Traveling Gentleman is............

Yeah basically this, except in order for a provider to have an enforceable no-review policy she cannot advertise ANYWHERE on the Internet not just Eccie. If it is determined that the girl still has, for instance, a p411 or TER account the policy is null and void.

(...)



It is clearly stated in the Forum Guidelines. #29 specifically. The portion regarding advertising anywhere not just Eccie has been a further clarification to the policy.


#29 - Verified Providers who use the Showcase feature or advertise in our forums are not entitled to a no-review policy. Should circumstances arise which require or prompt you to request a no-review policy on ECCIE, please understand that enforcement of this policy also results in revoking of your showcase or ad-posting privileges. Ladies who have chosen a no-review policy on ECCIE may still post and create threads in any of the non-advertising forums on the board and will still have access to the girls-only areas of the board.. Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

My understanding was that it was just as stated on the guideline. It progressively morphed into what you are saying (no advertising anywhere) and it seems like it was by repetition, but I don't see how one can even imply the guideline to be all encompassing.


EDIT: I can understand the rationale behind it, though... Otherwise, a girl that only advertises on BP would, arguably, have protection under a no review policy, etc. Then ECCIE would not be an information exchange board, but more like a "members only" review board. Either way, I think the GL should be clearer...

My understanding was that it was just as stated on the guideline. It progressively morphed into what you are saying (no advertising anywhere) and it seems like it was by repetition, but I don't see how one can even imply the guideline to be all encompassing. Originally Posted by Camille Fox

I don't understand what you're asking I'm sorry. Can you elaborate? I've clarified that the policy has been expanded upon behind the scenes to include advertising anywhere on the Internet. I'm not implying anything, I assure you it is quite definitive.

Over time many of the guidelines have received further clarification on the finer points but they have not received a public revision. My belief is that it's because these are largely edge cases which arise only infrequently and the guidelines try to be as succinct as possible even if they don't tell the entire story. That's just my opinion though, I have no real basis for it.

^ I edited my comment. It makes sense. Only thing is, a lady who chooses to have a no-review policy (for whatever reason) could not possibly know that add-on exists because it is not there. That's what I meant by someone not being able to imply more from the GL.

^ I edited my comment. It makes sense. Only thing is, a lady who chooses to have a no-review policy (for whatever reason) could not possibly know that add-on exists because it is not there. That's what I meant by someone not being able to imply more from the GL. Originally Posted by Camille Fox

Valid point. When they do request a no-review policy they are informed of the conditions at that time. It's really such an infrequent thing though that it's almost academic.

Like I said, there isnt currently a single provider in Houston with an enforceable no-review policy.

Easy, most people don't know the rules so when a girl tells them they're not allowed to write a review or that she has a no review policy they don't question it any further than that.

All I am saying is that claiming you have one doesn't make it so. Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

They will learn "her rules" ... if they violate "her policy" ... no 2nd session.

.. some won't even see someone who even just posts on Eccie.

#17 - "Cyber Stalking" is a term that refers to the act of following another member around online. This may include persistent PMing of the other party, repeated ISOs about the other party, or excessive bumping of reviews or posting in threads about the other individual, whether it be positive or negative information posted. In any of these cases, whether staff deems that the behavior has crossed the line into cyber-stalking, or the "stalked" party complains to staff about the alleged behavior, staff will take the necessary steps to make it stop. Please avoid becoming involved in this type of conduct

Well at least you have the balls to admit to rule violations. Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

No I didn't, I stated that I was a cyber bully.

you obviously don't know DM that well if you think she considers herself a HDH. I've never got that vibe from her. And no I'm not a WK, Dorthy can take care of herself, and I might catch a wild throat punch trying to fight her fight.

I was just pointing out how readily you admit to bring a bully, and an ass, but claim not having violated the guidelines. The error was in your definition of the violation. Originally Posted by H.Hardhat

Both Pistolero and SpiceItUp have read my posts here, no reply from either but this from SpiceItUp:

Yup, exactly, which is why this rule is interpreted in an EXTREMELY narrow fashion site wide. If applied broadly it would, as you point out, be very easy to claim it too easily. Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

I dunno she seems like she has some balls to me. I would doubt she hits the RTM very often but you never really know. Speaking of balls what was your previous/other handle? Was/is it a provider handle?

And if you want to know if you're a cyber stalker or not go back and look at your 71 posts on this SHMB and see how many of them are about a particular member. Originally Posted by oilfieldscum

Since you have all this time to view my postings, why don't you figure out who I was, if I was. Besides since you're quoting the rules (which you obviously don't know how they're applied) and playing like you're a moderator, why would I tell you anything. Perhaps you should save your patronizing attitude for someone who will buy into it.

Why isn't the "ANYWHERE" clarification not written into the rules? Originally Posted by LexusLover

For the same reason you don't answer direct questions set forth to you in another thread Some suggestions don't need clarification.

#17 - "Cyber Stalking" is a term that refers to the act of following another member around online. This may include persistent PMing of the other party, repeated ISOs about the other party, or excessive bumping of reviews or posting in threads about the other individual, whether it be positive you can't write *anything* according to this rule,,, this includes a review or negative information posted. In any of these cases, whether staff deems that the behavior has crossed the line into cyber-stalking, or the "stalked" party complains to staff about the alleged behavior, staff will take the necessary steps to make it stop. Please avoid becoming involved in this type of conduct.

Read the RED writing in above rules,,, Originally Posted by Lorde

Uhm.... I think you highlited the incorrect portions intented to be emphasised for the intent....

#17 - "Cyber Stalking" is a term that refers to the act of following another member around online. This may include persistent PMing of the other party, repeated ISOs about the other party, or excessive bumping of reviews or posting in threads about the other individual, whether it be positive or negative information posted. In any of these cases, whether staff deems that the behavior has crossed the line into cyber-stalking, or the "stalked" party complains to staff about the alleged behavior, staff will take the necessary steps to make it stop. Please avoid becoming involved in this type of conduct.

Read the RED writing in above rules,,,

FTFY....


Condensed: Cyberstalking = Persistant. Repeated. Excessive.


Yup, I think that covers it.

#17 - "Cyber Stalking" is a term that refers to the act of following another member around online. This may include persistent PMing of the other party, repeated ISOs about the other party, or excessive bumping of reviews or posting in threads about the other individual, whether it be positive you can't write *anything* according to this rule,,, this includes a review or negative information posted. In any of these cases, whether staff deems that the behavior has crossed the line into cyber-stalking, or the "stalked" party complains to staff about the alleged behavior, staff will take the necessary steps to make it stop. Please avoid becoming involved in this type of conduct.

Read the RED writing in above rules,,, Originally Posted by Lorde

I guess you missed the part where the purple mod agreed with my reply in red ,,,,
try to keep up my lady,,,

Yup, exactly, which is why this rule is interpreted in an EXTREMELY narrow fashion site wide. If applied broadly it would, as you point out, be very easy to claim it too easily. Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

I guess you missed the part where the purple mod agreed with my reply in red ,,,,
try to keep up my lady,,, Originally Posted by Lorde

I must have missed that part too, because I still don't see where you two aren't saying the same thing.

Uhm.... I think you highlited the incorrect portions intented to be emphasised for the intent....

FTFY....


Condensed: Cyberstalking = Persistant. Repeated. Excessive.


Yup, I think that covers it. Originally Posted by FoxyNC

All rules are subject to mod "interpretation".
All words in the guidelines are revelvant, which is why they are written as such. In the end, most of the mods do discuss with each other before making this determination, but not always. One must actually have proof, which includes evidence by the person who is accused posts, and clearly laid out first. Simple deduction and conjecture is not enough.

People like to use the term 'stalker' due to the negative connotation or negative implication.

It's one thing for someone to say I'm an asshole or I'm a cyber bully and some of the ladies may feel one way, or may not care at all, however when the term stalker is used (in most context) the implication is that some guy is physically stalking or physically harassing any given person. This could scare most ladies away from seeing me or anybody else who is mentioned by the term stalker or any variation of the word.

People like to use the term 'stalker' due to the negative connotation or negative implication.

It's one thing for someone to say I'm an asshole or I'm a cyber bully and some of the ladies may feel one way, or may not care at all, however when the term stalker is used (in most context) the implication is that some guy is physically stalking or physically harassing any given person. This could scare most ladies away from seeing me or anybody else who is mentioned by the term stalker or any variation of the word. Originally Posted by NOBODY60

It doesn't seem like you've reconciled yet that stalking is not just a physical thing. Cyber- bullying is an element of cyber stalking, but one is essentially independent of the other.
I've seen some real stalkers here so I don't thinck you are one, yet, but what i thinck of the subject is of no relevance. It depends on what the person on the receiving end and staff thinks. Management has already set forth with they consider cyber-stalking to be.

Attention Whores are constantly creating threADS,,,

One has to insult --possible--
future client's ,,,
intelligent called the kettle black.
Color blind irony,,, Originally Posted by Lorde

dang , like a hundred posts on here about how no provider can be an attention whore,
and u still don't get it.
Intellegent, yes I am, no doubt, but you have to find something to hate on dont ya you anonymous man. next ur going to talk about my bad teeth and acne.

You sling insults,,,
don't act innocent.
Your insult was about a member not being intelligent,,, memory problems all of a sudden.
Duhhhhh

You sling insults,,,
don't act innocent.
Your insult was about a member not being intelligent,,, memory problems all of a sudden.
Duhhhhh Originally Posted by Lorde

ur a bit slow my friend, i also insulted u, so that would be the plural of member.
and why do u care if i state my opinion about someone elses intellegence?