Sorry guys: for the mods/ladies...

while we're at it... let's tie it in to Obamacare. Originally Posted by Tiger Woods

NSA already has.

Interesting. I understand about the wish to maintain privacy, but don't you think the ladies privacy and safety merits as much protection as your own?

You use a handle here on ECCIE. Some of us use throwaway phones for this activity. What else are you afraid of relative to privacy? Triangulation of who you actually are is easiest from your vehicle so do you walk to your appointments? No..you take a measured risk and drive and park there.

The suggestion is meant to give the ladies a way to quickly get a feel for who they are meeting (directly on this site, not having to search another one). Given the anonymity of the folks here (mostly) the depth of fear seems to really hover around the ability of the ladies to share actual information relative to the demeanor/overall attitude and compliance of a hobbyist during a session.

The providers are reputation based (for the most part) if you consider the review system on this site. So in fairness why not let them have the same level of reputation driven scale for the hobbyist clients? Even a "would you see them again? yes/no" is somewhat valuable. As to recourse, it looks (to me) that when the ladies get a "no" review, her main recourse is to improve her performance and overcome that negative rating (many do). Seems as a hobbyist you have that same opportunity right? The provider reviews tab is a fairly simple tool with the yes/no rating glaringly evident as a base measurement for provider reliability and service. I see nothing wrong with having a tab indicating the same basics for a hobbyist. You as a hobbyist should be able to monitor and see your own rating (yes/no reviews). Nothing wrong with that.

Nevertheless, it was only a suggestion, nothing more. The providers do us a service, there is an element of risk for all of us involved and I just felt it fair to offer up something to help the providers since I feel they carry the largest burden of risk. My suggestion was meant to provide them and the moderators of this site with something to consider, that's all.

I kinda like Tiger Woods idea. That would be a far better value for the money than the screwing we're all getting from our government so far (no dinner, no kiss at all, just screwed!).

Play safe, have fun!

Interesting. I understand about the wish to maintain privacy, but don't you think the ladies privacy and safety merits as much protection as your own?

You use a handle here on ECCIE. Some of us use throwaway phones for this activity. What else are you afraid of relative to privacy? Triangulation of who you actually are is easiest from your vehicle so do you walk to your appointments? No..you take a measured risk and drive and park there.

The suggestion is meant to give the ladies a way to quickly get a feel for who they are meeting (directly on this site, not having to search another one). Given the anonymity of the folks here (mostly) the depth of fear seems to really hover around the ability of the ladies to share actual information relative to the demeanor/overall attitude and compliance of a hobbyist during a session.

The providers are reputation based (for the most part) if you consider the review system on this site. So in fairness why not let them have the same level of reputation driven scale for the hobbyist clients? Even a "would you see them again? yes/no" is somewhat valuable. As to recourse, it looks (to me) that when the ladies get a "no" review, her main recourse is to improve her performance and overcome that negative rating (many do). Seems as a hobbyist you have that same opportunity right? The provider reviews tab is a fairly simple tool with the yes/no rating glaringly evident as a base measurement for provider reliability and service. I see nothing wrong with having a tab indicating the same basics for a hobbyist. You as a hobbyist should be able to monitor and see your own rating (yes/no reviews). Nothing wrong with that.

Nevertheless, it was only a suggestion, nothing more. The providers do us a service, there is an element of risk for all of us involved and I just felt it fair to offer up something to help the providers since I feel they carry the largest burden of risk. My suggestion was meant to provide them and the moderators of this site with something to consider, that's all.

I kinda like Tiger Woods idea. That would be a far better value for the money than the screwing we're all getting from our government so far (no dinner, no kiss at all, just screwed!).

Play safe, have fun! Originally Posted by SD2011

If you just want a system of yes/no, that already exists. It's called P411. It works well. It is how I book all of my appointments these days. I don't give out my eccie handle any more so that any real world information can not be traced to my eccie handle. I don't think it is a secret that just about every type of private forum on eccie has been hacked.

There are also plenty of ways that ladies can and do share information on actual events in a session.

Am I paranoid? Hell yeah! Some (although certainly not all) of these ladies are not discrete which is why we all had to go to hobby phones, etc. I believe that too much personal information would be provided in areas where a lady would comment. Look at almost any post where a lady rebuts a review.

Finally, while a straight yes or no system similar to P411 is not really an issue, something that allows a lady to essentially review the session is.

Many vocal posters on the board will be okay with that be there are very vested in the board, but many, many more of the men who post less frequently will. We pay well to see these women who provide us a safe, judgement free (or the appearance of such) environment to enjoy the company of a beautiful women. Getting reviewed or graded on a scale that would take into account our appearance and lack of sexual prowess is not something we're interested in seeing.

Am I paranoid? Hell yeah! Some (although certainly not all) of these ladies are not discrete which is why we all had to go to hobby phones, etc. Originally Posted by BigEddie

Agreed. Protecting RW info is critical and carelessness could easily lead to disaster. Case in point: http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...post1052907523

I'm not suggesting your sexual performance (or lack of) is something that needs to be monitored. Of course there's another external site for verification. I'm talking about something simple (even less info) than the one ECCIE uses for the providers here informally. Like I said, even a simple yes/no (on seeing a hobbyist again) is of some value. If you feel P411 is ironclad safe, then that is your choice (although I don't think it's quite as e-safe as you believe).

RW info (as in the example link from greedy) was found how? Apparently direct interaction between the provider and hobbyist. Like I said, driving there in your own car is already one link back to your RW in itself. Pick your providers carefully, be respectful, play nice. Should be okay right?

So far, all the reasons not to do it really do fall a tad short (due to hobbyist internal fears) but do remember, I'm not the person who runs this place nor the one who would implement that type of thing. I'm just another hobbyist. It was only a suggestion.

P411 has OKs, not a yes or no, but about the same.

Why would icky be involved in something like this? There would be liability issues if something happened. There could be a direct linck for DAs to say icky is pandering. You really need to thinck this through a bit more on the logistics and what is the benefit to website that hosts it. icky is a for profit entity. How could a website make money and maintain its integrity?

I absolutely love P411! The "OKs" are an awesome tool. But there's another screening site, Date-Check, that uses five levels of oks.

As I recall:
5= my very highest recommendation
4= recommendation
3= recommendation with reservations

I can't remember what the other numbers mean. As Date-Check isn't used much in Texas and it costs the ladies to renew every two weeks, I haven't looked at it in a few years.

The gentlemen can't see what the ladies gave them.

For some reason "sexual performance" keeps getting mentioned, either as a stumbling block to provider reviews or some sort of anti SD2011's proposal. Who cares? If the wimmin's reviews are as candy assed and glossed over as most of the men's, what's to be scared of? I suggest SD2011 put his compassion and money where his mouth is and set up a John Review site for providers. A Win Win for SD2011, hookers with too much free time and WE can get sock puppet accounts and read our reviews and weep if we want to.

Let the ladies have their own site that works in reverse of this one. It's a perfect answer! The wimmin can White Princess lads they feel have been betrayed by one of their BSC peers. They can loan us cars, bitch about not getting loans back, post NCNS on everybody who chickens out at the last minute with a piss poor excuse, complain that we didn't screen them enough, we left early, showed up with a driver and demanded a better deal. Maybe bitch about the quality of a massage, lie about how many orgasms we had, how big our dicks are, how lame we are but how their sexual prowess awakened our sleeping giant, what cool clothes we wear and how they fit...hobbyists could put up showcases with 10 year old pictures, play hide the belly and photoshop the sausage, take out horny hung rich dude banner ads...

When will it be ready?

I wonder how many guys will be described as "thick, but not a bbm".

Or hairy nutsack, not too distracting...

lol...

You guys sure worry alot about "performance". I doubt the ladies care at all as they'll take your 3 minutes of pleasure along with COD and they're fine with that.

It was a suggestion for eccy to setup something (within their own website) if they felt like it. Nothing more. There are already separate websites to go to for verification that bring on their own level of liability/risk. This was intended to be less formal and eccy based.

A moment of compassion from me when I wrote the post = yes. Those that prefer can surely go back to looking for random meat popsicles for your stick (no prob at all).

P411 has OKs, not a yes or no, but about the same.

Why would icky be involved in something like this? There would be liability issues if something happened. There could be a direct linck for DAs to say icky is pandering. You really need to thinck this through a bit more on the logistics and what is the benefit to website that hosts it. icky is a for profit entity. How could a website make money and maintain its integrity? Originally Posted by pyramider

SD2011, before you even think about suggesting the addition of a screening feature on or provided by eccie [or whatever it is you are suggesting], i think you should communicate w/ the owners to see if this is anything they even want to add to this site.

pyramider may have a lot of taint on his brain, but he points out some very serious considerations that eccie's owner has to deal with. points you may or may not have thought of.

while it is a good idea to help folks protect themselves, your suggestion seems to involve much much more and could be troublesome for the owners.

lol...

You guys sure worry alot about "performance". I doubt the ladies care at all as they'll take your 3 minutes of pleasure along with COD and they're fine with that.

It was a suggestion for eccy to setup something (within their own website) if they felt like it. Nothing more. There are already separate websites to go to for verification that bring on their own level of liability/risk. This was intended to be less formal and eccy based.

A moment of compassion from me when I wrote the post = yes. Those that prefer can surely go back to looking for random meat popsicles for your stick (no prob at all). Originally Posted by SD2011

Some of us do not have performance anxiety. Our performance is what it is and will not change. My two minutes of intensity is all I got and then its nap time.

A little judgmental doncha thinck. The ladies deserve a better treatment than that.

OP- where are your reviews?

I posted it as a suggestion. The eccy owners are not bound to even consider it much less execute it.

Again, the fear you guys show about the mere suggestion that a provider having a way on eccy to be able to quickly share info with each other to say we are okay (safe) or not to see for a session [on a private section of eccy] is truly amazing. Yes...that's something to really fear [not].

I don't think the legal aspects of doing so [confirming the risk/safety of a hobbyist in a private forum] is a problem. Each of you that writes a session review of a provider does what? (try to use your big head for just a moment - think about it?). There is no more liability in your review and confirmation of a session with provider than a simple private forum yes/no from a provider about seeing a handlename/hobbyist.

Therefore - Gander..meet Goose

ahem...

Have fun.. sheesh