Quote by TemptedTwo When this was a free site it was fine to have basic features like this overlooked. I get that the site is run by hobbyists, but now that it's a pay site if the hobbyists can't deliver then they need to use some of the members fees to hire a developer who can.
We have a team of in house developers, they're all very talented and as Sarah mentioned above have been rebuilding the sites framework for some time now, we recognised a while back that making changes to our sites was becoming very cumbersome due to legacy code so we made the decision to rebuild a new framework from scratch based on our experience over the years and current best methodology, moving forwards this will help a lot. The biggest issue with the blocking will indeed be the chatroom, it may even need a complete rebuild to function properly with this feature, I'm pretty sure profile blocking will be a quick implementation with the new framework.
Well done Sarah & Admin,
That is the first comprehensive explanation I've received. Also hoping that the rebuild fixes those other annoying faults that Tempted Two has previously mentioned.
If you need some beta testers let me know, I'd be happy to help out. The changes can't come quick enough.
Also, thanks to all you members who voted and commented so Admin can see how welcome the change would be.
Greedy
xoxo
Thanks Sarah. But instead of assessing if it's feasible when the new framework is done, why don't you design and build the framework now so that it can support this feature. Seems like the perfect opportunity.
Quote by TemptedTwo Thanks Sarah. But instead of assessing if it's feasible when the new framework is done, why don't you design and build the framework now so that it can support this feature. Seems like the perfect opportunity.
Can only agree wih you Tempted, why wait....surely this should be bundled into he next release given the overwhelming support from your customer base?
New framework phases;
Plan > Build > Test > Deploy
Its approaching test at the end of build and debugging, at an earlier stage we put in a freeze on new features and limited changes to fix any faults that appear with the current version, as introducing changes to the overall set up fucks everything up.
Btw, chat sits outside of the framework, its a different type of code/system altogether and runs on its own servers, although it connects to the same database as the new framework, the database structure doesn't need to change and if you read my post above I did say that it would probably require a complete rebuild of chat for this change.
We do get good feedback from the forum, but we will be polling all members at some point as I think its important to give everyone that uses the site the opportunity to provide feedback.
Apologies for asking a silly question Admin, but I'm a bit of a luddite when it comes to IT.
The original question, and associated poll, was to understand the level of customer support for a blocking function in chat.
The forums were not part of this discussion.
Can you confirm, for the luddites amongst us, if we will be able to block specific members as detailed it he original posters question - with specific reference to chat.
Quote by BettynBilly The original question, and associated poll, was to understand the level of customer support for a blocking function in chat. The forums were not part of this discussion. Can you confirm, for the luddites amongst us, if we will be able to block specific members as detailed it he original posters question - with specific reference to chat.
What admin is saying is that a poll in these forums is all well and good, but is not necessarily representative of the opinions of members as a whole. For example, the voting in this poll is likely to be skewed towards a having a block button because those forum readers who are keen on this will read the thread & vote; whereas those who aren't keen or who couldn't care less are likely to skip the thread altogether. Also, very few members of this site use these forums regularly so a true test of democracy would be to have the question posed to members during log-in.
So all users will be invited to express their preference, and all users includes the masses of porn hungry knuckle shufflers who lurk in anticipation of of a free eyeful of juicy bits. So all users will express their preference, and why WOULD they vote for a feature which is going to deprive them of a chance at what may be the closest they get to a bit of real live flesh? So nothing will change.
I call it pragmatic, not cynical.
Have to agree Ms twiddletwat, it will never get off the ground if everyone is included in the vote..... but I can't see why it needs to go to a vote. The people affected most by this problem are single females and the female half of couples. From experience, whenever Mrs F gets on cam, the whisperers kick into gear, and some start up with abuse if they can't get what they want. I can't see that too many blokes on here would be copping anywhere near the level of crap that the women do.
But to give them a vote on this topic, I see this as a way admin will keep things as is.
In less than 2 days, this thread has attracted plenty of members willing to give their reasons for the block, but only 2 people so far have voted no, and neither of those 2 have bothered to post their reasons or thoughts on it.
Here's hoping a few more members post their thoughts so that admin realises that this problem is not going away.
As it is now there is no need to put up with that. there is an authorize option which allows you to select only the whispers you want. just the click of a button.
yes blonde, we all know about the authorize and block buttons....but why would anyone stay on cam after blocking whispers from some idiot, the whole time knowing he or she will still be able to watch and get off on it. I really can't see why the site would give a block option for whispers, yet not do the same for cams. It should be full block, as if they don't exist.
A compromise would be to have a block button which can block any offender viewing your cam until you log out of the chatroom. This would send a strong message to any watchers to behave themselves.
Don't forget that some males don't like other males viewing their cams, i have come across many situations where people are abused because a male is watching another males cam.
A block button would be popular amongst all users.
The poll is purely to see how popular the feature would be.
I stand corrected then Sarah. But in your own words, " A block button would be popular amongst all users".
Therefore, I can see no reason that admin would not be right behind the idea.
It is a strange situation where an organisation feels allowing an injustice to continue, despite a easy solution to an on going problem with cams particularly.
Given the corner stone of swinging etiquette is choice and "No means No" how possibly could any argument be proffered to defend the offenders and vicariously allow abusers to continue and usually increase the intensity until one of the many rules is violated and Mods can become involved.
This would seem only righteous but similarly would reduce Mods have a reduced workload and less involvement in the private conduct of individuals on the site .
It would appear even say someone who is say "homophobic" has a right to be that way , its not the site mods role to force compliance to anything other than public displays of abuse and aggression, so any feature which maintains the peace and fundamentally is just is a good feature.
The reliance on the block feature currently operating is a cop out, in "no really means No" then this is a no brainer.
Even if the chatroom is on a different platform, surely it is a simple binary function to allow cam access.
What i see as the problem is repeated PROFILES that continually direct or when in whisper talk shit.
We enjoy camming, what we don't enjoy is persistent directing and such.
I suggest that an allow function would be better, but even further than that, anyone who disrespects the rules of the chatroom is automatically banned for at least a week, none of this bullshit 1 or 2 hour ban.
I also think that some of the mods need some training if they are truly to be consistent moderators.
Any sarcastic, derogatory comments form anyone should be an automatic week ban, repeated offense should result in fuck off goodbye.
We are swingers who are after swingers, not on an adult cam fuck site.
Don't have to change the framework too much, just fuck the weeds off.
Stop fucking around 2 strikes and out, but we truly believe this cannot happen until the mods are also fully trained.
We love most of our mods, but some are very uppity and condescending.
Weed out the fuckwits permanently, a lot of people came form other sites about 3 years ago because it was winning.
It still wins if we fuck off the other twats.
Any sarcastic, derogatory comments form anyone should be an automatic week ban, repeated offense should result in fuck off goodbye. <<< there goes most of the site lmao
I thought this thread was about a block feature, for, cams and profiles.. :dunno:
must of missed a post where it was changed ....????
Goes back to lurking.....
:)
OH TM..... i think admin wished it was that easy. :)
ie a simple binary function.....
Considering the site, is kinda split into three different areas....
I wouldnt think it was just a button that would help. :)
oops i was lurking.. :)
<<< gone
Quote by Trousers_Magee Even if the chatroom is on a different platform, surely it is a simple binary function to allow cam access. What i see as the problem is repeated PROFILES that continually direct or when in whisper talk shit. We enjoy camming, what we don't enjoy is persistent directing and such. I suggest that an allow function would be better, but even further than that, anyone who disrespects the rules of the chatroom is automatically banned for at least a week, none of this bullshit 1 or 2 hour ban. I also think that some of the mods need some training if they are truly to be consistent moderators. Any sarcastic, derogatory comments form anyone should be an automatic week ban, repeated offense should result in fuck off goodbye. We are swingers who are after swingers, not on an adult cam fuck site. Don't have to change the framework too much, just fuck the weeds off. Stop fucking around 2 strikes and out, but we truly believe this cannot happen until the mods are also fully trained. We love most of our mods, but some are very uppity and condescending. Weed out the fuckwits permanently, a lot of people came form other sites about 3 years ago because it was winning. It still wins if we fuck off the other twats.
Love your post TM. Pure gold!! Lol.. I vote we make trousers the PM of SH
isnt he already?
lol
thanks admin for the full explanation.
Glad to hear that you can respond to the requests of the members
look forward to the poll, and the expected outcome, then bring on the BLOCK button
2bnorti
Love your work OKandQ and Trousers Magee, wish I could have said it half as well myself!
As an aside Betty and I have noticed that a couple only gets one vote in a poll, just the same as a single user?
This strikes me as a little odd and obviously skews the results erroneously - and should be addressed and normalised, a couple should carry the same voting weight as a single, not half....
Thoughts?
Quote by Trousers_Magee Even if the chatroom is on a different platform, surely it is a simple binary function to allow cam access. What i see as the problem is repeated PROFILES that continually direct or when in whisper talk shit. We enjoy camming, what we don't enjoy is persistent directing and such. I suggest that an allow function would be better, but even further than that, anyone who disrespects the rules of the chatroom is automatically banned for at least a week, none of this bullshit 1 or 2 hour ban. I also think that some of the mods need some training if they are truly to be consistent moderators. Any sarcastic, derogatory comments form anyone should be an automatic week ban, repeated offense should result in fuck off goodbye. We are swingers who are after swingers, not on an adult cam fuck site. Don't have to change the framework too much, just fuck the weeds off. Stop fucking around 2 strikes and out, but we truly believe this cannot happen until the mods are also fully trained. We love most of our mods, but some are very uppity and condescending. Weed out the fuckwits permanently, a lot of people came form other sites about 3 years ago because it was winning. It still wins if we fuck off the other twats.
Love your post TM. Pure gold!! Lol.. I vote we make trousers the PM of SH
Quote by BettynBilly Love your work OKandQ and Trousers Magee, wish I could have said it half as well myself! As an aside Betty and I have noticed that a couple only gets one vote in a poll, just the same as a single user? This strikes me as a little odd and obviously skews the results erroneously - and should be addressed and normalised, a couple should carry the same voting weight as a single, not half.... Thoughts?
uum considering its a yes/no vote and not broken, up into.. lets say couples... and singles.... be it male or female... Though those with two profiles...could either screw it up or not........ oh what a problem.,. ... maybe an out side voting system, where only one person votes at a time.. having to register, with 2 separate email address??? Would be a lot fairer, i think....:dunno: oh enough thinking for me... being a mod... im not choosing to vote in this.... my own private reasons << back to lurking
Quote by BettynBilly Statistically the sampling method is flawed - more than happy to explain it should you be interested.
Couples vote as couples, singles vote as singles.. it's hardly rocket science. Why should couples have two votes if they only have one profile??? furthermore, as the vote is currently % in your favour I really can't see what your problem is?
The poll is just representative of the ppl who are following this thread hot bastard. Admin are proposing that every user on the site gets polled - which of course is a flawed plan because of imbalanced numbers. And that of course means the pool will ne'er get over the line
Quote by Hot_bastard Statistically the sampling method is flawed - more than happy to explain it should you be interested.
Couples vote as couples, singles vote as singles.. it's hardly rocket science. Why should couples have two votes if they only have one profile??? furthermore, as the vote is currently % in your favour I really can't see what your problem is? Why should singles have weighted influence 200% greater than that of a couple. Happy to break the crayons out for those struggling with the concept.....
umm my theory is you have one profile you have one vote, its just like a morgan gallop poll, just gives statistics from a group of people.
its always going to be weighted towards single men due to the numbers of them out there but how many of them read the forum?? i know couples who dont read it either due to the whinging so in truth its just a poll of people who read the forum posts. anyway its just a poll not a lotto for a sheep station and i never saw mod or admin bashing in the post in the beginning. remember if theres no mods and you have a problem then tuff titties .
admin have heard whats in the wish list and responded lets see what happens.
thank you for reading my rant
Swingers Heaven features sexually explicit material. To access this site you must be of the legal age to engage with the material of an adult site.
By entering Swingers Heaven you agree to the following;
I am deemed an adult where I live, and I am at least 18 years old
I am allowed to access & view sexually explicit material
:dunno:
must of missed a post where it was changed ....????
Goes back to lurking.....
:)
OH TM..... i think admin wished it was that easy. :)
ie a simple binary function.....
Considering the site, is kinda split into three different areas....
I wouldnt think it was just a button that would help. :)
oops i was lurking.. :)
<<< gone
... maybe an out side voting system, where only one person votes at a time.. having to register, with 2 separate email address???