Q for the Mods: Sharing my own reviews?

So what's the official Houston staff interpretation? Why does this thread have to keep going on?

Evidently the privacy and privilege of all kinds of information is in question. I'm not certain what I can share from the staff areas, otherwise I'd post what the owner/admin position is regarding this subject.

"What would later become". That's the key part. I'm not confused, we just have a reasonable and rational disagreement of principle here. Clearly, I believe that when it was posted IS relevant.

For example, in the middle of a session, I tell a provider, "Baby, that's the best blowjob I ever had." Later that day, while writing the review, I put in the ROS "It was the best blowjob I ever had, and I told her so."

Under your interpretation, I've just violated the rule. I hope you realize how fucking stupid it would be if that actually WERE a violation. Originally Posted by TransAm

You're mixing two different things. One, you're commenting on timeline. Two, you're commenting on "exactness". I'm sorry I put "what would later become" in there. Timeline is irrelevant.

Of course that's not a violation. Giving the provider a complete copy of what you put in your review is much different from your analogy.

And the wheels on the bus go round and round....

Evidently the privacy and privilege of all kinds of information is in question. I'm not certain what I can share from the staff areas, otherwise I'd post what the owner/admin position is regarding this subject. Originally Posted by enderwiggin

Thanks god there's at least an interpretation. Please put this out of its misery and tell the Houston membership how the rule is going to be enforced...you can't enforce the rule until you do...

Wakeup, no one admitted to having ROS info. I sent the provider an e-mail. She has the prose I sent her. Could it be similar to what I posted in ROS? It could. But I'm the only one who knows for sure.
Originally Posted by blowpop

Actually in the other thread I asked....

Out of curiosity how would you know that BPs review of you is not over the top and entirely accurate?

and you replied....

I sent her a copy of it. During the course of our time together we talked about the hobby, and how silly it was that providers couldn't see the details of their reviews.

I think the only way someone can improve is by getting honest feedback. Of course, if TheCFE improved even a tiny amount, I'd probably be dead right now. Deliriously happy, but dead.

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...6&postcount=79
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=733924

You are absolutely correct in that the rule is meant to punish those who violate the concept that info "will be seen only by those who should have access." Does theCFE have access to review ROS? No. The rule is meant exactly as you say to stop people "worrying about an unintended audience reading their words, and thus fostering a freer flow of information." Your problem is that you think your intended audience is the provider, so sharing info with her isn't bad. You're wrong. There's a reason providers specifically can't respond to reviews in those forums. Your review isn't for the benefit of the provider. Your audience is the hobbyists, and until you realize that, you'll always put the hobbyists of this board down, even though you preach about how much you want to help them... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

And it seems as if most just don't get this. That's what's broken on this board more than anything.

Thanks god there's at least an interpretation. Please put this out of its misery and tell the Houston membership how the rule is going to be enforced...you can't enforce the rule until you do... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Sure, they can enforce it as they interpret it subject to review by and explanation to Admin/owners and ridicule of members. There's a reason the SCOTUS has 9 members and most rulings go 5/4

Sorry...some are just not privy to such information. You should know that, with your Military background Originally Posted by DickEmDown

Um.. when I have ever stated I have a Military background.
Guess WU wants this board to be all about his chortles, guffaw's and jokes... and not be for what it was intended

You're mixing two different things. One, you're commenting on timeline. Two, you're commenting on "exactness". I'm sorry I put "what would later become" in there. Timeline is irrelevant.

Of course that's not a violation. Giving the provider a complete copy of what you put in your review is much different from your analogy. Originally Posted by Wakeuр

See, now you're arguing it as a matter of volume. So one line isn't a violation, but the complete copy is? Where's the line?

I agree with you that the rule interpretation from on high seems to ignore timeline in favor of a blanket rule that the provider and client can share anything. In terms of enforcement, that makes more sense. And I guess it would still offer some protection to stuff in ML, etc, though I can see some gray area too. I understand where you're coming from, I think, and I'm with you in wanting a clear statement of the rule from the authorities on this one.

I'm not certain what I can share from the staff areas, otherwise I'd post what the owner/admin position is regarding this subject. Originally Posted by enderwiggin

In a public forum....not much.

Thanks god there's at least an interpretation. Please put this out of its misery and tell the Houston membership how the rule is going to be enforced...you can't enforce the rule until you do... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Ender can't, he's not a Houston Moderator or Admin/Owner.

And I'm not addressing him specifically. Ender's saying that there's an interpretation out there. Is he wrong? If he's not wrong, then what possible rationale can you have for handcuffing yourselves into not being able to enforce the rule by not publishing the interpretation?

Um.. when I have ever stated I have a Military background.
Guess WU wants this board to be all about his chortles, guffaw's and jokes... and not be for what it was intended Originally Posted by Spirit13

That wasn't addressed to you Spirit...it was addressed to WU, I just didn't quote him.




I could quote one of the owners interpretation on this EXACT subject but it's already been expressed to the staff to NEVER do that

:facepalm:

Why are you guys making this so difficult?

Why are you guys making this so difficult? Originally Posted by Wakeuр

It's fun

For who? There are six of you...you all share one brain?