What happened with the AD's ? Details are gone!

Ask the providers if you wish. To the best of my knowledge, providers cannot use the private function.

Be very carefull you have all the facts (you don't) before calling any mod a lier. Originally Posted by Bubba3452

It's "Liar"

And I have the facts I need: I contacted you, personally, with a link to the ad. I checked it when I said I did, and "private" tags were still in use.

Give me a mo... < checks again >

And still are.

You've been informed that this is the case, you responded to that message meaning you (at least should have) read it, and private tags are in use by a provider. So you are (or should be) aware that it is possible.

Of what other facts am I supposedly ignorant?

I suggest *you* check the facts.

It only takes a click, dude.

If you mean to be saying "are no longer able to use the "private" tag, but previous ads have not been edited to remove them," then I suggest you make that clear.

I shouldn't have to say "and then apologize."

Except for the fact that the board itself could be forced offline and the owners charged, i'd say that's a good enough reason to comply.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Nope. If they want the boards gone they will be gone. Period. This type of compliance at best buys time just like what you have said about moving offshore. I would also add that there is significant legal precedent saying that board operators are not liable for the content of board posters who are not employees of the ownership or owners themselves.

This is also why boards should be owned by and hosted by offshore corporations.

This type of action is like TSA security. It gives the impression of creating safety while, in actuality, accomplishing very little.

Nope. If they want the boards gone they will be gone. Period. This type of compliance at best buys time just like what you have said about moving offshore. I would also add that there is significant legal precedent saying that board operators are not liable for the content of board posters who are not employees of the ownership or owners themselves.

This is also why boards should be owned by and hosted by offshore corporations.

This type of action is like TSA security. It gives the impression of creating safety while, in actuality, accomplishing very little. Originally Posted by sharktrager

+100

Hello friends,
Well, I knew this was coming.

Another site I was using has done the same thing.
Very frustrating for both the hobbyist and the provider.

Confusion of rates can lead to a bad session. Been there...done that.
We can only hope that the guys will do their homework BEFORE they book the appointment. And I know all you fine gentlemen will do so ! Kisses!

I have found another site that is pretty much identical to ECCIE's platform. Very user friendly and same benefits....except THEY DO allow rates and services to still be posted.
You can find my comments about these sites in the MEMBER SUGGESTION and FEEDBACK Forum.
A thread called "Other Hobby Boards".

Not to say I'm leaving ECCIE....but a girls gotta do what a girls gotta do! I need to post my rates and services. This business is getting tougher everyday.....and to put the clamp down on us....just will drive some out of business at this point!

On the lighter side....it's snowing outside....and sooooo pretty!!
Good cuddling weather

Hugs to all!
GingerB

I guess all of those reviews that say "see ad" are now totally wothless.

I guess all of those reviews that say "see ad" are now totally wothless. Originally Posted by cowboyesfan

Plus the ones that say "nothing discussed over the phone" (which, don't get me wrong, is a very very very +100 good idea) if the young lady cannot afford / doesn't know how to make their own site.

Of course, those escorts.com sites are barely worth it: they only have ¿three? ¿four? templates so they all look the same. Plus the ads from which the young lady gets *no* compensation.

I can honestly understand why ownership has to do it...self preservation...

..but...I think I hear the fat lady warming up...

Nope. If they want the boards gone they will be gone. Period.

true enough i think both of us aren't exactly in favor of "Big Brother"

This type of compliance at best buys time just like what you have said about moving offshore.

This is also why boards should be owned by and hosted by offshore corporations.

not everyone can take that action, the cost can make it a barrier for small outfits. doesn't matter anyway if the owners themselves reside in the United States, they can host the site on Pluto if they want but unless they also move to Pluto they are still subject to US laws and face arrest. Just google Calvin Ayer who started Bodog, he resides in Costa Rica now but he is essentially barred from entering the United States or Canada (he's a canuck) ever again because if he does, he faces arrest for taking online gambling money from US customers which is illegal. There's precedent on this, an executive involved with a British gambling site was arrested in the US on a business trip to the US and that person was a British citizen who resides in the UK. They sold their gambling site to another company outside the UK i recall.

I would also add that there is significant legal precedent saying that board operators are not liable for the content of board posters who are not employees of the ownership or owners themselves.

There's also legal precedent that says they are responsible. at the very minimum the owners must comply with a subpoena to reveal any information they have to identify a poster who posts anything that is illegal such as threats. There was a guy in the Dallas area recently who posted threats against Obama and the Government online and whoever runs that site did provide the FBI with his data. All ISP's have to do that much at the least when ordered to by the courts.

Also like youtube the owners can't allow copyrighted data to remain on the board so it's not correct to say that the owners have some sort of "blanket immunity" to whatever someone posts, they don't.

I mentioned The Pirate Bay for a reason, the site is hosted in Sweden and the owners are citizens of Sweden, which makes them not subject to such things as the DMCA since no such thing exists in Sweden and as the owners rather bluntly have pointed out US laws don't apply to them. While i rather doubt they are planning any sightseeing vacations to the US anytime soon (see example of British executive) they are still getting a ton of heat in Sweden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirate_Bay

read the article concerning all of the legal issues (warning it's NOT a quick read!) and tell me again if the owners of ECCIE would be wise to disregard US law. NOT.

Just the list of Countries who now block The Pirate Bay is rather lengthy including Sweden itself.

Sweden
In May 2010, The Pirate Bay's Swedish internet service provider lost an appeal against an order to stop providing service to the site. Although the service provider had already complied with an earlier order in August 2009 and The Pirate Bay was thereafter hosted elsewhere, in June 2010 the ISP chose also to block their customers from accessing The Pirate Bay in its new location. One of the judges in the case later commented that the court's order didn't require the ISP to control their customers' access to the site, but the ISP wanted to avoid any risk.[88]

So even if you host a site on Pluto and live there too, what business can you do when other countries block you? None. As stated above their former ISP while not even required to do so, blocked them.

This type of action is like TSA security. It gives the impression of creating safety while, in actuality, accomplishing very little. Originally Posted by sharktrager

on the TSA itself .. Check!!!

I can honestly understand why ownership has to do it...self preservation...

..but...I think I hear the fat lady warming up... Originally Posted by DownForWhatever

Oh, c'mon, kitty-kitty has lost the baby bump by now.


It's a *joke*, you know I lubbs ya, hunni...

Any private tags you see used in a provider ad were put there by a moderator, NOT the lady.

I do know that for a fact. They were NOT and can NOT be put there by a provider. I spent most of my afternoon doing it yesterday.

It's "Liar"

And I have the facts I need: I contacted you, personally, with a link to the ad. I checked it when I said I did, and "private" tags were still in use.

Give me a mo... < checks again >

And still are.

You've been informed that this is the case, you responded to that message meaning you (at least should have) read it, and private tags are in use by a provider. So you are (or should be) aware that it is possible.

Of what other facts am I supposedly ignorant?

I suggest *you* check the facts.

It only takes a click, dude.

If you mean to be saying "are no longer able to use the "private" tag, but previous ads have not been edited to remove them," then I suggest you make that clear.

I shouldn't have to say "and then apologize." Originally Posted by OldTimeBuddie

Any private tags you see used in a provider ad were put there by a moderator, NOT the lady.

I do know that for a fact. They were NOT and can NOT be put there by a provider. I spent most of my afternoon doing it yesterday. Originally Posted by johnnybax

Ah, so rather than simply deleting the information, it can be made private?

That, again, was not said by Bubba, and is not what zie been saying here about *all* such information being removed. I apologize for taking this as the complete story, but none other had been offered at the time of my posts.

If you went though ads looking for such info, why did you just make it private and not remove it, as Bubba has indicated was the new policy?

And let me ask: if the idea is to protect the owners, and since premium access can be purchased by anyone (including LE) with a credit card -- how does this address the legal exposure, exactly?

Dude, I never told you aything in PM other then it would take some time to correct all the ads.

I also told you providers cannot use private tags which they cannot. I neer said anythng about staff doing it. Or not doing it.

And, when it is all done, yes, all the ads will conform to the new standards. All the ads are not done yet.

So you are wrong about all three points. Prehaps when your told you dont have all the information, you should believe it before you continue to make an ass out of yourself.

Ah, so rather than simply deleting the information, it can be made private?

That, again, was not said by Bubba, and is not what zie been saying here about *all* such information being removed.

If you went though ads looking for such info, why did you just make it private and not remove it, as Bubba has indicated was the new policy?

And let me ask: if the idea is to protect the owners, and since premium access can be purchased by anyone (including LE) with a credit card -- how does this address the legal exposure, exactly? Originally Posted by OldTimeBuddie

I thot this thread was about addressing the issue of how we deal with the new changes of no rates or services posted.
and....not a battle of the egos?

Ginger, the best source for the providers is in the PR. There are ways to convey the information we all want and need. It will require a little more work for some of the providers and as little as one mouse click for the guys.

Forgive me, but I do not respond well to people telling me I am lying.

And, when it is all done, yes, all the ads will conform to the new standards. All the ads are not done yet.

So you are wrong about all three points. Prehaps when your told you dont have all the information, you should believe it before you continue to make an ass out of yourself. Originally Posted by Bubba3452

Of course, having been invited to supply the facts that johnnybax has just done, you chose instead to issue me a official warning, with the strong suggestion if I crossed swords with you again you would further retaliate since you are a mod.

And johnnybax appears to have contradicted you by saying he had been going through ads adding the tags rather than deleting the information. Seriously, all it would have taken was "those were added by a mod" and I would have made a very sincere apology.

Note that I have again asked for clarification of the matter of tags vs deletion, as I did with you. I believe you misunderstood my correction of your spelling for a second accusation. I have a history of objecting to poor English, so this, the quotes and my use of "It's" should have indicated that correction was my objective. At the least, *you* could have asked for clarification of my meaning, as I had the courtesy of doing twice now in this thread.

Otherwise I invite you to publicly support your accusation that my second post (which was very clearly what I received the for) was insulting. Everything else in that post was factually correct, ***in the context of what had been said at the time***.