FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > What's the point...
What's the point...
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"But what if my meet in person five were all years and years ago and I don't meet now .... just chat in the chatrooms or forums? " OK good point. Maybe a different coloured icon if you've had meets, but not for some time. This would be useful for the couples who are no longer couples but still pretend to be. If you are no longer meeting but have in the past, you obviously need to be verified as genuine, but not as actively swinging now. | |||
| |||
"Or meet as arranged but decide not to play?" Well, we'd hope that the people doing the verifying would be able to judge if the not playing was either because the 'spark' wasn't there or the time wasn't right, rather than the people just turned up to get a verification (however unlikely that might be). It would seem that the meet in person thing should be more about people being reliable and turning up, rather than about the sex. I would at this point suggest yet another coloured icon if people 'swung' when they met, but i'm colour blind and things could quickly get confusing  | |||
| |||
"I understand.I'm an advocate of the verifies...but also I'm an advocate of using good selection processes... I might get the online runaround from timewasters or fakes....but I never actually lose pocket or time spent jumping to a meet. Its one reason i cant moan at my time on fab,( a few years)...I've had very little actual meets where I think I've left the house or awaited someone who clearly wasnt going to show." It might be that you are very good at reading a situation and can work out quickly where something is going (or not). Sadly, others don't seem to be so good, especially when new to the scene, and can waste a time sending mails, and getting baby sitters, only to find the people who are verified on webcam don't turn up, or send a text at the last minute saying that something unlikely has happened 
We recently organised a party in Heathrow and I knew (with the exception of 2 couples) who would and who wouldn't turn up out of the 23 couples who said they would. One of the rules for the party was that you had to be verified! (Not this site, another one) | |||
"Verification on cam would at least out most of the people using photos that aren't them, or using photos that are a million years out of date. " The sites photo verification should this out anyway, although maybe if pics aren't updated after say 5 years, the photos should be re-verified by the admins? " Your points make a lot of sense, but they're a bit draconian and may well make things more difficult for nervous newbies - increased pressure to "prove" themselves to the "old school", (more on this in a minute). " I see your point, but if usually the more experienced swingers are better practised at making new comers feel at ease. It would be hard if two brand new couples met because neither could verify the other until one had 5 verifications, so i'll try and give that some thought. " I've had meets from other sites. I've also met and played with two people here, but neither has written me a verification, citing their privacy. So I don't have a "met in person" verification. " Verifications could be completely anonymous to all but the site owners. " Even if I did, I've been away from the site for a while and I am nervous about doing my first meet since my return. I sincerely HOPE I don't chicken out, but there is a chance I might. If I did, it wouldn't be because I wasn't serious and I would very much hope it wouldn't be a "one strike and you're out" situation. (I am, of course, doing what I can to manage the nerves and to ensure I don't bail at the last minute). " Well welcome back to it, and don't worry, it all comes back to you
You seem like a nice genuine person, and i'm sure if you did 'chicken out' then you'd contact the people you were meeting to let them know in advance anyway.
There would be no 'one strike and your out rule'. You'd only get a verification if the other person gave you one (fnar fnar), and they couldn't take them away from you once given. It would acknowledge meeting, but not acknowledge not meeting.
" I do have cam verifications though, which prove I am female and it is me in my photos. I think that's worth something, personally. I'm also happy to prove I am female, and that my photos are mine, to any potential meets, by either cam or phone, or both." I think for a single female and a couple a photo verification is worth more at the moment than anything as it's been verified by site admin. The changes i'm suggesting would only add to what already exists and tighten up the bits which don't seem to be as affective as they could. Good luck with your meet by the way! | |||
"Oh, yes, also I could get a met in person verification from meeting someone for coffee, or at an event, without playing at all. So yes, proves I exist and I sometimes leave my comfy little one-handed typing pit at home, but doesn't prove I'll play." No, but as I mentioned above, probably after you wrote this, it's more to prove you are willing to turn up. What you get up to when you meet is down to you and the people you meet. As I said we could have different icons for having played or get even more complicated and have an icon for kissed, an icon for a blow job, an icon for, well, anything, but that would both over complicate it, drive the web designer and coder mad, and make meetings feel less private. It occurs to me that, rather than a verification being a one way thing, where one person verifies another and says a few words, it should be a two way thing, where both parties have to verify the other, and if they want to, write a few words and then both agree on what is written. That way it can make that 'contact the next day' bit which ccan be a bit awkward, a little bit smoother. Just an idea. | |||
"I think for a single female and a couple a photo verification is worth more at the moment than anything as it's been verified by site admin. The changes i'm suggesting would only add to what already exists and tighten up the bits which don't seem to be as affective as they could. Good luck with your meet by the way!" You think a site admin checking one photo is more reliable than seeing someone for yourself, live on cam, or speaking to them on the 'phone? Fair enough, you manage your own selection process, but I disagree with you. I'm not photo verified and don't plan on getting photo verified. I don't see the point. Thanks for wishing me luck. I'm sure I'll be fine. I'm just not one to count my chickens. | |||
"I only verify and get verified by meeting in person." Hi, i'm assuming that's down to your personal choice though? Single males can be webcam verified can't they? (I used to be on here as a single male but my memory is what it used to be). | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"meh ... every verification system is open to some sort of loop hole of exploitation. also its better there's a set procedure in place for veris rather than being left to one admins discretion as that creates opportunity for misuse of authority ect." Well then the trick is to tighten those loop holes and prevent exploitation rather than just saying, Oh well, live with it. We wouldn't leave it down to one admins discretion either, as it would mean that the one admin would have to meet every person on here, and while that admin may die happy, they would probably die quickly
As it is, the photo verification is done by a team of admin staff. We know that some admins can sometimes misuse their power but we've never heard any stories of it happening with regards to photo verification here. | |||
"I admit Im not a fan of photo veri's. It could be the elephant man with his name held up on a piece of paper, but then upload pics of Robert Pattison etc to be shown in public (or have I got the whole photo thing wrong?) " I think the principals behind the photo verification are two fold. First, to show a named, dated picture of a couple of single fem (or male) to show that there are 2 of them, or to show that the female is genuine. Obviously, rarely would anyone want to pose as a single male (unless they were married and cheating). Admin has a look, agrees you're a couple or whatever and the pic isn't photshopped and that then gets you your photo verification icon. No problem with that. The second part is that any pictures uploaded are compared by admin to the original photo verification and so will be accepted. I'm not too sure how often this really happens as there are a lot of pics being added every day. The problem we see with photo verification is that people tend to change over the years so the photo verified 5 years ago looks bugger all like the person who comes to your front door. Perversely, I myself have got slimmer and better looking since we got photo verified, but then I am also a compulsive liar. The only solution to this is to renew photo verifications every so often (maybe 2 years). It's not a great effort and I think the people who protest, are going to be the people with something to lose. Or the guys who's wife no longer wants to do it. " As for the meeting in person veri, just becaused they have met 2 couple and 3 singles doesnt mean they'll turn up for you. " No, it isn't going to guarantee it, but it's much better than waiting for someone to turn up when their verification is made up. " Dont mean to sound rude, but Why not use your own initative instead of relying on verifications? I did when I met with people from chat, their veris meant sod all to me. " Obviously, it's up to people to use their own initiative, and having spent the last 15 years on and off swinging both as a couple with Linds, and with previous partners, and as a single, i'm pretty bloody good at spotting a time waster. But when we get a message from a couple, we check a few things... Do they live within a reasonable distance? Do they have photos that they are both in together? How long have they been on the site? Are they photo verified? Have they met anyone in person? If they've been on the site 5 years, they were verified on webcam 3 years ago and have never had a single meet in person, we ask to speak to them on the phone, and they will never reply. So they are not real, but the little icon says they are a verified couple. Thus the icon is worthless. All i'm saying is make the icon mean something to assist people in making their choices. I can't see why anyone wouldn't want to improve the system apart from sheer apathy. | |||
| |||
| |||
 Great Thread brill response - my thoughts are ;
1. Verify in person only
2. Remove web cam verifying
3. Remove picture varifying - Unless says - FAB (name) Dated
Remember that meeting in person does not always end up in bed on first meeting - so worded accordingly
 | |||
" Great Thread brill response - my thoughts are ;
1. Verify in person only
2. Remove web cam verifying
3. Remove picture varifying - Unless says - FAB (name) Dated
Remember that meeting in person does not always end up in bed on first meeting - so worded accordingly
"The best solution all round. NO cam verifying or maybe and differant coloured tick for cam and they cant verify others. | |||
" Great Thread brill response - my thoughts are ;
1. Verify in person only
2. Remove web cam verifying
3. Remove picture varifying - Unless says - FAB (name) Dated
Remember that meeting in person does not always end up in bed on first meeting - so worded accordingly
The best solution all round. NO cam verifying or maybe and differant coloured tick for cam and they cant verify others."It's definitely a start! Never realised that you could be picture verified without having Fabswingers with a name and date being held up. Wouldn't it be nice if admin considered these changes. | |||
