Why Did you expect we would leave it up ? So that everyone could continue to read and be informed about the party you advertised with non verified providers? You know full well that is not allowed as per the advertising guidelines.Gettin so preachy these days. mind if I quote some of your earlier work? Whew
PK Originally Posted by Loki Pk
- Carlos Danger
- 08-14-2017, 04:02 PM
- Wakeup
- 08-14-2017, 04:04 PM
Providers? I was charging like $20 to cover alcohol and the room I am providing. It's a not-for-profit event. These girls aren't making a dime. They're sluts in it for the love of sucking dick. Originally Posted by bustybabygirlI think you're missing the point...
Your local moderator is saying that you can advertise for yourself all you want, just don't mention any other non-verified people in your party post...
In line with his interpretation, just let everyone know you're having a party. The thread gets closed. When they contact you about the party, tell them about your non-verified whores, but don't publicly mention them.
Do you understand?
- lilylivered
- 08-14-2017, 04:09 PM
I think you're missing the point...
Your local moderator is saying that you can advertise for yourself all you want, just don't mention any other non-verified people in your party post...
In line with his interpretation, just let everyone know you're having a party. The thread gets closed. When they contact you about the party, tell them about your non-verified whores, but don't publicly mention them.
Do you understand? Originally Posted by Wakeup
Sad but true. He is right
- elghund
- 08-14-2017, 06:28 PM
I think you're missing the point...When Wakeup is the actually voice of reason in a thread, and can calmly explain a situation......
Your local moderator is saying that you can advertise for yourself all you want, just don't mention any other non-verified people in your party post...
In line with his interpretation, just let everyone know you're having a party. The thread gets closed. When they contact you about the party, tell them about your non-verified whores, but don't publicly mention them.
Do you understand? Originally Posted by Wakeup
It shows how......well,......how far Mr. PK has to go in his learning curve.
elg.......
- Guest072323
- 08-14-2017, 06:43 PM
Your local moderator is saying that you can advertise for yourself all you want, just don't mention any other non-verified people in your party post...I saw the post, and don't recall her naming anyone by name at all.
Originally Posted by Wakeup
Wakeup -- as a mod, can you verify that she indeed did name names?
And... does it matter if names were mentioned or not?
And what of the other parties that Juanballs talks about:
are ALL the whores mentioned hereSeems like selective enforcement to me....
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2137619
verified? Originally Posted by JONBALLS
But I've seen a lot of that lately.
- Wakeup
- 08-14-2017, 06:44 PM
- Guest072323
- 08-14-2017, 06:47 PM
You posted right on top of me....
so about the mentioning of names... were there any?
so about the mentioning of names... were there any?
- JONBALLS
- 08-14-2017, 07:00 PM
its ok for pimps thrADS
not whores thrADS
not whores thrADS
- JONBALLS
- 08-14-2017, 07:05 PM
its just life
whos getting what
from whom will dictate
best to just sit back andpost tro;;ish non sensible dribble
in the end none of this stops anyone from finding their whore or you have bigger problems
whos getting what
from whom will dictate
best to just sit back andpost tro;;ish non sensible dribble
in the end none of this stops anyone from finding their whore or you have bigger problems
- Guest072118
- 08-14-2017, 09:09 PM
its ok for pimps thrADSYup.
not whores thrADS Originally Posted by JONBALLS
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2137619
https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2076897
- Guest072323
- 08-15-2017, 11:32 PM
Sticky: IMPORTANT - MUST READ - Image standard revision is clesed in Provider Reviews
BUT
Sticky: IMPORTANT - MUST READ - Image standard revision
^^^^^ You can get in before the clese on the one above in Coed....
BUT
Sticky: IMPORTANT - MUST READ - Image standard revision
^^^^^ You can get in before the clese on the one above in Coed....
- rooster
- 08-26-2017, 09:39 AM
Lotsa cleanup in the "Welcome" section lately. Whew
.
.
- ben dover
- 08-26-2017, 01:11 PM
- Guest072323
- 08-26-2017, 05:28 PM
- MajorHands
- 08-28-2017, 12:43 PM
So, never got the chance to discuss this previously, since along with the warning for
the announcement referenced here, my premium access fell off and I was instantly over quota for PMs and could not engage in dialogue, (not sure if that was a result of the warning, or if it expired - but had not gotten any heads up emails, so I'm thinking it was related, but not sure why the downgrade should accompany the warning) Either way, am about to post a couple reviews, so once I have PA again, I can reach out and try to resolve it.
In the meantime, it's spilt milk by now, but while I can understand the interpretation that a party announcement allowed under forum guidelines with the names of attendees is an ad, I don't share that interpretation. Some of the girls attending those parties are not there to provide, and there is no mention of services or donations. It should also be noted that all the names mentioned already have a context on the forum as either a former verified provider, or someone who has been reviewed or discussed in a way consistent with reviews (which do not currently require VP status), so simply mentioning their name is far lesser exposure than they already have.
While one might assume a girl attending is open to play, it's not a given. I just don't think that rises to the level of an advertisement. The board makes a distinction between an ad and the generally promotional information allowed in an individual signature (not allowing signatures to include services and rates), so I genuinely thought simply mentioning attendees at the event was coloring within Forum Guidelines for the party announcement and even more so for the signature, given the additional latitude afforded there under the Guidelines.
I fully support the intent to ensure age appropriate presence here, and try to make a point to comply with guidelines (was NOT happy to see the newly revised image guidelines, but will comply). When I posted that announcement, I thought it was compliant with the guidelines as written. It's not the end of the world to not include the names of girls attending and won't in the future, At the same time, I think the Mods should revisit this restriction and reconsider this interpretation.
the announcement referenced here, my premium access fell off and I was instantly over quota for PMs and could not engage in dialogue, (not sure if that was a result of the warning, or if it expired - but had not gotten any heads up emails, so I'm thinking it was related, but not sure why the downgrade should accompany the warning) Either way, am about to post a couple reviews, so once I have PA again, I can reach out and try to resolve it.
In the meantime, it's spilt milk by now, but while I can understand the interpretation that a party announcement allowed under forum guidelines with the names of attendees is an ad, I don't share that interpretation. Some of the girls attending those parties are not there to provide, and there is no mention of services or donations. It should also be noted that all the names mentioned already have a context on the forum as either a former verified provider, or someone who has been reviewed or discussed in a way consistent with reviews (which do not currently require VP status), so simply mentioning their name is far lesser exposure than they already have.
While one might assume a girl attending is open to play, it's not a given. I just don't think that rises to the level of an advertisement. The board makes a distinction between an ad and the generally promotional information allowed in an individual signature (not allowing signatures to include services and rates), so I genuinely thought simply mentioning attendees at the event was coloring within Forum Guidelines for the party announcement and even more so for the signature, given the additional latitude afforded there under the Guidelines.
I fully support the intent to ensure age appropriate presence here, and try to make a point to comply with guidelines (was NOT happy to see the newly revised image guidelines, but will comply). When I posted that announcement, I thought it was compliant with the guidelines as written. It's not the end of the world to not include the names of girls attending and won't in the future, At the same time, I think the Mods should revisit this restriction and reconsider this interpretation.