socials and private party guests lists approval

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Calista
I thought that this had been agreed upon months ago and that Munches and Socials had certain "guidelines" but private parties are at individuals discretion?
Cx

if only that were the case Calista, then this thread would not be needed and so many parties could go ahead and we could all get back to swinging....until then the iron fist is what stops us playing..

1 Nov 2006

Do people who are hosting Socials expect this site to take action if someone causes them a problem?
If they do then the rule is relevant.
If they don't then maybe it's time for a rethink or a debate, without people being deliberatly obtuse during the debate.
I thought the rule was pretty clear, but would it be clearer if it said, "you can't advertise if you are going to knowingly invite banned members.
I don't for one minute think the Mods would ban members for having been duped or tricked by unscrupulous people, who have also tricked the site by returning with a new user name.
It would be pretty obvious if people were bending the rule pretending they had no knowledge as the gossip mill would ensure it got back. lol

Jas
XXX

1 Nov 2006

Jas its not socials its private parties that are the issue here, well at least thats what i hoped the issue would be,

1 Nov 2006

Quote by wild rose and the stag
Jas its not socials its private parties that are the issue here, well at least thats what i hoped the issue would be,

I'd stick with the same reply for parties Staggy, I just lumped them all under social rather than cover every hypothetical that is flying around.
Would you expect the site to do something if any guests behaved innappropriately?
Many used to, I just don't know if that is still the case, and perhaps it's a change in expectation/feeling from members, and that is why the subject gets so heated. dunno

Jas
XXX

1 Nov 2006

Quote by wild rose and the stag
so the meet at rios that sarah has arramged which is described as a social om the 11th of november is what exactly .........sorry sarah to highlight yours but it was the first one that sprang to mind, i know there have been plenty of others in the past.
We do it all the time with xtasia meets, no one picks us up on this,

I really didn't think this would need explaining confused

You've used two clubs as examples there WRATS, one a swinging/naturist club, and the other a swinging club........ the door policies they hold offer a fair bit of security. Other, more vanilla meeting places don't offer that environment!!!

Quote by wild rose and the stag
seems this has already been noted by us fools that are mere members, oops sorry to repeat the point but it aint sinking in with the clever ones at the helm is it.

:shock: :shock: :shock:
Not the best post I've ever seen you write WRATS confused

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Calista
I know what you are saying Jags but this means that you are relying on the organisers admitting that a banned member is attending ... ie being honest. If you want people to be honest about this then surely threatening them with a ban is counter productive? If someone is honest, tells you about a banned member, advertises their party and other people can make their minds up .... or organiser is determined to advertise their party, know they risk a ban so doesn't admit a banned person is attending, people who otherwise wouldn't choose to go do so and find their personal safety compromised? (for example)

My earlier point as well.
If I am attending a private party that has a banned member attending then thats my lookout not SH's. Again, the rules are very particular for "stickied" Munches and Social's which are held under the banner of SH and quite rightly so.
If a member steps out of line at one of those events then we can expect the mods or admin to take some evidinced based action.
On the other hand if, at an event outwith the SH stickied banner, a member steps out of line then we cant come crying to admin expecting them to take action can we?
Perhaps the answer is a standard admin message on such Private Party posts outlining the fact that whilst these events are advertised here they are neither sanctioned, nor governed by SH rules and as such admin will not be held in anyway responsible for the action of others at these events.....
The obviously problem with that tho' is that, lets face it, admin cant be held responsible for the actions of persons at an SH Munch either. Okay they can take action after the event but will that help put the clock back? Course it wont.

Quote by Calista
In a community that should put honesty first, I think all the threats of bans do is make people think "ok I won't tell anyone".
Not everyone who reads the forums is an idiot, but it does appear that SH are trying to treat people that way

I'm sure that the latter part of the above is not the intention.
I'd much rather see the Op's, Mod's and Admin work together with the members to resolve issues and that can only be done through the process of frank and honest sharing of opinions.
Rules are rules and where they are in place should be adhered to but rules can't be set in stone, they should be allowed to evolve as required and with the increase in the number of Private Party type events then it's obviously something needing reviewed with the input of the members.
Just my thoughts (I'm a member and entitled to them after all)
the Laird

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Missy
so the meet at rios that sarah has arramged which is described as a social om the 11th of november is what exactly .........sorry sarah to highlight yours but it was the first one that sprang to mind, i know there have been plenty of others in the past.
We do it all the time with xtasia meets, no one picks us up on this,

I really didn't think this would need explaining confused

You've used two clubs as examples there WRATS, one a swinging/naturist club, and the other a swinging club........ the door policies they hold offer a fair bit of security. Other, more vanilla meeting places don't offer that environment!!!

Quote by wild rose and the stag
seems this has already been noted by us fools that are mere members, oops sorry to repeat the point but it aint sinking in with the clever ones at the helm is it.

:shock: :shock: :shock:
Not the best post I've ever seen you write WRATS confused

but surely my house is more secure than any swinging club, i mean i wouldnt let anyone in no matter what they offered me financially unlike a swinging club that has a policy of
erm show us your money right now go on in, thats one of the points im making the rules are swayed to suit one situation because it is difficult to control, however the logic for controlling the other situation doesnt add up.
Not the best response ive seen you make missy, but lets not get into an argument over how good we are at posting hey, lets just stick to the point !
staggy

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Jas-Tim
Jas its not socials its private parties that are the issue here, well at least thats what i hoped the issue would be,

I'd stick with the same reply for parties Staggy, I just lumped them all under social rather than cover every hypothetical that is flying around.
Would you expect the site to do something if any guests behaved innappropriately?
Many used to, I just don't know if that is still the case, and perhaps it's a change in expectation/feeling from members, and that is why the subject gets so heated. dunno

Jas
XXX
a general reply , not aimed directly at you jas
and if they misbehaved at a swing club the difference is?, again i reiterate the reason i was given for the rule, it was to ensure that no sh member could come into contact with banned members at an event advertised on this site! whats the difference between one held at my secure home and one at aswing club where money gets you in regardless, no vetting no membership in some cases and so on.
All im asking is for the site to allow me and others that organise private parties to be allowed to advertise them via here with out that one particular ruling , we have the ability as members to think for our selves dont we, we can choose to go or not, we all make choices like that on a daily basis . look at dogging meets ffs, and yet they are arranged via this site , no locations named of course but still an enviroment that is conducive to danger from members outside of the site. This site actively promotes certain activities and yet threatens bans on people for much less dangerous ones, imho, consistancy somewhat lacking
staggy

1 Nov 2006

Quote by the_Laird

I know what you are saying Jags but this means that you are relying on the organisers admitting that a banned member is attending ... ie being honest. If you want people to be honest about this then surely threatening them with a ban is counter productive? If someone is honest, tells you about a banned member, advertises their party and other people can make their minds up .... or organiser is determined to advertise their party, know they risk a ban so doesn't admit a banned person is attending, people who otherwise wouldn't choose to go do so and find their personal safety compromised? (for example)

My earlier point as well.
If I am attending a private party that has a banned member attending then thats my lookout not SH's. Again, the rules are very particular for "stickied" Munches and Social's which are held under the banner of SH and quite rightly so.
If a member steps out of line at one of those events then we can expect the mods or admin to take some evidinced based action.
On the other hand if, at an event outwith the SH stickied banner, a member steps out of line then we cant come crying to admin expecting them to take action can we?
Perhaps the answer is a standard admin message on such Private Party posts outlining the fact that whilst these events are advertised here they are neither sanctioned, nor governed by SH rules and as such admin will not be held in anyway responsible for the action of others at these events.....
The obviously problem with that tho' is that, lets face it, admin cant be held responsible for the actions of persons at an SH Munch either. Okay they can take action after the event but will that help put the clock back? Course it wont.

Quote by Calista
In a community that should put honesty first, I think all the threats of bans do is make people think "ok I won't tell anyone".
Not everyone who reads the forums is an idiot, but it does appear that SH are trying to treat people that way

I'm sure that the latter part of the above is not the intention.
I'd much rather see the Op's, Mod's and Admin work together with the members to resolve issues and that can only be done through the process of frank and honest sharing of opinions.
Rules are rules and where they are in place should be adhered to but rules can't be set in stone, they should be allowed to evolve as required and with the increase in the number of Private Party type events then it's obviously something needing reviewed with the input of the members.
Just my thoughts (I'm a member and entitled to them after all)
the Laird
singing from the same hymm sheet Lairdy

1 Nov 2006

Quote by wild rose and the stag
Not the best response ive seen you make missy, but lets not get into an argument over how good we are at posting hey, lets just stick to the point !

You're right Staggy, it certainly wasn't my best post - I whacked the submit button, cos my ex popped round, so it was clipped bluddy short bluddy quick lol

What I intended to say, well not say really, was ask what the point of that bit I quoted was, if you could clarify it's meaning for me - cos all I could see was goading, as opposed to something constructive, which I'm sure is what you intended this thread to be? wink

Quote by wild rose and the stag
but surely my house is more secure than any swinging club, i mean i wouldnt let anyone in no matter what they offered me financially unlike a swinging club that has a policy of
erm show us your money right now go on in, thats one of the points im making the rules are swayed to suit one situation because it is difficult to control, however the logic for controlling the other situation doesnt add up.

Now, I'm not the most prolific of swinging club goers, but I've been a couple of times - and I've never encountered that attitude - in fact, one place we did make a complaint, it was sorted out and dealt with promptly.
Sure it's a 'show us your money' thing, but never have I witnessed the doorstaff put up with shit from people, just cos they have 'shown their money' dunno

Maybe I'm just lucky there, I don't know, like I said, I'm not exactly the most prolific club goer.
Your place as the other example - how would I know that? I barely know you. If I turned up at your house for a social/party and there was a banned member there, someone you obviously know better than you know me cos they were invited (as opposed to me asking in a thread). If that banned member deliberately caused trouble for me, how would I KNOW that you would deal with it appropriatly - and not sling out the person you know the least, or the one that isn't a known friend??

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Missy
Your place as the other example - how would I know that? I barely know you. If I turned up at your house for a social/party and there was a banned member there, someone you obviously know better than you know me cos they were invited (as opposed to me asking in a thread). If that banned member deliberately caused trouble for me, how would I KNOW that you would deal with it appropriatly - and not sling out the person you know the least, or the one that isn't a known friend??

Devil's Advocate ......
Why would you go to a party of someone you barely know , that has an advertised "Banned Mamber" attending, without doing some research?
If the person is banned for a photo transgression, then you may wish to go, but if someone had been banned for violence, would you really be going to someone you barely know's house???
Cx

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Missy
I really didn't think this would need explaining You've used two clubs as examples there WRATS, one a swinging/naturist club, and the other a swinging club........ the door policies they hold offer a fair bit of security. Other, more vanilla meeting places don't offer that environment!!!

The door policies of any club we've been to would not mean that a banned member of SH could not gain entry merely because he was a banned member of SH. Were there to be a problem then I'm sure that the staff would sort it out, just as if there was a problem at a vanilla pub the staff would sort it out. I would expect a pub doorman to sort out a problem more readily than most club staff though.
I still cannot see how club meets are allowed to be publicised in full while private parties seem to be vetted. On page one of this thread I asked if this was now a new ruling for all private parties rather than for socials, as I had originally understood it to only cover SH endorsed socials, or was it only being applied to some parties since clearly in the fairly recent past parties have taken place with no vetting of guest lists.
As several people have said before, I'm an adult and should be capable of making my own decisions as to what level of risk I wish to take. Again on page one I asked what the status of the banned members that we cannot meet were. There is a considerable difference between a ban for violence or sexual assault compared to a ban for a forum infingement. While I would not wish to socialise with a psycopath, it wouldn't bother me in the least to meet someone who had hidden his e-mail address or phone number in his advert.
Enough people have posted on this thread to show that there is a genuine desire to see these inconsistencies explained rationally.

1 Nov 2006

Quote by northwest-cpl
I still cannot see how club meets are allowed to be publicised in full while private parties seem to be vetted. On page one of this thread I asked if this was now a new ruling for all private parties rather than for socials, as I had originally understood it to only cover SH endorsed socials, or was it only being applied to some parties since clearly in the fairly recent past parties have taken place with no vetting of guest lists.

Sorry, I didn't explain my meaning very well - I mean the examples of locations given out on the forums were of clubs, as opposed to the more vanilla location - it was more of a 'locations in posts' post than a 'banned members' post.
Oh I'm so in knots here rotflmao

Trying to do dinner, separate kids fists from hair, do sensible posts....... and realised 5 mins ago, the main ingredient, the chicken, of me dinner - well I've forgotten to cook it :undecided:
OK, me next bit lol

EEeeeek - I can't - Calista, I'll try to get to answer your Devils advocate after dins. I did do it a minute ago, but then accidently highlighted a load and deleted it rolleyes

Ok deffo off for dinner now - although it's a lot darker brown than I intended :undecided: :uhoh:

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Fun Scottish Couple

Iâ€™m also confused with this thread, as a social can be held in a public place and are allowed to be advertised in the forums, sometimes even with dates and actual location, the point being anyone can look at these forums without being a member It would also be good to see the forum section being a bit more secure and accessible only to members rather than anyone with an internet connection as that puts members more at risk than any single banned member will, thatâ€™s actually helping the said banned member along the way. Just my opinion though.

And clearlng up this very confused post. NO LOCATIONS are included in forum posts and are always deleted if any idiot does try to post them. So, please make sure that you 1) get your facts correct and 2) report any social meet post or dogging post which DOES have a location in. We are happy to remove it, edit the post or, in the case of persisently idiotic people, remove the account.
Now, let's not confuse an already tottering thread.
rolleyes

All i can say is thanks jags for taking the time to reply, and you haven't cleared anything up as this does happen as the link posted above shows and calling members idiots isn't helping this discussion either, there has been replies on this thread from 2 mods from this site and both have been sarcastic replies to say the least, so to tell me to get my facts right before posting is a bit premature on your part as these postings happen all the time on this site, i wouldn't have brought it up otherwise. sad

I was talking about SOCIALS and not anything else advertised on LMU - as others have said meeting in clubs etc would be difficult. Please don't confuse the issues here cos it's tough enough to make sense of the thread already!
My remarks were NOT sarcastic in the least - try to imagine the words being spoken and not written and you may regard them in a different light. My comments about getting the fact correct was appropriate then just as they would be now and even less sarcastic.

<don't know what emoticon to put here - some will be offended with my usual :P and some will be offended by a friendly biggrin

and some will be offended with nothing at all>

1 Nov 2006

Quote by wild rose and the stag
seems this has already been noted by us fools that are mere members, oops sorry to repeat the point but it aint sinking in with the clever ones at the helm is it.
wrats
xx

Take some time to read my little tiny small hard to decipher signature.

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Missy
I still cannot see how club meets are allowed to be publicised in full while private parties seem to be vetted. On page one of this thread I asked if this was now a new ruling for all private parties rather than for socials, as I had originally understood it to only cover SH endorsed socials, or was it only being applied to some parties since clearly in the fairly recent past parties have taken place with no vetting of guest lists.

Sorry, I didn't explain my meaning very well - I mean the examples of locations given out on the forums were of clubs, as opposed to the more vanilla location - it was more of a 'locations in posts' post than a 'banned members' post.
...
Ok deffo off for dinner now - although it's a lot darker brown than I intended :undecided: :uhoh:
Enjoy your burnt offering sad

but better well done than rare if it's pork. lol

But thanks for the very prompt response at the risk of culinary disaster.
I think staggy was in 'banned member' mode though and meant that fully publicised club meets would allow access to the membership by banned members just as much as private parties could and therefore shows a gaping loophole and inconsistency in the rules as they stand. (Staggy, correct me if I'm wrong.)

1 Nov 2006

Quote by northwest-cpl
Enjoy your burnt offering but better well done than rare if it's pork. But thanks for the very prompt response at the risk of culinary disaster.

Never eaten a dinner so fast :undecided: Wasn't exaclty the most happy family of meals, crunching away on peas like bullets confused

Quote by northwest-cpl
I think staggy was in 'banned member' mode though and meant that fully publicised club meets would allow access to the membership by banned members just as much as private parties could and therefore shows a gaping loophole and inconsistency in the rules as they stand. (Staggy, correct me if I'm wrong.)

OK I'm with ya now, I think confused

Yeh, I can see the point that's being made - but, and this is only my opinion, I would still rather go to a club meet with the risk of a banned member there, who, presuming I've never met em before, wouldn't have a clue who I was. I know they can find out if other members chose to say, but it's not that face to face imediate introduction. If I was then approached by said banned member, in a hostile manner, then I would ask for intervention.
Whereas invited to a social - straight away it's introductions all round. When I think of this, I veer from being wary about attending, and not giving two hoots.......... But then that could also come from being used to being a single fem, to being a part of a couple where I know he would look after me.

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Missy
Not the best response ive seen you make missy, but lets not get into an argument over how good we are at posting hey, lets just stick to the point !

You're right Staggy, it certainly wasn't my best post - I whacked the submit button, cos my ex popped round, so it was clipped bluddy short bluddy quick lol

What I intended to say, well not say really, was ask what the point of that bit I quoted was, if you could clarify it's meaning for me - cos all I could see was goading, as opposed to something constructive, which I'm sure is what you intended this thread to be? wink

??
goading like Mods have been goading all and sundry on here, that was the meaning of the sarky comment i made , i know its low level but take a look through this thread and you will see some mods behaving at best far worse than members.....some times missy you have to come down to that level to have an effect, im trying to make my point to all the mod team as well as the members of this site.
staggy
ps
now shall i cut and paste Jags little comment about her sig here or not bother, just to proove a point, tell you what i wont cos i dont want to get into an argument with jags do i, it would be pointless after all, and not helpful and whats more off topic, can we stay on topic please and cut down the personal crap, it isnt big and it certainly isnt just creates posts like this in response.
Staggy
staggy

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Missy
Never eaten a dinner so fast :undecided: Wasn't exaclty the most happy family of meals, crunching away on peas like bullets

Good roughage though ... lol

Either way though, club or vanilla venue, if the event is not a SH sponsored event then the same rule should apply to both. Either have a vetted guest list or not. The existence of this rule applying to some private functions has implications for the way LMU runs at present.
I do agree that naming vanilla locations should not be done as a courtesy to the venue and to their vanilla clientel who might not wish to be associated openly with a swingers website.

1 Nov 2006

Quote by Jags
seems this has already been noted by us fools that are mere members, oops sorry to repeat the point but it aint sinking in with the clever ones at the helm is it.
wrats
xx

Take some time to read my little tiny small hard to decipher signature.
Let ME take time to make the situation clear. Behaviour breeds behaviour. Think I said it before but it bears saying again. You GOAD Mods into answering and then just goad and goad and goad again. And you take the smallest chances to be abusive to them and expect to be let off the hook.... dunno

You want replies from Mods and then just be sarcastic to them. Mods try to make a point and it's not what you want to hear so you resort to sarcasm and then jump on them when a response is made.
You're not going to browbeat or bully any of us. Least of all me. Live with it.
<DAMN - promised myself that I wouldn't comment again!>
Look, no sarcasm, just plain English. rotflmao

1 Nov 2006

im seeing plenty of good argument from members to alter this rule, why the resistance from the mods? They have little or no argument in favour of keeping it as it is, completely ignoring questions asked does not make them go away, just change the rule and let the members have what they want , you know it makes sense.....
ill even write it for you
sticky in lets meet up
private parties although we welcome the advertising of them on here they do not fall under swinging heaven rules , members should be aware that non members of this site or even banned members of this site could be attending, we suggest that you make clear that you would like to see the guest list to ensure you are happy with who else will be attending.
see there you go cut paste and we are all happy , how much easier can it be?
staggy

Are you sure?