RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not?

RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

[Poll]

Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not?

Yes it is Wrong

26% (13)

No it is Right

74% (37)

Only if your a dominant doing the background check.

0% (0)

Only if your a submissive doing the background check

0% (0)

Total Votes : 50

(last vote on : 3/11/2012 9:23:56 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

DesFIP -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/13/2010 5:37:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Besides Aylee doesn't eat chocolate. So with her, you get it all. No, I do like chocolate and keep it in the house at all times. I just have no need for it on a regular basis. But yes, with me she would always have easy access to chocolate! [:)] What is this, a toppy thing? You like it and have it, but don't eat it. So you can control even this craving? Thanks be I'm a sub and can yield to the urge.

Aylee -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/13/2010 5:50:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP What is this, a toppy thing? You like it and have it, but don't eat it. So you can control even this craving? Thanks be I'm a sub and can yield to the urge. LOL I have a couple of female friends who do not understand how I can have chocolate around and NOT eat it. My mother is the same way. She LOVES M&Ms and has them all in jars. And then there are dishes around the house with little chocolates in them. And she buys "extra" chocolate for visitors. There is also a dish of chocolate on her desk at work. And folks cannot believe that she can keep from spending her entire day eating chocolate. I think that it might be a learned behaviour or it might be genetic? I don't know.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/13/2010 6:24:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Of course I do wonder. . . are background checks like credit checks? Where if you have too many credit checks done in a certain time frame it negatively affects your credit score? Would having your name ran through a background check negatively affect it? There is some paranoid thinking for this evening! That's a good question and I have no idea. Anyone know the answer to that one? I'd like to know myself. No, they're not. The companies that offer background checks just collect personal data from public records and store it in a database. When you do a check, it simply executes a passive access of that particular block of data. Think of it as a library. All you're doing is taking a book off of a shelf and looking in it. Nobody makes a record in that book of the fact that somebody looked in it. Even credit checks don't necessarily affect your credit score, even multiple checks. They have what are called "hard checks" and "soft checks", and the difference between the two has to to do with the reason the check is being performed. In simple terms, almost any time you actually apply for credit (or even insurance, nowadays), that's a hard check, and it will usually knock your score down around 5 points for up to a year - after which it drops off your record. Soft checks would include you checking your own credit (or a credit monitoring service that you have subscribed to), a potential employer checking to make sure you're reliable, a bank verifying your identity when you open your account, a creditor with whom you have an existing account performing a periodic check to make sure you're not getting into financial trouble. or a credit card company checking to see whether you're financially stable before sending you one of those damned pre-approved offers. There might be a couple of other reasons I can't remember at the moment, but the point is, none of these affect (or for that matter, even show up) on your credit report. Personal background checks would fall into this same category.

Aylee -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/13/2010 6:57:44 PM)
Thanks Panda! I figured that it did not affect it, but then. . . ya never know.

MissSarahTS -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 2:41:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth By the way OP I just perved your profile and there is nothing about doing background checks in it. How up front about this are you? I feel i may of said this once or i didn't word it right but when i ask for your first and last name i tell you the reason why i ask for your first and last name. Also i don't ask for someones name without first giving out my own. Tis respectful. Also to all the people that are like for a relationship, first it seems most people on here are not after the relationship. I am, but if your a thousand miles away and can't really afford to go on cross country dominant meets then one usually goes about talking to them on phone and net for a very considerable amount of time. The background check is one of many tools to be used in the search for the right situation. Also another thing i do when i travel to meet/move in with a dominant i always buy a round trip ticket. For 2 reasons being. One if they complete psycho i can turn around and leave and two if i want to visit family on the holidays. lol i already have a ticket. .

EbonyWood -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 4:01:03 AM)
Weird thread. Most folks have commented that either they wouldn't do one or at least question the validity, effectiveness or motivation behind it. Yet, at the moment 'No, it is right' is ahead in the voting 3 to 1.

cadenas -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 4:24:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissSarahTS Well just got told by a ex-potential dominant couple that i should stay home if i'm scared to leave state and move in with complete strangers. Sadly i've done this before and IT SUCKS!!! Thank god for the new website beenverified.com. Now is it unsubby for a submissive to ask a potential dominant for basic information that one would get when your planning on moving in with to perform a background check on them. I personally think that its not that i'm just being "HUMAN" and trying to keep all my bases covered. Curious as to what the public has to say to this. A couple problems with a background check. 1) Ted Bundy had a clean record. 2) It is often illegal to run a background check without that person's (written and signed) consent, depending on the state you are in and why you are doing it. Read the fine print on the Web sites offering such services; it should say in the terms of use that you are responsible for obtaining this consent. 3) Background checks are expensive. There is a reason the federal government has investigators doing background checks for security clearance. 4) A couple thousand people share my first and last name, many of them in my state. Oh, and how about name changes? 5) The online "background checks" are worse than worthless; they only report what they happen to come across. Even the judicial system has a problem getting an accurate list of prior convictions because the only way to get it is to query the federal as well as the records in all 50 states and in all the individual local police records - and that doesn't even cover foreign issues. 6) Since a criminal record nowadays has such dramatic impact on employment and other matters, judges have started to compensate by sealing or expunging more records. End result: more and more crimes don't show up on background checks. 7) Any background check would require information that could also be used for identity theft. Much as I can understand the need to protect yourself, I also have to protect myself. 8) I do not share my last name until after the first meeting (which should be in public, and ideally in the presence of friends, simply for safety). Again, because of the risk of identity theft. Bottom line, background checks give you a false sense of security and aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

slaveluci -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 5:55:41 AM)
[sm=goodpost.gif]

Phoenixpower -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 6:24:46 AM)
adores cadenas :o)

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 7:37:10 AM)
Awesome post cadenas! The thing about sociopaths is that they are adept at staying below the radar. To the world at large, they are (on the whole) model citizens, cleancut and innocuous. So OP your background check would, in all likelyhood, show nothing suspicious.

juliaoceania -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 8:05:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood Weird thread. Most folks have commented that either they wouldn't do one or at least question the validity, effectiveness or motivation behind it. Yet, at the moment 'No, it is right' is ahead in the voting 3 to 1. I think people misread the answer, I noticed that too... like they thought a"no' meant a negative response. This is an illustration of why developing questions for statistical analysis is so important...

sexyred1 -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 8:21:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth Awesome post cadenas! The thing about sociopaths is that they are adept at staying below the radar. To the world at large, they are (on the whole) model citizens, cleancut and innocuous. So OP your background check would, in all likelyhood, show nothing suspicious. Totally agree with cadenas post and this. There is nothing in a background check or in any of our advanced technology that will ever show you the true person, other than taking the time necessary to get to know them. As for moving too quickly, that is whole other matter. Use your judgement, it sometimes work, sometimes not. I would not do a background check, it is useless.

Phoenixpower -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 8:54:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I think people misread the answer, I noticed that too... like they thought a"no' meant a negative response. This is an illustration of why developing questions for statistical analysis is so important... Another assumption...so how do you come to that conclusion? As, speaking for myself, i read questions careful BEFORE giving an answer and did not misunderstand it...

KatyLied -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 8:58:15 AM)
I did not answer the poll b/c there is not an answer applicable to how I feel about background checks. I don't think they are "wrong", I just see a lot of inherent problems with putting faith in a background check instead of using your own intuition/knowledge or even attempting to gain information and making judgements.

Jeffff -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 9:42:57 AM)
What did you find when you ran one on Me?....:) Jeff

intenze -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 10:04:29 AM)
ppspsttt that you er..."enhance"..the truth about your libido...

calamitysandra -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 11:45:05 AM)
I am much more protective of my sprogs than myself, but I do not run a background check on the parents of every mate they go and play with. I get to know the parents to one degree or another, and then I trust my instincts and take my chances. If I meet another parent at a parent teacher conference, or a new colleague, maybe a new neighbor, and we decide to meet for coffee, I do not run a background check. Why then should I perform one before meeting somebody for coffee, or maybe even dinner, only because they have the potential of becoming an romantic interest in the future?

KatyLied -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 1:29:27 PM)
quote: What did you find when you ran one on Me?....:) Fears choo-choo trains at night! [:D]

Phoenixpower -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 2:12:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff What did you find when you ran one on Me?....:) Verified Mass murderer of antz [8\|]

Aylee -> RE: Background checks on Potentials? Wrong or not? (2/14/2010 2:20:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood Weird thread. Most folks have commented that either they wouldn't do one or at least question the validity, effectiveness or motivation behind it. Yet, at the moment 'No, it is right' is ahead in the voting 3 to 1. I take that to mean, it is fine if you want to do so but most of us find it rather pointless.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Spam Policy

4.699707E-02