Q for the Mods: Sharing my own reviews?

...

However, the audience in the review forums cannot be the providers by simple fact. The only info they get is a yes or no. Everything else is shit they already know...unless you're lying about seeing them in the first place. There's no helpful info there for any provider...nice try... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

I disagree that there is no helpful info for the provider. She would at least have an idea what was said about her. If a subsequent client tries to tell her a review said she performed a service she did not offer, she would know better. "John Doe said you did greek, or CIM, or whatever"

Granted, she couldn't (yeah, right) or shouldn't know if what the reviewer sent her is what he actually posted, she would have a reasonable expectation it would be.

And just for my own curiosity - I understand that revealing the "confidential" info is an offense. But if the provider comes by the info honestly, why is just acknowledging that fact a violation?

What the hooktard knows is irrelevant.........she is not allowed to discuss ROS on the board.......period.

If a fucktard is so pussy whipped that he needs to share the ROS with the very hooktard that was in the room when the activities took place, that is between them........when she acknowledges knowing ROS, she is in violation of Rule 20.

Hooktards are in the business of keeping information to themselves.......I suggest doing so.

And just for my own curiosity - I understand that revealing the "confidential" info is an offense. But if the provider comes by the info honestly, why is just acknowledging that fact a violation? Originally Posted by bullet0

Oh good Lord, Do we have to start all over again.



It's a violation because the rules say it's a violation.

Posted with admin approval: "I've never had a problem with a reviewer sharing his OWN comments with the girl he reviewed. However, she can't use those comments in any way....on this site or anywhere else...like her own website. When she acknowledges that she received it here, she faces a Rule 20 violation. When she posts it elsewhere, we ask her to remove it. If she won't remove it, then we remove something that's important to her, starting with VP, her membership here, etc."

... Originally Posted by enderwiggin

Oh good Lord, Do we have to start all over again.

It's a violation because the rules say it's a violation. Originally Posted by boardman

The rule says it's a violation for "revealing ANY content", not to admit knowledge of it. A small point, to be sure, and I wasn't trying to start another shit storm. Just curious.

She's currently banned now... Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Did Wayward do it?

Futile effort ... the Rule is simply not enforceable unless someone is stupid enough to admit that they violated it, Rule 20 included.

And, if a Provider is interested in reading ROS on her Reviews, all she has to do is register a new handle, check male as gender, and write a fake review to gain ROS access. I'd suspect this is rather common. Against the rules, but ...

shhhhhhh don't tell them that secret information

The rule says it's a violation for "revealing ANY content", not to admit knowledge of it. A small point, to be sure, and I wasn't trying to start another shit storm. Just curious. Originally Posted by bullet0

That's an important distinction. Unless I missed something, I don't believe TheCFE revealed ANY private content.

I know we're not privvy to the mods' decision-making process, but if, in fact, this distinction was overlooked, I'd hope the mods would reverse the decision with as much grace as TheCFE demonstrated in this matter.

The distinction was the cause for confusion and has been clarified.......a hooktard acknowledging that she knows what is in the ROS (for any reason) is a Rule 20 violation........but, I agree that the ban should be lifted.

I'm with DH on that, fwiw.

The distinction was the cause for confusion and has been clarified.......a hooktard acknowledging that she knows what is in the ROS (for any reason) is a Rule 20 violation........but, I agree that the ban should be lifted. Originally Posted by dearhunter

There's your answer...... clarification was made, and the staff took action accordingly.... seems pretty cut and dry to me....

carousel 1.jpg

There's your answer...... clarification was made, and the staff took action accordingly.... seems pretty cut and dry to me.... Originally Posted by Jusanotherdude

Then I go back to what WU said (at least I thinck it was WU, I'm too lazy to wade back through all this). The rule need to be rewritten, because there is a discrepancy in the rule and the "clarification".

That would require admin action. Not a something a mod can do.