Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 @CopperKnob... As she mentioned "Abusive without abusing every partner". Alot of people DON'T think just because the man/women is nice to them does not mean they are nice to others! Remember the stories of beaten women/men and Outsiders say "I can't believe he/she would do that... They are so nice". The feature would not be accurate!
Foxter Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 Maybe we have it so its not about when you meet up with people. But how respectful people are in the app when they message you? So I'm imaging something a lot like the game Overwatch. A game that was famous of having a very toxic community. They were already banning a lot of people but it wasn't enough. So instead they brought out an en***ment system. At the end of the match, you could send a player one of 3 en***ments, sportsmanship, good teammate and shot caller. Players who got endorsements got a reward, and they also gave small rewards for people who gave endorsements to incentivise players to use the system. It was very successful and cut reports of toxicity in half. But how could we apply this to Fet? Good conversation, charming, great advice? Could be great for the community and great for the app if more people are on and talking. But how would you get people to send them? I'm sure women would receive a lot of endorsements, but you really need men to receive them otherwise it will eventually revert back to how it was. (A bit like Overwatch is suffering with, people are slowly forgetting about the endorsement system). If we could solve this issue then I think that would be a great feature and make the place much more welcoming.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 1 hour ago, smeagol said: I have seen and experienced, respected members of the scene who actually ran a major site, have their "favs" who would vouch for them no matter what, until we later found out how they ***d new members, people who were never seen on the site again. This ran on for a few years as he gave popular members that aura of trust to hide behind and they defending them as most friends would. That's sad but are you satisfied this is not happening on here? There is some questionable behaviour I have seen online that has become normalised. That in itself is not a good sign to me. It is like when a crowd frequent a cafe and although they don't actually own the cafe, it becomes their place and they rule the culture and control the environment. The cafe owners just want the till flow to be good.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 @eyemblacksheep... Very sorry🙏 not to give you credit, because it came from you. I got mixed up.🤗❤
ey**** Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 13 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said: That's sad but are you satisfied this is not happening on here? There is some questionable behaviour I have seen online that has become normalised. That in itself is not a good sign to me. this is something where you can never be certain and is why there might be different forms of vouching or vetting people do. Regardless of how new or long serving the person is; it's why (particularly) women vet. I don't think there've been many on here accused of wrong doing. I know that number is not zero. Because there was an example the other week of a guy harassing someone - I don't know what the end result was but I can't remember seeing him resurface. But one person might say a dangerous person was pushed out of the community - another might say someone accused was unfairly accosted. YMMV. I definitely feel the guys behaviour was inappropriate. 17 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said: It is like when a crowd frequent a cafe and although they don't actually own the cafe, it becomes their place and they rule the culture and control the environment. The cafe owners just want the till flow to be good. There is a couple of business 101s here. Of course if you have a group of trusted regulars who are putting *** into your tills then they become kinda more-than-customers. While you might give them some leighway, within reason - if it's a busy period and they're not spending you don't let them hog the tables. If their behaviour is getting a bit... off-putting... to other customers you can ask them to tone it down or return another day and the reason they're regulars is because the like it there, so they're going to head the warning and return. Because it's also in their best interest that that cafe/bar/whatever remains open so they can keep hanging out there. The problem of course is nope, they're not going to move out for the person who wants to sit and nurse a solitary latte all day to use the free wifi And if of course they genuinely become bad for business, that they're putting more people off using the cafe than the *** they're generating than they may well be moved on. But, just because there are a group there - then saying "OK, folks - I know you've come here every day and spend *** and keep us in business.... let's move you on for absolutely no good reason other than someone who comes in now and then says you're always here in your group" then that is senseless in that... it's not going to generate more customers - and instead, penalise people who weren't doing anything wrong other than existing.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 43 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said: So - what about only verified members can be rated only verified members can leave ratings and so far seems sensible it's just the no one knows if they actually met or played I think also, if, say, a woman has a few positive ratings will this then be a "RIP her inbox" moment as more guys then push for her to meet there's also need to be a scope to stop them leaving malicious negative ones if she wouldn't. Equally I guess - any form of relationship ends for different reasons and so many that started good (when positive was left) could end badly someone who is manipulative has a very good chance at being able to control their score. Yeah.... OK so essentially this is a bad idea.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 I think what I really want is to be able to say " I've seen a bit of a red flag that this individual doesn't deeply consider ethics in play" but equally that statement is subjective as is the way we all play. Not bad, but not good either. As an example. Condom use.
ey**** Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 6 minutes ago, swphoenix said: I think what I really want is to be able to say " I've seen a bit of a red flag that this individual doesn't deeply consider ethics in play" but equally that statement is subjective as is the way we all play. Not bad, but not good either. As an example. Condom use. there's so much I think is complex another example is personal growth that - someone could do something which is in any way inappropriate - not like major "this person should be in jail" but enough to warrant a negative review and then 6-12 months later have gone away, educated, being actual remorseful and it almost seems unfair to have a redflag hanging over them that I think just like someone can start nice and then become... not. There are those who... well... improve their attitude and understanding.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 5 minutes ago, swphoenix said: Yeah.... OK so essentially this is a bad idea. Nah absolutely not. I stand by my first comment that it's a good idea in principal. Has raised some useful awareness and discussion too.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 47 minutes ago, Foxter said: Maybe we have it so its not about when you meet up with people. But how respectful people are in the app when they message you? So I'm imaging something a lot like the game Overwatch. A game that was famous of having a very toxic community. They were already banning a lot of people but it wasn't enough. So instead they brought out an en***ment system. At the end of the match, you could send a player one of 3 en***ments, sportsmanship, good teammate and shot caller. Players who got endorsements got a reward, and they also gave small rewards for people who gave endorsements to incentivise players to use the system. It was very successful and cut reports of toxicity in half. But how could we apply this to Fet? Good conversation, charming, great advice? Could be great for the community and great for the app if more people are on and talking. But how would you get people to send them? I'm sure women would receive a lot of endorsements, but you really need men to receive them otherwise it will eventually revert back to how it was. (A bit like Overwatch is suffering with, people are slowly forgetting about the endorsement system). If we could solve this issue then I think that would be a great feature and make the place much more welcoming. This sounds like a possibility
ey**** Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 I don't think it's a wholly bad idea - but - it's also open to pitfalls however I think as well it is very good at looking how vetting, vouching, etc. can change over time. As kinda someone who has become part of the furniture here - I would still say don't vet me any less than anyone else. My posts might play into the process - but do not vet me any the less. Among anything else; my style might not be for you.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 8 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said: there's so much I think is complex another example is personal growth that - someone could do something which is in any way inappropriate - not like major "this person should be in jail" but enough to warrant a negative review and then 6-12 months later have gone away, educated, being actual remorseful and it almost seems unfair to have a redflag hanging over them that I think just like someone can start nice and then become... not. There are those who... well... improve their attitude and understanding. This is the thing. It's all about that knowledge and understanding. I don't see it as my job to educate the men who are unaware of the errorof their predatory behavior. Especially when there is no desire or acknowledgement from the other side. But absolutely I cannot abide by experienced players abusing their position with newbies. Especially not when they try and make the complicit.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 Well this is all pretty much all of us though. I can fully accept that sometimes lust gets the better of me and I have to pull my head out of my dominant alter ego to have a little question of what's happening. Ita not always easy. And we are all capable of making mistakes. That's how we learn. So it's not like I set myself outside of this. I don't think I know anyone who could. Like anything it's more complicated when unpicked but it's been an interesting thought process
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 7 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said: Nah absolutely not. I stand by my first comment that it's a good idea in principal. Has raised some useful awareness and discussion too. Yes... only in principal. Do not forget about Amaz*n and Eb*y. Also, people can give nasty ratings or comments as "spite or revenge". I had a member give a nasty comment on a picture, because he could not handle a "polite" rejection. My message had "thank you very much, and wishing you the best"!
sm**** Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 tbh i have seen in the real world, some good reps destroyed due to spite and revenge on the part of just one person, verification no matter what way you apply it "IS" open top *** and has been, especially ONLINE! just remember people do hide their true persona behind the relative anonymity. I know people even here i would not trust full stop but they have an entourage of people who will back them up no matter what. It's also a minefield for site owners when they implement a static online process, not impossible but they can't be the be and end all of verification. The local scenes especially regular munch meet ups are by far the better setup, not perfect "nothing is" but you will get a lot more open opinion and experience, not "keyboard vetting" Vetting on a site comes with it's uses but and there is a big BUT, it's open to *** and it's harder to distinguish malice online to true opinions and experience.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 44 minutes ago, kiseu said: Yes... only in principal. Do not forget about Amaz*n and Eb*y. Also, people can give nasty ratings or comments as "spite or revenge". I had a member give a nasty comment on a picture, because he could not handle a "polite" rejection. My message had "thank you very much, and wishing you the best"! Yeah I agree. Your telling what I have already said, just being clear, appreciate things are easily missed.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 2 hours ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said: Yeah I agree. Your telling what I have already said, just being clear, appreciate things are easily missed. Excuse me, was not clear. I am saying what you said, but bit of a different opinion. It is why I put "only" in principal. It would be worse than few negatives...I think 100% absolutely BAD IDEA! I hope I make sense.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 There is no better tool for vetting someone that to take things slow. Ask pointed questions and expect direct answers. Rating systems are ripe for ***. One person making multiple accounts to “topple” someone who they disagreed with. There is no better way to get to know someone than simply being interested in them and asking them questions. Those of us that don’t mind answering are clear on our objectives and boundaries. People with nefarious intent are circumspect and dismissive. Sometimes simply waiting a whole day before playing is enough to weed out bad actors as I find they lack patience. Good luck. And I hope you stay safe online.
Lo**** Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 The problem I see is if you’re with someone who initially is charming and lovely and respectful, then gradually over months, the real side comes out. The charm fades, the passive-aggressiveness begins and the fairy tale relationship turns to to some kind of hell. if you can’t retract your review, the narcissist will always look good.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 1 hour ago, kiseu said: Excuse me, was not clear. I am saying what you said, but bit of a different opinion. It is why I put "only" in principal. It would be worse than few negatives...I think 100% absolutely BAD IDEA! I hope I make sense. Nope make no sense. Apologies is perhaps my personal failure to comprehend or understand. I have commented more than once on this thread. l believe your repeating what I and others said before (but I may be mistaken?)
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 8 hours ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said: 1. In principle is a good idea... only in principal, bad idea. 2. Has a "few" downsides.... more than few negatives. Not talking other comments, but yours only.
ge**** Posted July 9, 2022 Posted July 9, 2022 34 minutes ago, Shirt-n-Tie-Boy said: Nope make no sense. Apologies is perhaps my personal failure to comprehend or understand. I have commented more than once on this thread. l believe your repeating what I and others said before (but I may be mistaken?) Just because someone repeats what has already been said doesn't mean it's a bad thing though surely? Especially if it's essentially (if only partly) backing up what you've said? . The person may not have read the whole thread, they may have been responding to a point in the immediately previous couple of posts without having opened the whole thread or any other number of valid reasons - hardly crime of the century and happens all the time on forum threads all over the Internet. . No real need to point it out.
Deleted Member Posted July 9, 2022 Author Posted July 9, 2022 8 minutes ago, kiseu said: Still failing to get you, I'm genuinely and honestly confused. In the absence of understanding am quite happy to stand corrected here. What seems clear is there is wide spread acknowledgement the concept and idea is nice and desirable, but not really implementable or tangible. (I think)
Recommended Posts