Over-Regulated

4 Aug 2006

Quote by TimandLene
Some other chatroom rules could also I think go:
You must not leave web cams unattended for more than 10 minutes
No posting of other sites, email addresses or phone numbers
No capitals are to be used as this is regarded as shouting and rude
If you open a room you must warn someone before you kick them out

errr........i'm too tired to reply properly to this whole post but.........
number one.........if you leave your cam on not only is it quite dull...........but also you might forget that your kids have got up and are now wondering round on cam.........
other sites, emails addys and phone numbers.........well i can see why the owners don want other sites advetised...........but surley only an idiot would post their email addy or phone number on a public forum............
capitals are seen as shouting or rude.........so it shouldnt be encouraged.........
and its definately fair to warn people before they are kicked from a chatroom............they may be new and not know how they are expected to behave..........or something they say might have been misinturpreted........
well thats my understanding of the site anyway........if i'm wrong about any of that please correct me............ wink

5 Aug 2006

Thanks for the clarification. I will try and do your post justice by replying why IN MY OPINION removal of certain rules is a bad idea.

Quote by TimandLene
First of all the rules could be a bit more prominent. Maybe a prominent link on the users homepage. If you donâ€™t use the chatroom you might miss the AUP completely.

Errrrrrrrrrr.............. I'm not a regular chatroom user but the link to the rules is very clear to me --- right near where you log on.... confused here

:

Quote by TimandLene
Personally I disagree about the closing of chatrooms just because the chatroom creator isnâ€™t there anymore. I donâ€™t think that in general the creators of chatrooms are doing that much moderating. I am sure there are exceptions. I think the room should only be closed if there is a real problem. A previous chat service I used would let you see who the room creator is.

Soooooooooo you're suggesting the introduction on unmoderated chatrooms???? bring on the child molestors and animal shaggers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, unmoderated chatrooms would be a nightmare, legally and morally. Personally I would not enter a chatroom that was unmoderated. If I am in a room and it becomes clear there is no-one looking after it I leave. Simple as. I am afraid of what I might see. You admit that some creators do not moderate their rooms. In my view that means that the chatroom should be more carefully moderated, not less. I do agree that knowing who the room creator/moderator is would be useful.

Quote by TimandLene
You must not leave web cams unattended for more than 10 minutes
No posting of other sites, email addresses or phone numbers
No capitals are to be used as this is regarded as shouting and rude
If you open a room you must warn someone before you kick them out

Well, unattended web cams are boring.... so I can understand why the above rule exists, though tbh it's no biggie to me... I just don't watch a boring cam. However, an unattended cam has legal implications.... what if a child wandered into the room with the unattended cam and PC and created havok???? Some rules are there not only to protect users.
No posting of other sites /email addresses or phone numbers is a very important rule. If these were allowed again innocent people might suffer. Posting links to other sites might introduce illegal material to the site, after all the ops cannot check them all that quickly for legal content, and as you say some rooms are not adequately moderated so it is now MORE important that users are sensible and moderate themselves --- most of the regs of course will.... but others won't. No posting of email addresses and phone numbers is VITAL. When phone numbers were allowed on the site the mods got loads of distressed people writing in saying their number had been posted on the site for a hoax... some numbers posted were children's phone numbers........... PLEASE think clearly why this rule is in place if you do not want child molesters on this site.
No caps --- a universal sign of shouting and a tad rude. No biggie but some people like to draw attention to themselves by shouting and it annoys people.
You're saying that people should not be warned before they are kicked? Sorry not undertsanding here..... you want mods and ops to be nicer yet you agree with people being kicked with no warning and hance no explanation.... how is that fair? Maybe it is me that is not understanding your point here. Please clarify.

Quote by TimandLene
I think some of the forum rules (I am referring to the rules in the sticky at the top) are a bit discouraging for new users. I would simply keep the basic rules that you should post in the appropriate forum and of course stop anything illegal or abusive, no spamming etc
For example I understand why:
â€œBefore you post a new topic, use the forum search tool at the top to make sure you're not simply repeating an old
But I think this is off putting for someone who is new. Just because a topic was discussed before, they might want to have that conversation again, with new people. Sure some of the obvious topics would come up again and again, but that might encourage new people to join in. How many possible regulars to the forum have been lost, because their first post was blocked for this reason, possibly because they didnâ€™t notice the sticky.
Other rules about genital shots in photos seem unneeded.

The forum gets stale and boring if the same old topics are posted again and again. Some noobs might not know a topic has been done to death but there is no reason why they cannot be directed to an old thread. The mods tread a fine line between keeping the forum running for existing and new users. I don't know why people constant gibe at the mods, this is what your point here sounds like, sorry.
Genital shots and the like are a problem to post on an open forum for legal reasons. They are also distasteful to some say in avatars when people have no choice but to view them to read a post. It's about respect really.

Quote by TimandLene
General AUP
I would drop these:
Photos will be deleted if they contain any of the following:
Any photo ads or posts either in the forum or chatroom that are posted in order to exchange pictures, videos or offer photography services or similar
Pictures that are not on topic, eg popstars, cartoons etc.
Postage stamp size pictures.
No banned members are allowed to be invited to a munch or any kind of social event that has been advertised on this site or promoted to the site members.
]

So you want people on the site who are here JUST to collect pictures? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.... I thought this was a genuine swingers site? My bad :?
Pictures that are not on topic in ads are boring, and timewasting. I cannot see why you have a problem with the mods re-enforcing that people should post genuine pics of themselves in the ads. Weird!!!!!!
Postage size pics are pointless. No other reason I can see why these arfe not allowed. But hey :?
So, you think that banned members should be allowed at munches? OK, what if someone was banned for sexually assaulting another member shouold be allowed to a munch. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy -------------- great idea..... think you need a serious re-think here!

Quote by TimandLene
I would allow people to post their email address if they wanted to. This could be blocked for those that have not paid as it is in the Mailbox.
I would also allow a single person to have pictures of them with other people, but I would remind them that they need that person's approval. This goes as well for couples who might want to show pics of them with another couple. Just tell them they need permission or face a permanent ban.
Finally I donâ€™t like these two, but if I owned a site I would of course HAVE to have them:
Swinging Heaven has the right to change the AUP at anytime without prior notice to its members, Ops or Mods
Swinging Heaven has the right to withdraw membership without notice or explanation.

The points about protecting people other than users has already been covered, so I will focus on the last points... yes I agree I don't really like the fact that SH can withdraw membership without notice or explanation, but they do let you know why you have been banned at least a little bit. It's down to time I guess. I'm not liking the right to change the AUP at any time, but the site owners do have that right so I guess we just live with it. lol

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote by TimandLene
This is just my opinion, so don't let this bother you too much. I am repeating myself a bit, but I think that if there are too many rules they distract from the really important rules.

And this is just my opinion, but based on 3 years of being a mod so I guess I'm biased. You many think there are a lot of rules but some of what you have cited ARE VERY IMPORTANT rules and I think you need to re-consider WHY certain rules are in place.

5 Aug 2006

Quote by TimandLene
. The more text there is and the more legalistic the AUP the less likely people are to read everything

The legalistic patrs are there for avery good reason...
Speak to the owners and they will tell you why......
Chatroom

Quote by TimandLene
Personally I disagree about the closing of chatrooms just because the chatroom creator isnâ€™t there anymore. I donâ€™t think that in general the creators of chatrooms are doing that much moderating. I am sure there are exceptions.

So therefore your easily double the amount of work the chatroom ops have to do...
As it is we are already stretched very thinly and personally I think that rule should remain..
If a room host is not doing a particularly good job we invariable get a request to go to that room to sort out the bother......Which either results in the room being closed or the room host being educated better in the duties of a room host

Quote by TimandLene
Perhaps there could instead be a function where chatters can highlight a room to moderators if there is a problem.

We already have a specific room on each server for that purpose

Quote by TimandLene
Some other chatroom rules could also I think go:
You must not leave web cams unattended for more than 10 minutes

A complete waste of bandwidth if all thats being shown is a pair of curtains or a lampshade

Quote by TimandLene
No posting of other sites, email addresses or phone numbers

You cannot be serious :shock:
If you had a business would you allow other people to advertise of your back ??
I wouldnt..

Quote by TimandLene
No capitals are to be used as this is regarded as shouting and rude

Thats just basic nettiquette......Good manners cost nothing and I agree with that rule being kept

Quote by TimandLene
If you open a room you must warn someone before you kick them out

As has already been stated precious few do actually read the rules so they receive a warning if they do something wrong.....It prompts some users to actually read the rules and other just ignore the warning anyway but they have to be given the chance..
I wont comment on any of the forum rule changes you would like as I'm sure a friendly mod will help with that one...

5 Aug 2006

Thanks for the replies and for explaining why you want those rules to stay. I don't think the rules are bad, but I think people will behave better if there are fewer rules which are clearer. Itâ€™s great to have all these rules, but if there are so many, in different places around the site people I wonder how many people are familiar and follow them all.
I am really happy to agree to differ on views here. I might think a rule could go, whereas many others think it is vital and should stay.
To try and summarize things, I think some rules could go as there are too many and I have now listed the ones I would get rid of, whereas the Mods/ex Mods and I am sure many users think the rules are essential to keep the peace. I guess they are two different approaches.
Thank you for patiently letting me have my say and listening to my suggestions
Tim

5 Aug 2006

I can't really get into the chatroom rules and stuff because I don't use it very much, so don't know how they impact on the users; but from a forum point of view . . . .
Photos and videos.
Despite all I've read (in this thread, others and PMs) I'm still of the same opinion as I've always been, as discussed here . .
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/74516.html
In brief . .
I think as an adult site, pictures that go past the "page 3" styleee should be allowed, maybe to the point of what you could see on mainstream TV after the watershed.
I've always, and still do reject the argument of member's children, parents, work colleagues etc seeing such images by "accident" - I would call that "seeing them due to the carelessness/irresponsibility of members.
I also disagree with the "images of others" rule. In both profile video and photos.
Yes - I agree, it could be a complete nightmare. But I still disagree, with the very strong proviso that the "others" are unidentifiable to all but those involved.
I had much more than that to say (as usual rolleyes

) but it's Tina Turner hour on VH1 Classic, and my mind has somehow wandered off redface

I may well come back to it.

5 Aug 2006

number one.........if you leave your cam on not only is it quite dull...........but also you might forget that your kids have got up and are now wondering round on cam.........

Then this would be covered by the no kids on cam rule. Many couples (i.e us) don't have kids.

other sites, emails addys and phone numbers.........well i can see why the owners don want other sites advetised...........but surley only an idiot would post their email addy or phone number on a public forum............

Well, I think this rule even blocks this in whispher in the chatroom. If someone wants to post an email address, warn them of the risks, but leave it up to them. We used to have our email address on our ad before the takeover with little harm.

capitals are seen as shouting or rude.........so it shouldnt be encouraged.........

I think this would self regulate. People will tell someone to not use caps, it doesn't need to clutter up the rule book.

and its definately fair to warn people before they are kicked from a chatroom............they may be new and not know how they are expected to behave..........or something they say might have been misinturpreted........

I my experience this rule is being ignored. I've seen a lot of kicking without warning. Perhaps you are right and this should stay. With less rules it would become more prominent. More room creators might become aware of it.

5 Aug 2006

Quote by TimandLene
Some other chatroom rules could also I think go:
You must not leave web cams unattended for more than 10 minutes
I can certainly see an argument for it being left unattended and forgotten about, and also to save bandwith
No posting of other sites, email addresses or phone numbers
If telephone numbers and email addresses were allowed it would be open to abuse - addresses posted for revenge purposes and the chatrooms would get full of email harvesters and spammers.
No capitals are to be used as this is regarded as shouting and rude
Ok it's no real biggy, but it is annoying and if it isn't in the rules then someone who was constantly shouting would then get upset when asked not to.
If you open a room you must warn someone before you kick them out
Forum
I think some of the forum rules (I am referring to the rules in the sticky at the top) are a bit discouraging for new users. I would simply keep the basic rules that you should post in the appropriate forum and of course stop anything illegal or abusive, no spamming etc
For example I understand why:
â€œBefore you post a new topic, use the forum search tool at the top to make sure you're not simply repeating an old
It is a good idea, becuase it encourages newbies to browse the forum before jumping straight in. It also serves as a bit of a warning, so that if they do find that their first thread has been locked, they can understand why.
But I think this is off putting for someone who is new. Just because a topic was discussed before, they might want to have that conversation again, with new people. Sure some of the obvious topics would come up again and again, but that might encourage new people to join in. How many possible regulars to the forum have been lost, because their first post was blocked for this reason, possibly because they didnâ€™t notice the sticky.
Other rules about genital shots in photos seem unneeded.
General AUP
I would drop these:
Photos will be deleted if they contain any of the following:
Any photo ads or posts either in the forum or chatroom that are posted in order to exchange pictures, videos or offer photography services or similar
Forums would be full of spammers, posing as genuine members
Pictures that are not on topic, eg popstars, cartoons etc.
We used to have some really good caption compition type threads, which are greatly missed......but, as it is now a commercial site, I imagine the owners have to be very careful about copyrighted images being posted. It might seem like a bit of harmless fun, but the owner of the image can view it as theft!
Postage stamp size pictures.
Could sick images be hidden in postage stamp sized images, then cleaned up with specialist software??
No banned members are allowed to be invited to a munch or any kind of social event that has been advertised on this site or promoted to the site members.
If a member has been banned there is a very real chance that they pose a danger to members, hence the reason they have been banned.
Photo Ads
I would allow people to post their email address if they wanted to. This could be blocked for those that have not paid as it is in the Mailbox.
Again email addressed could be posted for revenge, they can be harvested by spammers and the site would very soon be overrun with porn spamming etc
I would also allow a single person to have pictures of them with other people, but I would remind them that they need that person's approval. This goes as well for couples who might want to show pics of them with another couple. Just tell them they need permission or face a permanent ban.
Again, it is open to abuse. If someone had obtained an image of a third party and was posting it simply for malicious purposes, would they care if they faced a ban? I would imagine there are legal implications.
I am guessing some people here were involved in drawing up these rules and I am very sorry if this upsets them. This is just my opinion, so don't let this bother you too much. I am repeating myself a bit, but I think that if there are too many rules they distract from the really important rules.

Obviously the reasons I've given are only assumptions I've made for the reasons behind the rules. I can't think of any rule the site has that if you think about all the possible implications on the site owners, there isn't a plausible reason for the rule.
Not all of the rules are enforced in every case. For instance, linking out to other sites......jokey video clips that appear on free to share webpages are usually allowed to remain. I think this shows that it isn't just a blanket ban and posts are well moderated and judged independantly on their own merit - considering the implications involved (again just my opinion). By having the rules there though, it covers the sites back, if you like, so if Joe Bloggs does end every post with - "check out my new casino etc..... it can be deleted without quibble.
Les x

5 Aug 2006

Thanks Blue... ok here I go.................

Errrrrrrrrrr.............. I'm not a regular chatroom user but the link to the rules is very clear to me --- right near where you log on.... confused here :

I'm talking about the link to the AUP for the entire site. The link appears before going into the chatroom, otherwise it is only available through a really small link at the bottom of the page. I thought this could maybe appear larger on a users homepage. Maybe we have misunderstood each other. Or maybe I am being a bit thick. The second is very possible!!!

Soooooooooo you're suggesting the introduction on unmoderated chatrooms???? bring on the child molestors and animal shaggers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, unmoderated chatrooms would be a nightmare, legally and morally. Personally I would not enter a chatroom that was unmoderated. If I am in a room and it becomes clear there is no-one looking after it I leave. Simple as. I am afraid of what I might see. You admit that some creators do not moderate their rooms. In my view that means that the chatroom should be more carefully moderated, not less. I do agree that knowing who the room creator/moderator is would be useful.

I think they are already pretty much unmoderated. Maybe there are things that could be done to make it easier to find offenders. I gave a few ideas in earlier posts. At the moment the animal shagger could start his own room with a innocent sounding room title and other users might not have an immediate way of alerting a mod. They can report it, but the response might not be immediate if they can't find someone. A little "report this chatroom" button at the top of each chat window might help.

So you want people on the site who are here JUST to collect pictures? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.... I thought this was a genuine swingers site? My bad :?

If a couple on here wants to exchange pics of themselves rather than meet, well good for them. I don't have an issue with this. If people don't want to exchange pics then they can say no thanks. We now have a photo gallery section, so I guess we do cater to picture collectors.

Pictures that are not on topic in ads are boring, and timewasting. I cannot see why you have a problem with the mods re-enforcing that people should post genuine pics of themselves in the ads. Weird!!!!!!
Postage size pics are pointless. No other reason I can see why these arfe not allowed. But hey :?

Fake profile pics are different, but that is not what the rule I quoted states. It states "Pictures that are not on topic, eg popstars, cartoons etc" . Maybe the wording on photos could be amended to keep them legal, and to stop people using someone elses picture pretending it is of themselves.

So, you think that banned members should be allowed at munches? OK, what if someone was banned for sexually assaulting another member shouold be allowed to a munch. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy -------------- great idea..... think you need a serious re-think here!

Would such a person be invited? I think this is a case that the rule isn't needed because people wouldn't do this. I can appreciate though that the person arranging a munch might not know the background of everyone so the membership rule acts as good guide. Do the people arranging these meets like this rule? Do you want it to stay? You could have someone who was banned for reasons that perhaps are not so serious. Technically a banned member can just re-sign up with a freebie account. Can someone with a freebie account post on the forum?
Blue, I didn't address everything here, but I hope explains my thinking a bit. I am not arrogant enough to think I am right about everything and I acknowledge and appreciate you have a lot of experience of this site and its Moderation. Thank you for explaining some of the reasons for the rules.

5 Aug 2006

Quote by TimandLene
So, you think that banned members should be allowed at munches? OK, what if someone was banned for sexually assaulting another member shouold be allowed to a munch. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy -------------- great idea..... think you need a serious re-think here!

Would such a person be invited?
You better believe they would....
It has happened in the past and would happen again if this rule were not in place..

5 Aug 2006

Steve,
I only picked out a few points, as I think I tried to cover the other parts in other posts. Thank you also for your advice and opinion here.

Quote by TimandLene
Perhaps there could instead be a function where chatters can highlight a room to moderators if there is a problem.

We already have a specific room on each server for that purpose

When I have seen it, it was empty, on all three servers. Maybe I misunderstood how it should work. Do we go into the chatroom and then if you see us in there you pop in to ask what the problem is? Is that the procedure? If so, perhaps some people don't realise this is what they should do.

Quote by TimandLene
No posting of other sites, email addresses or phone numbers

You cannot be serious :shock:
If you had a business would you allow other people to advertise of your back ??
I wouldnt..

Well, we can put an icon on our profile saying we like phonesex, but we can't whispher our tel number to another user.
If I want to post an article on for example the BBC website, which is relevant to a chat, I can't. If they want to ban the promotion of competitors sites then sure ban that, but not the rest of the internet.

5 Aug 2006

Quote by Steve_Mids

So, you think that banned members should be allowed at munches? OK, what if someone was banned for sexually assaulting another member shouold be allowed to a munch. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy -------------- great idea..... think you need a serious re-think here!

Would such a person be invited?
You better believe they would....
It has happened in the past and would happen again if this rule were not in place..
Thanks Steve, well I was clearly totally wrong here.

5 Aug 2006

Quote by TimandLene
Well, we can put an icon on our profile saying we like phonesex, but we can't whispher our tel number to another user.

Who says you cant whisper your phone number to another chatter ??

5 Aug 2006

Quote by TimandLene
Well, we can put an icon on our profile saying we like phonesex, but we can't whispher our tel number to another user.

I whispered my mobile number to another chatter last night biggrin

Providing it isn't in the main room you are fine.... I accidentaly posted my number in the main room one night (Tip : Dont try to whisper personal details while pissed redface

) and I had about 4 blokes phoning me suggesting all sorts of things... Fortunately I am in a position to issue warnings to not contact me again but others are not so forunate smile

Please excuse me not responding to other points you have made but I have a mahoooosive headache sad

5 Aug 2006

Quote by TimandLene
Thanks Blue... ok here I go.................
Errrrrrrrrrr.............. I'm not a regular chatroom user but the link to the rules is very clear to me --- right near where you log on.... confused here :

I'm talking about the link to the AUP for the entire site. The link appears before going into the chatroom, otherwise it is only available through a really small link at the bottom of the page. I thought this could maybe appear larger on a users homepage. Maybe we have misunderstood each other. Or maybe I am being a bit thick. The second is very possible!!!

I am also taking about the site AUP. Right under the link where you login to the room there is this sentense...
By entering the chatroom I confirm I have read, understood and agree to abide by the Chatroom T & C's and the site AUP.

Quote by TimandLene
Soooooooooo you're suggesting the introduction on unmoderated chatrooms???? bring on the child molestors and animal shaggers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously, unmoderated chatrooms would be a nightmare, legally and morally. Personally I would not enter a chatroom that was unmoderated. If I am in a room and it becomes clear there is no-one looking after it I leave. Simple as. I am afraid of what I might see. You admit that some creators do not moderate their rooms. In my view that means that the chatroom should be more carefully moderated, not less. I do agree that knowing who the room creator/moderator is would be useful.

I think they are already pretty much unmoderated. Maybe there are things that could be done to make it easier to find offenders. I gave a few ideas in earlier posts. At the moment the animal shagger could start his own room with a innocent sounding room title and other users might not have an immediate way of alerting a mod. They can report it, but the response might not be immediate if they can't find someone. A little "report this chatroom" button at the top of each chat window might help.
.
Sooooooooooooo.......... yes, any old animal shagger could go and open his or her own room. Any measure... e.g. careful regulating and opping of rooms... that can prevent this is welcome in my book. Closing rooms in which the creater has got bored and logged off is one way to reg the rooms. If a room is left open and no-one is looking after it, Mr or Ms Animal Shagger could easily use it --- could they not???? Which is a huge problem. Even mroe of a problem if Mr or Ms Child Molester also decides to log on.

Quote by TimandLene
So you want people on the site who are here JUST to collect pictures? Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.... I thought this was a genuine swingers site? My bad :?

If a couple on here wants to exchange pics of themselves rather than meet, well good for them. I don't have an issue with this. If people don't want to exchange pics then they can say no thanks. We now have a photo gallery section, so I guess we do cater to picture collectors.
There is nothing to stop people exchaging pics of each other, is there???? The point is that the site is for swingers.... whether or not they wish to exchange pictures. What the site doesn't need is people who simply use the site to pose as swingers to collect pics. There is a difference.

Quote by TimandLene
Pictures that are not on topic in ads are boring, and timewasting. I cannot see why you have a problem with the mods re-enforcing that people should post genuine pics of themselves in the ads. Weird!!!!!!
Postage size pics are pointless. No other reason I can see why these arfe not allowed. But hey :?

Fake profile pics are different, but that is not what the rule I quoted states. It states "Pictures that are not on topic, eg popstars, cartoons etc" . Maybe the wording on photos could be amended to keep them legal, and to stop people using someone elses picture pretending it is of themselves.
But why would you want people posting cartoons etc in the ads anyway.... isn't that just a waste of time? Am I missing the point here? Or are you?

Quote by TimandLene
So, you think that banned members should be allowed at munches? OK, what if someone was banned for sexually assaulting another member shouold be allowed to a munch. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy -------------- great idea..... think you need a serious re-think here!

Would such a person be invited? I think this is a case that the rule isn't needed because people wouldn't do this. I can appreciate though that the person arranging a munch might not know the background of everyone so the membership rule acts as good guide. Do the people arranging these meets like this rule? Do you want it to stay? You could have someone who was banned for reasons that perhaps are not so serious. Technically a banned member can just re-sign up with a freebie account. Can someone with a freebie account post on the forum?
Yes it has been the case that those involved in nasty activities and then banned from the site have been invited to munches in the past. Whilst some (most?) people are banned for reasons less serious than a sex crime, they have still broken the site rules and hence not welcome on the site, at least temporarily. If they are not allowed on the site, why should they be allowed to go to a site run event. Doesn't make sense to me, that.

5 Aug 2006

This is just a quick reply, sorry Blue...................

I am also taking about the site AUP. Right under the link where you login to the room there is this sentense...
By entering the chatroom I confirm I have read, understood and agree to abide by the Chatroom T & C's and the site AUP.

My original point was that if you don't everuse the chatroom you might miss the site AUP. I am sorry if my posts were not clear. The only place the AUP is really clearly linked (I think) is the link to the chatroom. The chatroom is only part of this community.

There is nothing to stop people exchaging pics of each other, is there???? The point is that the site is for swingers.... whether or not they wish to exchange pictures. What the site doesn't need is people who simply use the site to pose as swingers to collect pics. There is a difference.

The rule stops this:
"Any photo ads or posts either in the forum or chatroom that are posted in order to exchange pictures, videos or offer photography services or similar" That is the rule, and I think it does mean that a couple which enjoys showing and exchanging their photos with other couples cannot advertise this interest. Why have a photo gallery, which is heaven for photo collectors, but don't allow people to place an ad saying lets swap pics.

But why would you want people posting cartoons etc in the ads anyway.... isn't that just a waste of time? Am I missing the point here? Or are you?

My point is that if you make too many rules, people won't be able to keep up with them. If somehting is mildly annoying for some, but harmless, I personally wouldn't rule against it, simply because I want people to pay attention to the serious rules.

5 Aug 2006

Quote by TimandLene
I am also taking about the site AUP. Right under the link where you login to the room there is this sentense...
By entering the chatroom I confirm I have read, understood and agree to abide by the Chatroom T & C's and the site AUP.

My original point was that if you don't everuse the chatroom you might miss the site AUP. I am sorry if my posts were not clear. The only place the AUP is really clearly linked (I think) is the link to the chatroom. The chatroom is only part of this community.

Ah right... with ya wink

I don't suppose the AUP is in your face anywhere on the site. I suppose a link on the left hand menu would make it clearer, along with the advice and help links. But for people who don't like rules, would you really want to be reminded of them all the time hehehehehehehehe :wink: :wink: :wink:

Quote by TimandLene
There is nothing to stop people exchaging pics of each other, is there???? The point is that the site is for swingers.... whether or not they wish to exchange pictures. What the site doesn't need is people who simply use the site to pose as swingers to collect pics. There is a difference.

The rule stops this:
"Any photo ads or posts either in the forum or chatroom that are posted in order to exchange pictures, videos or offer photography services or similar" That is the rule, and I think it does mean that a couple which enjoys showing and exchanging their photos with other couples cannot advertise this interest. Why have a photo gallery, which is heaven for photo collectors, but don't allow people to place an ad saying lets swap pics.
The rule prevents those who are only interested in pics swaps from advertising. In the past the site was bugged by pic collectors and the rule was put in force to slow them down. The bigger problem imo are the ones who offer photography services --- usually there is money involved... Anyhooooooo..... I like the rule but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here :P

Quote by TimandLene
But why would you want people posting cartoons etc in the ads anyway.... isn't that just a waste of time? Am I missing the point here? Or are you?

My point is that if you make too many rules, people won't be able to keep up with them. If somehting is mildly annoying for some, but harmless, I personally wouldn't rule against it, simply because I want people to pay attention to the serious rules.
But imo there aren't too many rules. You have said all along that there are too many rules, and I have tried to explain why the rules you have a problem with are there. You did not realise the importance of some of them, so call this an education :wink: . The cartoons rule --- yeah imo it's less important than some, but I say again, why would you want people posting cartoons???? When you go through the ads, you may only be interested in looking closer at those that have pics.... so you focus on the ones where it says yes they have pics.... you click on that link and there is a pic of Homer Simpson there, not the ad poster. How useful is that???? What if every ad you clicked on had a cartoon --- howvery frustrating it would become very quickly???? And some cartoons aren't that harmless imo. I can see the purpose of making it clear that only genuine pics of the member are posted. Maybe something else we will have to agree to disagree on :wink:

5 Aug 2006

Blue
I disagree to agree with you
:giggle:

7 Aug 2006

your wright bring back the old s h

7 Aug 2006

Quote by freimation
your wright bring back the old s h

you into grannies then rolleyes

7 Aug 2006

Quote by freimation
your wright bring back the old s h

And you know what the old SH was like then?? dunno

8 Aug 2006

Quote by dambuster
I had much more than that to say (as usual ) but it's Tina Turner hour on VH1 Classic, and my mind has somehow wandered off
I may well come back to it.

And here I am . . . .
The other thing that galls me is the lack of consistency in the vetting/approval of pictures of "third parties" in the profile pics.
I've sort of decided it might be down to which mod is vetting/approving which pic and possibly their own opinion.

19 Oct 2010

I have also experience this kind of inconsistency before, not just here but one some other sites also. It is quite annoying. A few other sites I have found good are Mod edit: Do not post other swinging sites on the open forum xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(hardly any rules) and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxwhich has quite a few more members.

19 Oct 2010

Quote by Skyfox
I have also experience this kind of inconsistency before, not just here but one some other sites also. It is quite annoying. A few other sites I have found good are Mod edit: Do not post other swinging sites on the open forum xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(hardly any rules) and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx which has quite a few more members.

Welcome Skyfox and congrats on your first post. I will point out though the thread you replied on was from 2006 so things may have changed a little and a lot of the people in the thread wont be here to read your reply.
Cheers :cheers:

19 Oct 2010

Quote by tweeky
I have also experience this kind of inconsistency before, not just here but one some other sites also. It is quite annoying. A few other sites I have found good are Mod edit: Do not post other swinging sites on the open forum xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(hardly any rules) and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxwhich has quite a few more members.

Welcome Skyfox and congrats on your first post. I will point out though the thread you replied on was from 2006 so things may have changed a little and a lot of the people in the thread wont be here to read your reply.
Cheers :cheers:
And the websites will most likely be xxxxx out of the post too.

19 Oct 2010

Quote by Skyfox
I have also experience this kind of inconsistency before, not just here but one some other sites also. It is quite annoying. A few other sites I have found good are Mod edit: Do not post other swinging sites on the open forum xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(hardly any rules) and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxwhich has quite a few more members.

Gotta smile at the irony of one complaining about inconsistencies when his stated age is either 27 or 28, depending which bit of the profile you read, and the fact that he's married but there's no mention/pictures of his wife lol

19 Oct 2010

Lost rules OK yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! biggrin

19 Oct 2010

Why the blanking out of other sites?
Is someone scared of the competition? lol

I thought those days were long gone?

19 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Why the blanking out of other sites?
Is someone scared of the competition?
I thought those days were long gone?

Do you advertise for free your competitors in your business?

20 Oct 2010

Quote by Mal
Why the blanking out of other sites?
Is someone scared of the competition?
I thought those days were long gone?

Do you advertise for free your competitors in your business?
Not really a relevant answer really.
With apparently over a million members I would say on that basis the biggest swinging site in the Uk, is scared of a few little sites out there, that are easy as anything to find anyway?
In my business there are services that we cannot supply, so IF a customer asks us do we know anyone who can do the job they require, then we pass on another companies details.
Not going to affect my business and I am not scared of competition as I offer a good service which means people come back.
IF a business does not offer a good service, then I could maybe understand a different attitude.
SH I believe offers a good overall service to it's customers...IF people were looking for other sites I am sure many already know who they are, hence my original statement.

20 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Why the blanking out of other sites?
Is someone scared of the competition?
I thought those days were long gone?

Do you advertise for free your competitors in your business?
Not really a relevant answer really.
With apparently over a million members I would say on that basis the biggest swinging site in the Uk, is scared of a few little sites out there, that are easy as anything to find anyway?
In my business there are services that we cannot supply, so IF a customer asks us do we know anyone who can do the job they require, then we pass on another companies details.
Not going to affect my business and I am not scared of competition as I offer a good service which means people come back.
IF a business does not offer a good service, then I could maybe understand a different attitude.
SH I believe offers a good overall service to it's customers...IF people were looking for other sites I am sure many already know who they are, hence my original statement.
The example you have given is that you give out other business names for a service you do not offer.
Have you got adverts on the front of your business telling potential customers to use a competitor?
If you are going to compare then do look at what you write Kenny. So it is a relevent answer.
As for passing on details of businesses that offer a service that SH does not offer........have you looked in the Commercial section of the Forum? SH have built a whole room to allow other business to use SH's facilities for the good and benefit of the members at no cost to the business.
Dave_Notts