Our SLS IM log was deleted!

[njbm 2,880]

I kept our SLS IM log intact for future reference. However, last week, I noticed the log was deleted. Does this have something to do with the Congressional law that affected Craigslist?

 

We are lifetime members. If SLS is going to change the terms of service, they should tell us. This is why we are not on Facebook—they do things without consent.

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

I kept our SLS IM log intact for future reference. However, last week, I noticed the log was deleted. Does this have something to do with the Congressional law that affected Craigslist?

 

We are lifetime members. If SLS is going to change the terms of service, they should tell us. This is why we are not on Facebook—they do things without consent.

 

We as well. They seem to have preserved the last couple of weeks of exchanges, in our case going back to about 23 March.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

This happened on 20-Apr-15 09:17 AM.

[cplnuswing 4,713]

This happened on 20-Apr-15 09:17 AM.

 

I'm a little confused. Are you saying the same thing has happened to you in the past?

[Guest]

They have indeed changed your terms of service, note that there are only a limited number of rooms, you can’t create new ones yourself any longer, email capabilities of guests have been reduced and so forth.

[njbm 2,880]

What do you mean by rooms?

[SJBluebirds 195]

Ours is gone, too! -- And we were in the middle of setting up a first-time meet with a couple for this coming weekend!

 

Do you know how difficult it is in this Very Conservative, very rural area to find a compatible couple????? We've not met with anyone in almost 2 years -- that's how hard it is! Craigslist is gone, and now the history we had developed with a potential new couple on SLS is also gone. (And before you ask -- no, we don't know how to contact them any other way!)

 

What are we supposed to do about this? What point is this new law supposed to make? Who is it protecting? Can we opt-out!????

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

(And before you ask -- no, we don't know how to contact them any other way!)

Can you not just send an SLS message to them? Perhaps they could reply to you using SLS messages.

 

But, of course, if either you or they are non-paying members you would not be able to use SLS messages.

[SJBluebirds 195]

Sadly, We're lifetime members of SLS -- and I believe they were 'free'.

[Judy39 145]

I had similar on SDC last year if it makes anyone feel better. It was due to some glitch rather than law of any kind but a chunk of history was just gone without notice, and the notifications stopped working for a week or so, it nearly ruined a very hot date. I prefer switching to a more convenient way of communicating early but of course you have to establish mutual interest first.

[njbm 2,880]

I can see the day when Lifestyle websites are banned. Plan B?

[lcmim 1,082]

Can you not just send an SLS message to them? Perhaps they could reply to you using SLS messages.

 

But, of course, if either you or they are non-paying members you would not be able to use SLS messages.

 

For the record Lifetime paid member. We were free for a longtime working up the courage. I believe many of the free members are in the same boat. Finding a way for them to stay connected is important.

 

To contact non paying members.

I believe they can still see messages just not respond.

1. set up a "SpecialatGmail" account just for this type of thing.

2. Send them the message "SpecialatGm@@@@" to reach us as you are not able to reach us via SLS.

3. Take it all off site.

 

This will sort of hurt SLS as the place to go to connect. It does require paid members to initiate the contacts. Maybe SLS will get their legal team to work harder to find the path that avoids the FOSTA trap.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

. . . I believe they can still see messages just not respond. . .

Free members are no longer able to read SLS messages. They can perv profiles but not read messages.

[lcmim 1,082]

The other day I could read a post but not answer it in a test profile that I set up. I just checked again and you are correct.

The SUBJECT line does show up though.

Perhaps that message I suggested could be adjusted to fit in there?

 

I know this is a stop gap.

I also think that many people who are just beginning to explore are going to be shut out unless some work around is found.

[njbm 2,880]

Not sure why so many people refuse to pay for SLS. What does it cost, $49? I am sympathetic to the plight of those less economically advantaged than we are, but if you want to participate in this hobby, you may have to participate in (minimally) underwriting the means of communication.

 

We have little interest in meeting free members. It shows a lack of commitment.

[lcmim 1,082]

We are pretty much in agreement accept for one thing. There is a point in this for most of us when we are not quite sure if we want to jump in.

I know we hovered around the event horizon fo a few years.

We made contact with a few people, most of whom were in the same boat that we were.

We finally met one couple who pretty much oversaw out stepping into the water.

While we have not as yet played with them they did ask some pertinent questions and gave us the courage to proceed. We have been active with others. Playing with our "sponsors" almost feels incestuous.

That was the last FREE contact. Decision made and time to ante up.

Lifetime paid members since.

 

I think there is both room and a need for the Free sample area in both the profile searches and starting to communicate in this community..

[njbm 2,880]

Ok, that’s fair if you are newbies and unsure. Keep in mind, that as moderately experienced swingers,our red flags are free members and people who have been on the site for more than 6-12 months and have no certs from individuals or couples (as opposed to certs from a party or event).We are also on the lookout for males posing as couples, a frequent event.

[SJBluebirds 195]

our red flags are free members and people who have been on the site for more than 6-12 months and have no certs from individuals or couples

 

That's ... Odd. At least to us. We purposely do not 'do certs' (give OR accept), unless asked -- and we never ask, ourselves -- because we expect discretion from everyone. We make it a point in our profile on SLS to say we won't 'kiss and tell', nor do we want to advertise whom we may have met or played with.

 

Until 'swinging' or 'open marriages' are the norm, or no longer grounds for termination of employment for some people on 'moral turpitude' grounds, we consider a large-ish number of 'certs' a red-flag in our searches.

 

 

[Edit: spelling corrections. Also, it's 'whom', not 'who'.]

[lcmim 1,082]

I just got a post from SLS Admin. It looks like the free members are locked out permanently.

I experimented and they cannot even see galleries if you open them up.

 

So paid members have no way of making contact with unpaid members, as they can not read our posts to them, and even if we could they could not answer back.

 

I predict very few people joining up as newbies.

 

Goodbye SLS

 

We are lifetime members

[njbm 2,880]

I don’t like SLS making changes without announcing them first. That said, if you are a free member, what benefits have you paid for?

 

We are lifetime members for years and have gotten our money’s worth, but I don’t like unannounced moves.

[njbm 2,880]

Swinging is the norm for us when we are looking for other swingers. Fortunately, we are recently retired. We think our real identity is somewhat covered up on our site. We get that some don’t do certs or live in remote areas. But there is a sweet spot of 5-8 certs that show a couple can meet and play. We see some profiles with no certs or no recent certs. We presume they do not play unless they have a big we don’t cert speech.

[SJBluebirds 195]

We presume they do not play unless they have a big we don’t cert speech.

 

We mention it in our profile, but we don't have a "big we don't cert speech" -- just a sentence or two near the end.

 

How prominent does this notice have to be? Are you saying we're missing opportunities because of this? Take a look at our profile on SLS (Same name as here) -- what is your impression regarding our take on 'certs'?

[lcmim 1,082]

I don’t like SLS making changes without announcing them first. That said, if you are a free member, what benefits have you paid for?

 

We are lifetime members for years and have gotten our money’s worth, but I don’t like unannounced moves.

 

 

As I have said we also are Lifetime members.

Members who can no longer make contact with unpaid members.

So benefits that we paid for have been diminished "to protect the community"

Protect from what? All those sex traders who can not see the value of popping for the Lifetime membership?

 

In any business model that is a cheap advertising expense.

 

I initially thought that this was because of FOSTA also, and a temporary expedient while the proper legal coverage was put in place. I no longer believe so. I am afraid

a functioning and valuable resource for many has fallen to the wayside.

[lcmim 1,082]

I just tried to post a question on SLS from someone's free account. Evidently the free members, who ask most of the questions about getting involved can no longer ask the questions in the SLS forums

[Funguy796 44]

That is true. Free members are very limited now.

[GoldCoCouple 4,066]

So you have a website that has a bunch of lifetime members. You've gotten all the money you are going to get from them. The free members don't give you any money. How do you get more money? Kill off the free members (who at least want to look around first) and the rest will most likely eventually fall. Create a new website and lifetime members have to start all over again. We are lifetime members but don't use the site too much (since we are 'involved' with only one couple at this time) but we set up free accounts on ALL of the swinger sites so we could see if there were enough other couples around to make it worthwhile to join. SLS had (by far) the most local couples for us so we got a lifetime membership. If another site would have had more, we would have joined them instead. I can see limiting the time for a free member (say 3 months...1 month, whatever) to see if there are enough locals to join, but to just kill off the free memberships: BAD business plan (unless you are trying to kill the business).

 

Several years ago there was a new site trying to start up. They give free memberships (might have been lifetime) to people here who would set up a profile so they could get members. We set one up and found that there wasn't another member for 150 miles. If we would have had to PAY to find that out we would have been VERY UNHAPPY campers. Instead, I now don't even remember the name of the site.

[adamgunn 1,460]

I'm fairly sure SLS didn't want to kill off the free members as a result of a business model change, but they did it because of that stupid FOSTA law. They had a successful business model with limited free members who would, if they stayed in the LifeStyle, probably become paid members. I suspect that their revenues will slowly fall because they'll have trouble attracting new paid members.

 

On a similar note, they put out a new policy today that says that ANY mention of payment, even for things like house parties, will be taken off. Stupid FOSTA law . . .

[lcmim 1,082]

At the risk of beating this point to death I will note again that the one place where payment is mentioned is how much it will cost to get meaningful access to SLS in order to seek out sexual partners. I still have a logical problem with that

[njbm 2,880]

A short free trial would make sense. Hope SLS hangs in and does not become MySpace.

[lcmim 1,082]

For those people who do not wish to be bothered with free members, and I do really understand that. There was always the option of blocking free members single men or several other parameters. In that manner you do not see them they do not see you. Problem solved I think.

[njbm 2,880]

We block single men. If you want to attend our picnic, you have to bring your own ham sandwich.

[SJBluebirds 195]

If you want to attend our picnic, you have to bring your own ham sandwich.

 

 

What does that even mean? If it's an idiom, we've never heard it before.

[njbm 2,880]

Your spouse.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

A short free trial would make sense. . .

Might seem to make sense but it's problematic. At a Web site we no longer use, a person could create a profile and have a no-cost trial run. What some people would do is create a profile, let it's time run out, create another profile, let it go for a while, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

I've noticed some other new behaviours and restrictions related to using SLS. In the process of submitting the text for an announcement of a house party using the SLS "group" that I have created for that that purpose, I included the fact that my wife and I were also accepting reservations from a private Facebook group. The work "Facebook" set off alarm bells and a page of "new rules" was shown to me. Apparently no mention of any other Web site is allow anywhere for any reason; not in a PM, a title, an announcement, or a profile. Furthermore, if mention of a Web site is used in a profile, they promise that you will be put into the SLS jail until such time as you remove the reference and the staff have time to review your changed profile.

 

I suppose I can understand this. Facebook, KIK, or other such facilities could be perceived as competition to SLS.

[lcmim 1,082]

I do not know which I resent more.

Their money grubbing or the fact that they tried to conceal it as a move to obey the new Federal guidelines and "protect" us. As far as marketing goes they would be far better off with a limited, but still useful free membership and allowing some networking across sites.

 

I belong to one group that uses one of the social networking sites for arranging club activities and thus taking all the questionable action from SLS, which is what they supposedly wanted in the first place.

 

 

I have referred people to our profile on SLS thereby giving them new traffic. That is getting even less useful as they restrict their accessibility.

 

Just for the record we are Lifetime members on SLS, so I am not complaining about MY access being curtailed.