Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
McrBloke
Over 90 days ago
Male, 59
0 miles · Manchester
Forum
Master of Sex
Quote by GnV
The way I see your view is a bit like saying "some people may break the speed limit so there's no point having the limit in the first place".
Wouldn't agree to that.. Traffic Cops do a good job policing the limit but those with vested interests rarely get it right
Quote by McrM4M-pvtOK
I think on balance it's better that a few may be temporarily inconvenienced on the relatively few occasions that an errant room host kicks them rather than all users being inconvenienced because of a programming issue.
Why should the innocent suffer or be inconvenienced at the whim of an errant room host?
..and likewise, why should everyone (also "the innocent") be inconvenienced because of the risk of a few people behaving inappropriately (who will get dealt with accordingly)?
Quote by McrM4M-pvtOK
There have been lots of discussions around functionality suggestions for an improved chatroom which it seems inappropriate to re-open here as it will take the thread off track. One consideration should perhaps be around who is allowed to host (e.g. perhaps you could only host after you've been a member for x months or some other criterion) and what tools they have available.
Impractical in my view.. some people have been members for over 4 years but only now venture into chat
..just one suggestion which wasn't meant to be the only suggestion - the most appropriate criteria would need to be thought through carefully. My point was that there are other ways of reducing the risk, not to offer a complete solution within this post.
I accept that we have different opinions on this and don't see any point in batting it back and forth any longer (but please comment on my replies if you want to add more thoughts).
I would still like a response from Admin or one of the Ops on my original question though.
Master of Sex
I guess we're going to have to agree to differ on this one.
The way I see your view is a bit like saying "some people may break the speed limit so there's no point having the limit in the first place".
I think on balance it's better that a few may be temporarily inconvenienced on the relatively few occasions that an errant room host kicks them rather than all users being inconvenienced because of a programming issue.
There have been lots of discussions around functionality suggestions for an improved chatroom which it seems inappropriate to re-open here as it will take the thread off track. One consideration should perhaps be around who is allowed to host (e.g. perhaps you could only host after you've been a member for x months or some other criterion) and what tools they have available.
The way I see your view is a bit like saying "some people may break the speed limit so there's no point having the limit in the first place".
I think on balance it's better that a few may be temporarily inconvenienced on the relatively few occasions that an errant room host kicks them rather than all users being inconvenienced because of a programming issue.
There have been lots of discussions around functionality suggestions for an improved chatroom which it seems inappropriate to re-open here as it will take the thread off track. One consideration should perhaps be around who is allowed to host (e.g. perhaps you could only host after you've been a member for x months or some other criterion) and what tools they have available.
Master of Sex
Hmmm - I'm confused by Admin's post on this which seems to indicate the 5-minute lock out is purely on a technical basis.
This is not what has been recently said by Ops - the view from some of them is that it has been retained for a cooling off period.
Can someone give us a definitive answer?
This question is being asked so many times in so many threads it would be useful to get it clarified so we're all on the same page. It seems to be the most regularly raised peeve for chatroom users.
If it's for technicalreasons, I again suggest the following (which is not difficult in coding terms):
- When a user is kicked, set a flag accordingly.
- When a user tries to join the chatroom, check whether the kick-flag exists. If so, impose a cooling off period of some fixed duration.
- If they haven't been kicked (e.g. their connection has dropped), check whether they are already logged in and if so disconnect and reconnect them.
This would solve both issues.
If it's for a cooling off period, ensure it only applies to those who have been kicked by checking for the kick-flag.
This is not what has been recently said by Ops - the view from some of them is that it has been retained for a cooling off period.
Can someone give us a definitive answer?
This question is being asked so many times in so many threads it would be useful to get it clarified so we're all on the same page. It seems to be the most regularly raised peeve for chatroom users.
If it's for technicalreasons, I again suggest the following (which is not difficult in coding terms):
- When a user is kicked, set a flag accordingly.
- When a user tries to join the chatroom, check whether the kick-flag exists. If so, impose a cooling off period of some fixed duration.
- If they haven't been kicked (e.g. their connection has dropped), check whether they are already logged in and if so disconnect and reconnect them.
This would solve both issues.
If it's for a cooling off period, ensure it only applies to those who have been kicked by checking for the kick-flag.
Master of Sex
Quote by Sexysue2
When you're trying to get back into chat
I think we keep getting booted because we are in the sticks and the broadbean is rubbish but why the 5 mins to log back in thing?
Sorry if this has been asked before
It's been the subject of a number of discussions in the past and a number of reasons have been put forward over the time for it. The current justification as far as I'm aware is for it to act as a mini "cooling off period" for those who have been kicked. Of course this doesn't help those who have been disconnected for other reasons.
There are shortcuts for getting back in quicker which work for some users (don't ask me, I can't tell you how, particularly in open forum).
Basically there are those who are for and against the 5 minute lock-out. Those who hold the keys are for it so I guess it will be staying for the time being.
Hope this helps.
/edit/
My ideal scenario would be that anyone who is kicked (by an Op or room Host) would be subject to the 5-minute delay (perhaps through some sort of flag) and anyone else could just get straight back in.
Master of Sex
Fully agree with the common sense approach regarding music.
However, there are people on this site who have setup their audio so they are playing specifically to a SH chatroom audience and are taking requests.
I'd assume that this falls into the category of "SH Radio" (like it Sarge!) and perhaps this situation should be included in the AUP.
However, there are people on this site who have setup their audio so they are playing specifically to a SH chatroom audience and are taking requests.
I'd assume that this falls into the category of "SH Radio" (like it Sarge!) and perhaps this situation should be included in the AUP.
Master of Sex
I don't pick people up for spelling and grammar mistakes, although I try to make the effort to word my posts correctly. If someone is less skilled in this area or has a condition such as dyslexia, it's just part of who they are.
What I don't like though, is text-speak....that's just laziness
What I don't like though, is text-speak....that's just laziness
Master of Sex
Quote by flower411
Just out of interest. If you have a builder, plumber or whatever doing work in your house, do you tell your friends whether or not they do a good job, or even just confirm that they turned up?
Or, would you consider this to be gossip ?
I am self employed and most of my work now comes from recommendations.
It would be an absolute disaster for me if people didn`t recommend me to their friends.
Do you shag all your potential customers? If so, have you got a spare job going?
More seriously, this isn't a valid comparison - your work is a profession that depends on verification. A considerable number of people on here wish to keep their sexual encounters private.
I use another site (not a direct SH competitor) that is designed for people meeting for the usual social/sexual activities.
This has verification which works on the basis that if you're met someone you can verify them as a "known quantity". This information is anonymised on their profile unless you and they agree to make it public. The verification only indicates that you have met in real life, NOT what you have or haven't done with each other.
Does it make a significant difference to which profiles I'm attracted to? Not really - in the chat you can soon suss out (just like on here) who's genuine and who's a time-waster.
:grin: Master of Sex
Quote by Dawnie
I'm probably gonna get Dawnie chasing me around with her new honey drizzler and waffles now
Nooooooo that would be too easy. You want to use your drizzler on me and you have to work for it :rascal: :lol2:
And If I misbehave, are you going to start dishing out some of these?
:giggle:
Master of Sex
Quote by X_fanny_x
9 out of 10 times i find an op as soon as i need one failing that a thread saying "op needed now " brings them to your door! (if you warrent the problem serious enough) and remember the ops and mods and admin are all here doing US a favour its voluntary they do a great job and also have lifes like me and you!. :thumbup:
ps. why not just use the room with spelling mistake in name? instead of opening another?
pps. have you tried going into the forum/cafe when you have had these problems the list of users is on top of page and mods/ops show up in different colours (this is where i usually find them when needed!)
Don't agree with one of your points about the ops, mods and admins all "doing us a favour" as if this site is a charity....I know the ops and mods are volunteers and I've said plenty of times before I appreciate what they do. Admin is not unpaid - this is a commercial site. It is not unreasonable for users to expect someone to be on duty at all times and be easily contactable.
An issue users might encounter is that ops may be online but either hidden from the online list in the forum or using a non-op username. This means you don't always know someone's online when you need them.
What I'd like to see in the new chatroom is an alert button somewhere that will direct a message to someone who is on duty. That would save all the messing around and hopefully also make it easier and more consistent for ops/admin to deal with issues as soon as they happen (operating like a shared mailbox or call stack behind the scenes).
Absolutely agree with you about using a room name with incorrect spelling....and if someone's typed it so badly that no-one recognises the room....well, they need their fingers chopping off or a spell with Mavis Beacon
I'm probably gonna get Dawnie chasing me around with her new honey drizzler and waffles now
ops: Master of Sex
Mushrooms in a Lasagne???
Pack of mince (beef or turkey), one chopped onion, 1-2 cloves of garlic, tin of chopped tomatoes, half-to-one tube of tomato puree, dash of tabasco, splash of worcestershire sauce, half a glass of red wine, one beef oxo cube, teaspoon of oregano.
Fry the onion, add the mince and garlic and simmer until cooked all the way through. Add the rest of the ingredients. The sauce should be red in colour (not reddish-brown). A dash of tomato ketchup also can add a good twist to the flavour although I find I don't need it with the other stuff I put in.
Cook until almost all of the juice has boiled down to a thick gloop so it doesn't over-soak your sheets of lasagne. Never fails.....
Pack of mince (beef or turkey), one chopped onion, 1-2 cloves of garlic, tin of chopped tomatoes, half-to-one tube of tomato puree, dash of tabasco, splash of worcestershire sauce, half a glass of red wine, one beef oxo cube, teaspoon of oregano.
Fry the onion, add the mince and garlic and simmer until cooked all the way through. Add the rest of the ingredients. The sauce should be red in colour (not reddish-brown). A dash of tomato ketchup also can add a good twist to the flavour although I find I don't need it with the other stuff I put in.
Cook until almost all of the juice has boiled down to a thick gloop so it doesn't over-soak your sheets of lasagne. Never fails.....
Master of Sex
My favourite room control button is the "clear chat" one and that's what I use the most....keep the text running to a reasonable speed, delete phone numbers, emails and other temporary mist-posted embarassments.
Of course the "kick" button's also useful for controlling the occasional nitwit but for me it's also a last resort option.
Of course the "kick" button's also useful for controlling the occasional nitwit but for me it's also a last resort option.
Master of Sex
Quote by splendid_
it is the context of a word that is offensive not the word itself.
:thumbup:
Context is the main factor in the use of any slang (although personally I wouldn't use some words in any situation). I'm gay and have no problem in someone calling me a faggot in the right context (usually mates). A slang term can be used as a term of endearment or amusement, or to hurt someone.
The BBC is well known for its knee-jerk reactions on things like this. They're clearly still on the early part of the journey for diversity awareness in some parts of the organisation.
Master of Sex
Quote by AtomCom2001
So are you saying that the people the use the forum are not indicitive of those that use the chat rooms?
A poll is a poll, 50% is 50%, I am sure the people that use the forum have the same thoughts, wants, needs, opioins as those that use the chat rooms do you not agree?
Not sure how long you've been on SH but this type of issue has been raised a number of times before. As Dawnie (hiya hun!) pointed out, the number of Forumites at any time is considerably lower than the number of Chatroomies and most in the chatrooms don't have a clue that this part of the site exists.
Ask Forumites what they think about chatroom issues and of course you'll get a different answer than if you asked people in the chatrooms. They're different species (albeit with a little overlap). The ill behaved people we are trying to reach just never take part in here.
So is a poll worth doing? No.
Quote by AtomCom2001
I do think a lot of people of this site might disagree with you there. (re Mal's post about asking a question in a swingers club and a church) But then again I could be wrong. I will wait with interest on peoples comments to that statment
I'd think again if I were you - Mal knows the site well and is certainly in a good position to take an educated guess at the views of the average user. The fact that this is a Forum posting (irrespective of the subject being the Chatroom) means Forumites are the audience.
Quote by AtomCom2001
So I would suggest that people that use this room have an interest in the chatrooms. So I would say that their views are very close to that of the chatroom users.
Not at all....if that was the case, most people you'd talk to in the chatrooms would be familiar with the Forums - try it one night...ask a few people about the Forums and see the (virtual) blank faces appear.
Sorry, not picking on you AtomCom - I'm just working through responses to posts in the order they appeared.
Quote by kentswingers777
WHY would a single guy go into a room that clearly states " couples for couples ONLY " ? Now if we can find the real answer to that one, it would solve a lot of things on this thread. Somebody will no doubt say " because they can " but thats not the answer. Is it to perve, or to annoy?
Hmmm - this really is a "how long is a piece of string" question and some big assumptions are being made here. It's already been picked up in later posts that some couples advertise for singles on their profiles.
I have a different viewpoint than most others on here as I use the site in a different way (only to meet other men) but I see similar situations: why do lots of "straight" men go into gay/bi rooms? Why do women go into "men seeking men" rooms? Hey, it's all about freedom to do as you please and explore new things. Perhaps you don't want to state things on your profile but want to try something different. Perhaps you're more flexible in your interests than others. Perhaps someone you chat with regularly just happens to be in a particular room....there are LOTS of reasons why someone might want to go into a specific room.
Quote by H-x
What we need is a muppet filter but then I fear the chat rooms would be empty
H.x
:giggle: :giggle: :giggle: :giggle:
Quote by RedHot
Every single one of us work bloody hard behind the scenes, and I can say in all honesty, there is not one single chat op that I would see as being as bigoted as to single out certain accounts types for special note as to their behaviour.
Come here and give us a hug youQuote by RedHot
I couldn't give a fiddler's fart
Oi, get off my fart!! :moon:
Master of Sex
Quote by kentswingers777
Think you are taking things a tad to far. We have only ever heard of people asking for couples only rooms. We have never seen a room that asks for black/white/tall rooms. Cannot see a problem with having a couples only room...you will be able too soon, so why not now?
You may only have heard about couples-only rooms but I've seen people in the chatrooms saying they'd like to open gay-, bi-, men-, TV- and age-specific rooms.
I agree with previous comments that this could well be divisive on here. And it also raises the question that (once the new chatroom is running), how SH will deal with perfectly reasonable requests to open something-or-other-specific rooms that functionally cannot be provided?
I'm assuming the capability for men/women/couple-only rooms is based on the profile type - what if someone wants to open a "40 and over" room?
