Verification

14 Nov 2004

I have just seen the new plan to verify genuine swingers in the chatroom. It sounds like a very good idea and I hope it works. I'm not sure who will be the first one to be verified, if everyone needs to be verified by someone who is already themselves verified, but I suspect Mark and the mods have thought of that.
I just thought I'd put the link here for those who haven't seen it.
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/chatroom/swinger-list.html
Mike.

14 Nov 2004

I can't wait for the launch of the verification service. there are some lovely ladies in my area i would love to be verified by. wink

more seriously, I can see the need and the method is as good as any.... only hope it doesn't lead to a hardening of boundaries, making it more difficult for new members to establish themselves. i suspect it knd of will do that.... becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, along the lines MikeNorth mentioned - i'm not verified, therefore maybe i'm fake, therefore verified members will avoid me, therefore i won't get verified....
also - what if two unverified people meet? do they need to make sure that someone verified is with them, so their meet will count ?
.... have i misunderstood how this will work ?

14 Nov 2004

Will the verification be used on forums as well as chatroom? confused

: Think its a really good idea.

14 Nov 2004

Quote by xxdevil69
Will the verification be used on forums as well as chatroom? : Think its a really good idea.

We've discussed this at length on the forum before you arrived xxdevil69 and although some were in favour of it, I think the majority decided that there were too many problems. I don't know how it will work in the chat room, but it will be interesting to see what happens.
Now, can someone please hurry and verify me please :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

14 Nov 2004

Yes, it's sure to be the new chat-up line at munches and here in the forum: "Hi, can I verify you?" :P :P :P
Mike.

14 Nov 2004

A verified user is one who is active on the swing scene and who actually meets others on the scene for consensual, recreational sex.
This seems like a good idea so long as it is strictly adhered to. The idea of actually having to be a player makes sense. Another site's verification scheme allowed a couple that had never swung to be verified as swingers by 20 couples because they had attended a social party, where no playing occurred, and got every verified couple at the party to verify them.

14 Nov 2004

Quote by northwest-cpl
A verified user is one who is active on the swing scene and who actually meets others on the scene for consensual, recreational sex.
This seems like a good idea so long as it is strictly adhered to. The idea of actually having to be a player makes sense. Another site's verification scheme allowed a couple that had never swung to be verified as swingers by 20 couples because they had attended a social party, where no playing occurred, and got every verified couple at the party to verify them.

Wouldn`t they have to be a member of the site in order to get in on the parties and the scene? That`s how it worked for Mars and I. We wouldn`t have known where to start otherwise!
Another site I joined briefly had the verification approach. The forum was dead, but thier chat room (which ran two nights a week) rocked!
Venusxxx

14 Nov 2004

Quote by VenusnMars
Wouldn`t they have to be a member of the site in order to get in on the parties and the scene? That`s how it worked for Mars and I. We wouldn`t have known where to start otherwise!

Being a member of a site and being an active player are two very different things. A telephone call or a web-cam can easily prove you are real but will not prove that you play. As I read it, the idea is to verify people as "players" rather than "social" swingers.

14 Nov 2004

Quote by northwest-cpl

Wouldn`t they have to be a member of the site in order to get in on the parties and the scene? That`s how it worked for Mars and I. We wouldn`t have known where to start otherwise!

Being a member of a site and being an active player are two very different things. A telephone call or a web-cam can easily prove you are real but will not prove that you play. As I read it, the idea is to verify people as "players" rather than "social" swingers.
that is all well and good.. i can see where it is a good idea in the fast pace of the chatroom... but i can see it splitting the chatroom into two.. that haves and have nots so to speak....
and in a social atmosphere like a munch.... it wouldn't make a jot of difference....
unless the people who swing are not going to talk to the people who don't and makes the whole thing damaging......
sean xxxxxxxxxxxxx

14 Nov 2004

Quote by fabio grooverider

Wouldn`t they have to be a member of the site in order to get in on the parties and the scene? That`s how it worked for Mars and I. We wouldn`t have known where to start otherwise!

Being a member of a site and being an active player are two very different things. A telephone call or a web-cam can easily prove you are real but will not prove that you play. As I read it, the idea is to verify people as "players" rather than "social" swingers.
that is all well and good.. i can see where it is a good idea in the fast pace of the chatroom... but i can see it splitting the chatroom into two.. that haves and have nots so to speak....
and in a social atmosphere like a munch.... it wouldn't make a jot of difference....
unless the people who swing are not going to talk to the people who don't and makes the whole thing damaging......
sean xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Personally, I was dead against verification when we discussed it on the forum some time ago. I can't comment on how it will affect the chat room as I rarely visit and I think the dynamics might be different than they are here (are they???), but we shall see.....
Sean I can certainly see where you're coming from and I hope that sort of situation does not happen.
I am still under the opinion that verification on the forum would be a bad idea.

14 Nov 2004

It sounds like a good idea but it seems to me it will end up as a closed system.
I can't use the chatroom even if I wanted to (besides, it's not like I'd be able to arrange a quick meet up in there seeing as I'm hardly in the social capital of the universe, but I digress...)
Anyway, so, if you're given the option of meeting up with a verified member or a non verified person/people, you'll be going with the verified one because you'd rather have a guarenteed meet up rather than take a chance on your time being wasted. The unverified ones will get less of a look in, or at least will have even less of a chance than before.
That's how it seems to me, anyhoo.

14 Nov 2004

I do not like this idea at all. I think it will cause divisions in the community and put new people under pressure to shag anything that moves so they can be taken seriously. Only they won't be taken seriously because the only people who can "verify" them are the ones who will ignore them because they haven't been verified. Have I misunderstood this, because right now it makes no sense to me. dunno

14 Nov 2004

Quote by fabio grooverider
that is all well and good.. i can see where it is a good idea in the fast pace of the chatroom... but i can see it splitting the chatroom into two.. that haves and have nots so to speak....
and in a social atmosphere like a munch.... it wouldn't make a jot of difference....
unless the people who swing are not going to talk to the people who don't and makes the whole thing damaging......
sean xxxxxxxxxxxxx

It would be silly for anyone to arrange a meet solely on the strength of a verification, or to ignore people simply because they are not verified. It does, however, add an extra bit of information when you are chatting to someone and trying to decide whether they are in fact who they claim to be.
I think the idea is that it is for the chat room and people who are arranging meets. Agreed, at a munch or any other social event it would have no use at all.

14 Nov 2004

Quote by bluexxx
I am still under the opinion that verification on the forum would be a bad idea.

Surely there is no intention of verification being used in the forum?
A NEW SERVICE FOR OUR CHATROOM USERS is the title of the page.

14 Nov 2004

Quote by Ice Pie
I do not like this idea at all. I think it will cause divisions in the community and put new people under pressure to shag anything that moves so they can be taken seriously. Only they won't be taken seriously because the only people who can "verify" them are the ones who will ignore them because they haven't been verified. Have I misunderstood this, because right now it makes no sense to me.

Have to agree with you on this one ICE. Because people DONT play with other couples does that mean they are less genuine? What about the exhibitionists and watchers on the forun. What about those who just enjoy the social side?
We feel that we have already struck up a friendship with others on this site and I'm quite happy that they are genuine. We know that we are in our intentions.
Personally speaking, I worry that it creates a clique that one cant enter without.......errrr.........entering........ as it where!

14 Nov 2004

What about people who are just getting into the scene?They havent had chance to be "verified" yet but could well be excellent people???

14 Nov 2004

Exactly

14 Nov 2004

Ive sen tMark a pm asking some q's but another point is,like us we havent reached the full sex status as yet and just do oral,so would we not be verified because we don't do the whole hog?

14 Nov 2004

Quote by Clare_Lincs
Ive sen tMark a pm asking some q's but another point is,like us we havent reached the full sex status as yet and just do oral,so would we not be verified because we don't do the whole hog?

Why are you sending Mark a pm when the page asks you to contact the administrator of the verification list? confused

Steve

14 Nov 2004

Quote by steveg_nw
Ive sen tMark a pm asking some q's but another point is,like us we havent reached the full sex status as yet and just do oral,so would we not be verified because we don't do the whole hog?

Why are you sending Mark a pm when the page asks you to contact the administrator of the verification list? confused

Steve
OOps didnt see that im afraid,ok just seen it my fault!!

14 Nov 2004

Question. Who is the Verification System Administrator?
Answer. In order to maintain the confidentiality and independence of the verification system the identities of the staff administering the system will remain confidential

Contact the Verification System Administrator

14 Nov 2004

Quote by Clare_Lincs
Ive sen tMark a pm asking some q's but another point is,like us we havent reached the full sex status as yet and just do oral,so would we not be verified because we don't do the whole hog?

Why are you sending Mark a pm when the page asks you to contact the administrator of the verification list? confused

Steve
OOps didnt see that im afraid,ok just seen it my fault!!
You really need to read the page Clare cos it's in there. Click on the link given in the first post for further information - it's really easy!
lol

14 Nov 2004

Quote by Jags
Ive sen tMark a pm asking some q's but another point is,like us we havent reached the full sex status as yet and just do oral,so would we not be verified because we don't do the whole hog?

Why are you sending Mark a pm when the page asks you to contact the administrator of the verification list? confused

Steve
OOps didnt see that im afraid,ok just seen it my fault!!
You really need to read the page Clare cos it's in there. Click on the link given in the first post for further information - it's really easy!
lol

I know i have im having a blonde day,)(no offence to any blondes intended!)

14 Nov 2004

Quote by LadyFeeBee
Because people DONT play with other couples does that mean they are less genuine? What about the exhibitionists and watchers on the forun. What about those who just enjoy the social side?
We feel that we have already struck up a friendship with others on this site and I'm quite happy that they are genuine. We know that we are in our intentions.
Personally speaking, I worry that it creates a clique that one cant enter without.......errrr.........entering........ as it where!

Surely the whole point of this is that it merely identifies people that DO have sex, either soft or full. It shouldn't affect how people react to those who only want social interaction. If they talk to you now and they know what your limits are, why would the lack of a + make any difference? It is the chatroom not the forum that this is for.

Quote by Clare_Lincs
Ive sen tMark a pm asking some q's but another point is,like us we havent reached the full sex status as yet and just do oral,so would we not be verified because we don't do the whole hog?

Surely consensual sex means soft or full swing. But people who do not play would not be verified because the idea seems to be to identify people as players, not just as genuine. A phone call will identify you as genuine.

14 Nov 2004

it is an interesting topic and discussion.... and if it does work in the chatrooms then i am sure the calls to expand it to other parts of the site will start....
since i only use the forums can i ask if the dynamics of the chatrooms is a lot different to that of the forums....
or with the varifcation coming in, is it more likely to split people who use the chatroom more from those who use the forums.....
just wondering...........
sean xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

14 Nov 2004

Quote by northwest-cpl
Surely the whole point of this is that it merely identifies people that DO have sex, either soft or full. It shouldn't affect how people react to those who only want social interaction. If they talk to you now and they know what your limits are, why would the lack of a + make any difference?

Because it will cause people to make an assumption, namely the assumption you just made: Just because someone hasn't played with a member of the elite, why does that mean they don't want to play, and if they don't want to play right now, or they're shy, or they're still finding their feet, how does that justify anyone making judgements about their "limits"?

14 Nov 2004

Quote by Ice Pie
Surely the whole point of this is that it merely identifies people that DO have sex, either soft or full. It shouldn't affect how people react to those who only want social interaction. If they talk to you now and they know what your limits are, why would the lack of a + make any difference?

Because it will cause people to make an assumption, namely the assumption you just made: Just because someone hasn't played with a member of the elite, why does that mean they don't want to play, and if they don't want to play right now, or they're shy, or they're still finding their feet, how does that justify anyone making judgements about their "limits"?
My personal view is that it disadvantages single guys more than they are diadvantaged already cos it is a lot harder for them to get meets (hence verified). Anyways, as I'm not a chat room user perhaps I don't see that the pros of the system outweigh the cons (maybe confused

:? :? :? )

14 Nov 2004

Ok, I`ve just read the page, and it seems like a well thought idea to put to the test, if it creates more problems than it solves, it can always be dropped!
I could see having a + added to my name would encourage more pestering by the `desperados`, but I don`t use the place much, so don`t much care either way! :mrgreen:
Venusxxx

14 Nov 2004

:doh: i'm a day ahead of myself - i just went into the chatroom to see if i was verified or not!! :doh:

14 Nov 2004

Quote by Ice Pie
Surely the whole point of this is that it merely identifies people that DO have sex, either soft or full. It shouldn't affect how people react to those who only want social interaction. If they talk to you now and they know what your limits are, why would the lack of a + make any difference?

Because it will cause people to make an assumption, namely the assumption you just made: Just because someone hasn't played with a member of the elite, why does that mean they don't want to play, and if they don't want to play right now, or they're shy, or they're still finding their feet, how does that justify anyone making judgements about their "limits"?
What assumption was that Ice? And where is there any mention of an elite?
Lack of a + would in no way mean that someone doesn't want to play. On another site we weren't verified because we didn't have an advert. Had we wanted to be verified we could have put on an advert and asked the very many verified couples that we have met to verify us. We didn't then, and don't really now, feel that need. We really don't go short either because we play out every week.
As to limits, surely if you want to meet for full sex you will not meet someone who only wants a drink and vice versa. Why is that a judgement on people's limits? People often tell us that we are too hardcore for them. Is that a judgement on our limits or their right to choose?
However, for the people in the chatroom that are actively looking for meets to have sex rather than to socialise, this form of verification will make a difference. Will it make things harder for new people to meet? Possibly. But who would you meet...someone you met at a munch or someone you've only seen online? Should we ban munches because people that haven't been to a munch might find it difficult to meet those that have?