The SNATCH thread

Aren't the rules set up to be site wide? If a member has access to the forum the thread is in and CAN post into it then it seems to support he has that right to do so bestowed on him from the owners that designed the sight and made the rules.

Can MODs make new rules in their area's? That hardly seems right with the vastness of the board and how many people travel. It should be one set of rules for the board.

And if one MOD, ffireman, is posting to a thread another MOD, Ztonk, has stated males cannot post to then it sure looks like these guys are not on the same page. Originally Posted by Cat in the Hat

Good point, thanks.

IB

I saw the OP, and think those were two well-earned chastisements. You get what you pay for.. and in that budget bracket, you might just catch something you didn't pay for. Originally Posted by Blue_eyed_shy_guy

That makes sense.

But also, we've been told "the higher the rate, the more risks the girl might be willing to take"

So its really conflicted to say that cheaper is always more dangerous, isn't it when the very opposite might be true?

I saw the OP, and think those were two well-earned chastisements. You get what you pay for.. and in that budget bracket, you might just catch something you didn't pay for. Originally Posted by Blue_eyed_shy_guy

What are the minimum dollars to post in Request and ISO to avoid chastisement or catch something?

What are the minimum dollars to post in Request and ISO to avoid chastisement or catch something? Originally Posted by saustin

$600 at min as $250 doesn't yealled anything these days

IB

What are the minimum dollars to post in Request and ISO to avoid chastisement or catch something? Originally Posted by saustin

That's a trick question...because there is no right answer...

If you pay too much many of us are going to laugh at you. If you pay too little, the board pimp is going to call you out.

You can't win...

Just quit the hobby.

That's a trick question...because there is no right answer...

If you pay too much many of us are going to laugh at you. If you pay too little, the board pimp is going to call you out.

You can't win...

Just offer 37.30 Originally Posted by Toyz

FTFY

That makes sense.

But also, we've been told "the higher the rate, the more risks the girl might be willing to take"

So its really conflicted to say that cheaper is always more dangerous, isn't it when the very opposite might be true? Originally Posted by Toyz

What are the minimum dollars to post in Request and ISO to avoid chastisement or catch something? Originally Posted by saustin

SAustin, the answer is simple:

Anyone paying less than I pay is a tight-fisted cheap-ass, and the ladies should NCNS you in favor of seeing me.

J/K.. but generally I'd consider a session with a lady charging less than $x0.8 to be somewhat risky. That price requires a lady to make her money on volume, which multiplies the risks of her catching something from less-than-clean 'mongers and passing it on to you.

That quantity factor is also something I wanted to bring up in my reply to you, Toyz. The $1K/hr provider might be expected to have an open menu including BBFS. The 'monger who can afford to pay for play at that income level would probably think of menu restrictions against bareback PiV or PiA to be something for the lower classes.

I'll concede both of those implied points.. but how many of those guys is the 1K/hr provider seeing a day? Income distribution alone insures that she's not going to have enough guys who can pay her donation rate to be as high volume as a SW or $60 special BP provider.

It might only take one bareback session to infect a lady, but statistically speaking.. the higher charging ladies are *still* safer despite upper-class misconceptions about STI vulnerabilities.

I think it'd be interesting to know just where on the donation scale is the borderline between those who can still demand covers for FS vs. those who are expected to provide BBFS as part of the high-end package.

400/hr? 500? 600?

Let me know what donation level insures that the lady is expected to provide BBFS to anyone who can afford her rate, and I'll go with the ladies who charge less.. and expect their guys to go covered for the riskiest activities.

SAustin, the answer is simple:

Anyone paying less than I pay is a tight-fisted cheap-ass, and the ladies should NCNS you in favor of seeing me.

J/K.. but generally I'd consider a session with a lady charging less than $x0.8 to be somewhat risky. That price requires a lady to make her money on volume, which multiplies the risks of her catching something from less-than-clean 'mongers and passing it on to you.

That quantity factor is also something I wanted to bring up in my reply to you, Toyz. The $1K/hr provider might be expected to have an open menu including BBFS. The 'monger who can afford to pay for play at that income level would probably think of menu restrictions against bareback PiV or PiA to be something for the lower classes.

I'll concede both of those implied points.. but how many of those guys is the 1K/hr provider seeing a day? Income distribution alone insures that she's not going to have enough guys who can pay her donation rate to be as high volume as a SW or $60 special BP provider.

It might only take one bareback session to infect a lady, but statistically speaking.. the higher charging ladies are *still* safer despite upper-class misconceptions about STI vulnerabilities.

I think it'd be interesting to know just where on the donation scale is the borderline between those who can still demand covers for FS vs. those who are expected to provide BBFS as part of the high-end package.

400/hr? 500? 600?

Let me know what donation level insures that the lady is expected to provide BBFS to anyone who can afford her rate, and I'll go with the ladies who charge less.. and expect their guys to go covered for the riskiest activities. Originally Posted by Blue_eyed_shy_guy

Its all hypothetical. Thanks for putting so much thought into it.

How would I counter the volume vs selective argument? It has merit...until you add in the high percentage of infection rates for non condom users. Then its a bit harder to determine if you are safer with a budget experience vs a high dollar one.

We have all fucked SL by proxy & that doesn't help me sleep well at night.

I'd like to say this is an interesting read below, but its boring as fuck.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html

Its all hypothetical. Thanks for putting so much thought into it.

How would I counter the volume vs selective argument? It has merit...until you add in the high percentage of infection rates for non condom users. Then its a bit harder to determine if you are safer with a budget experience vs a high dollar one.

We have all fucked SL by proxy & that doesn't help me sleep well at night.

I'd like to say this is an interesting read below, but its boring as fuck.

http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/brief.html Originally Posted by Toyz

One sentence in your reply stuck out above all the rest. Scary. Truly. F$cking. Scary.

Yeah, in the world of STIs, all sex with anyone besides Rosie Palm is kinda risky. I'm just trying to suss out an area of the least risk and hope I don't roll the wrong dice with the wrong provider one day..

One sentence in your reply stuck out above all the rest. Scary. Truly. F$cking. Scary.

Yeah, in the world of STIs, all sex with anyone besides Rosie Palm is kinda risky. I'm just trying to suss out an area of the least risk and hope I don't roll the wrong dice with the wrong provider one day.. Originally Posted by Blue_eyed_shy_guy

As do we all my friend, as do we all...

I can restart the SNATCH thread if you'd like one with fewer pages.

Any suggestions for tweaks to the rules?

ztonk

I can restart the SNATCH thread if you'd like one with fewer pages.

Any suggestions for tweaks to the rules?

ztonk Originally Posted by ztonk

I think its working pretty well as it is.

• Maybe restrict posters in that particular thread to ONLY providers. Guys sometimes post in it by mistake not knowing that they can make up their own personal "I'm desperate" thead.
• A lot of the same girls every day...that's not neccesarily an issue, but might warrant discussion
• If there were a way for the girls to come back after their dance card is filled and actually say "not taking any more appointments today" to keep mogers from bugging them all afternoon or, being frustrated cause the girl always seems to be full

Just errant thoughts...for whatever value.

Maybe restrict posters in that particular thread to ONLY providers. Guys sometimes post in it by mistake not knowing that they can make up their own personal "I'm desperate" thead. Originally Posted by Toyz

The current rules are based on the ones for San Antonio, which allows both guys and gals to post... do we want to restrict it that much?

z

The current rules are based on the ones for San Antonio, which allows both guys and gals to post... do we want to restrict it that much?

z Originally Posted by ztonk

Oh I'm just throwing thoughts out on the topic. I'm not biased either way really. I just hope it continues 'cause its interesting. If peeps think its fine as is, I am too. I've never actually used it to schedule so I'm just a bystander. But its nice to know its there in case I ever do.

Just saying the guys can post specific to their needs in individual threads. I've had some fun posting on occasion as a joke & luckily its been perceived that way, just having some fun & trying to bring a smile to a few faces now and again.

The current rules are based on the ones for San Antonio, which allows both guys and gals to post... do we want to restrict it that much?

z Originally Posted by ztonk

No, allow guys to post" I'm Free now" but no banter back and forth.

Otherwise it's working fine, sometimes the system double posts so you will see multi ads at times.

I am one of the desperate guys that uses it

IB