancy them, any different to turning up to a munch?

16 Nov 2004

Because you're not turning up to a munch with the intention of having sex - the point of munches (which doesn't seem to be adhered to, but then I guess I'm the only one who includes snogging in "play") is that there's no playing at a munch.
P.S. If I use the words "to be fair" one more time in this thread, feel free to do bad things to me.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Calista
Surely this is a double standard though ... if you can't get verified going to to munch then how can you get verified from turning up at a meet even though nothing happened? How does that prove you're a genuine swinger?

I think this is a little semantic twist, please someone correct me if I'm wrong... Munches are purely social meets where there is no playing so going to a munch doesn't imply an intention to swing.
Some scurrilous people might claim to have seen rude goings on at a munch, but this never happens wink

. What these people have seen was always somthing that, by coincidence, happened just after the munch, or at an after-munch event, or in a nearby non-munch room while the much was going on, and therefore does qualify the participants for verification.

16 Nov 2004

:P So eg. I've never swung in my life. But if I meet up with someone in a pub and say, thanks but no thanks you're not what I'm looking for I get a + confused

:
Cool...easy peasy.

16 Nov 2004

Really!!! no playing at a munch !!!
NW munch 1 a certain sexy lady in the guys gents giving mucho "active" pleasure.
followed by 75% of us going a couple of doors up to indulge in "active" muckyness
I missed NW munch 2 :cry:
NW Munch 3 lots of snogging and boob groping was had by many and lots carried on the "active" muckyness to a club....
next time you goto a munch hun stand with me lol

cos you seem to have missed all the jewcy bits.
.xX Joanne Xx.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
Surely this is a double standard though ... if you can't get verified going to to munch then how can you get verified from turning up at a meet even though nothing happened? How does that prove you're a genuine swinger?

I think this is a little semantic twist, please someone correct me if I'm wrong... Munches are purely social meets where there is no playing so going to a munch doesn't imply an intention to swing.
Some scurrilous people might claim to have seen rude goings on at a munch, but this never happens wink

. What these people have seen was always somthing that, by coincidence, happened just after the munch, or at an after-munch event, or in a nearby non-munch room while the much was going on, and therefore does qualify the participants for verification.
I refrain from commenting on that paticularly but if you meet someone in a pub and neither party gets to play or see the other person in an intimate way how the hell can they verify that other person as a genuine swinger???

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
So.... the definition says you need to have had sex.... Steve_D yesterday said that intent to have sex was enough, now you are saying that just turning up to a meet is enough???? Does anyone have any idea what is the REAL truth here..... apart from that the supporters of this utter mess are clutching at straws now they have been questioned?

All I know is that I'm getting my information from the Verifying Users page which seems to spell it all out quite clearly, and to the best of my knowlege hasn't been changed since I first read it.

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
I think this is a little semantic twist, please someone correct me if I'm wrong... Munches are purely social meets where there is no playing so going to a munch doesn't imply an intention to swing.

Going to a munch means that you either swing or you are someone who is thinking about it, so yes, munchers do have an intention to swing, just not at that exact time....so everyone at a munch has the right to be verified as genuine UK swingers, don't they?

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
So.... the definition says you need to have had sex.... Steve_D yesterday said that intent to have sex was enough, now you are saying that just turning up to a meet is enough???? Does anyone have any idea what is the REAL truth here..... apart from that the supporters of this utter mess are clutching at straws now they have been questioned?

All I know is that I'm getting my information from the Verifying Users page which seems to spell it all out quite clearly, and to the bast of my knowlede hasn;t been changed since I first read it.
Yeah, you're getting your info from something that is bullshit!

16 Nov 2004

Well, you might decide not to go through with it after going to the Munch?

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Jewcy_Joanne
Really!!! no playing at a munch !!!
NW munch 1 a certain sexy lady in the guys gents giving mucho "active" pleasure.
followed by 75% of us going a couple of doors up to indulge in "active" muckyness
I missed NW munch 2 :cry:
NW Munch 3 lots of snogging and boob groping was had by many and lots carried on the "active" muckyness to a club....
next time you goto a munch hun stand with me cos you seem to have missed all the jewcy bits.
.xX Joanne Xx.

Plenty of action to be heard in the toilets at Nottingham too Joanne !!
:shock:

16 Nov 2004

Man, I hate that. Nothing worse than people getting jiggy while you're busy trying to relieve yourself. mad

16 Nov 2004

Quote by roger743
Well, you might decide not to go through with it after going to the Munch?

Exactly the same situation as you might not decide to go through with it after meeting some stranger in a pub!
Round and round and round and round and round.... dizzy now!

16 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
I think the qualification for a +v should be something more like 'active player and looking to arrange meets via the chatroom' rather than just 'active player'.

So, that'll mean that every single guy on there gets a + automatically then .... something I think the powers will not want at all!
Not automatically, they have to have successfully arranged a meet, and turned up for it to qualify for the 'active player' bit!

16 Nov 2004

:P Anybody wanna meet me in a pub so I can get one of those special stamps on me ass for the cattle market?

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
I think the qualification for a +v should be something more like 'active player and looking to arrange meets via the chatroom' rather than just 'active player'.

So, that'll mean that every single guy on there gets a + automatically then .... something I think the powers will not want at all!
Not automatically, they have to have successfully arranged a meet, and turned up for it to qualify for the 'active player' bit!
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!!!

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Mister_Discreet
I think the qualification for a +v should be something more like 'active player and looking to arrange meets via the chatroom' rather than just 'active player'.

So, that'll mean that every single guy on there gets a + automatically then .... something I think the powers will not want at all!
Not automatically, they have to have successfully arranged a meet, and turned up for it to qualify for the 'active player' bit!
i've successfully arranged a meet with a male, he turned up we went to a club and we never swung and I never saw him swing so how can I verify him???? He might be a voyeur but he's never provento me that he's a swinger!
Now I could verify him, get him a + which lets face it is about "active swingers" on the strength that we arranged something and he turned up!

16 Nov 2004

Quote by Scandal
Fookin 'ell guys ! !
Can we move on to chicken and egg next?

:P With a nice rump