Q for the Mods: Sharing my own reviews?

So?

Why is this being treated any different than any other case? She revealed she had ROS info, he has revealed he is the source. What's so damn difficult here? Exact the standard punishment on them both and move on...right?

After reading this thread.... I see mods not all on the same page, some saying its OK to tell the lady what will be in the ROS if you tell her BEFORE you put it there, or because you are the author, you can do with it as you like......

For what it is worth, if the guy tells her what he is going to put in the ROS before hand (as in he PM's her the text) I do not see any harm.... but she should not tell anyone.

One a different note.. if a user pays for LIFETIME premium access.... that means they have FULL access for life.. should that exclude them from "vacations" since a mod is essentially removing their access for which they paid the lifetime fee for and would be in violation of the "lifetime agreement" as I read it, there is no clause that states you are still subjected to bans if you violate the rules and as it is not stated, the courts tend to favor the account holder as the rules and guidelines were not specific.


As for this thread I saw a couple of mods not on the same page and that to me shows problems

At this point I don't think It's as easy as that. I'll be honest, I didn't see theCFE posts the ROS or her knowing it until yesterday (days after the fact).....but that post warrents a vacation... BlowPop is a different scenario due to how the rule interpretation was previously expressed to me in the Champagne Brown/Rockerrick ML issue of a month or so back.

I would go a step further (in light of Wakeup's insight into the rule).........when theCFE admitted that she knows the ROS here is what was supposed to happen:

The hooktard gets a polite PM from her local modtard explaining that she is in violation of Rule 20.......he then gives her an opportunity to explain herself.........there are two paths at this point........1) the hooktard gives up her source (BlowPup)..........the enforcement of the rule at this point is supposed to be that they share in the 2 week ban (if they respond correctly to the infraction investigation)........if they do not, they both get 30days.............2) the hooktard does not give up her source and she get 30days.......after the 30days the hooktard gets asked the question again........if she gives up the source, her part is finished.....if not, she could get another 30days.

In light of that, BlowPup and theCFE should have shared (at a minimum) a 2 week vacation........depending on their attitude during the investigation process.

I've got to admit, it's kind of strange to see WU making this argument, since he's always in favor of "to the letter" rule interpretation. If the info was truly shared prior to it being posted as ROS (and I don't know how anyone could prove it wasn't), then by definition, it WASN'T ROS at the time it was shared. Hence no violation.

The more interesting question to me is how to enforce the rule at ALL given this ruling. I don't have any particular reason to doubt Blowpop, but I wouldn't want to see this same claim trotted out every time there's an issue of disclosure of private info. At least this defense wouldn't work for comments or ML-type stuff. But it still leaves the Mods with a hell of a job to do. So I agree with WU that a more wholistic discussion of privacy on Eccie probably needs to take place in circles higher than those I routinely travel in. I'd probably favor a rule prohibiting doing what BP did in this instance, but that's me.

After reading this thread.... I see mods not all on the same page, some saying its OK to tell the lady what will be in the ROS if you tell her BEFORE you put it there, or because you are the author, you can do with it as you like......

For what it is worth, if the guy tells her what he is going to put in the ROS before hand (as in he PM's her the text) I do not see any harm.... but she should not tell anyone.

One a different note.. if a user pays for LIFETIME premium access.... that means they have FULL access for life.. should that exclude them from "vacations" since a mod is essentially removing their access for which they paid the lifetime fee for and would be in violation of the "lifetime agreement" as I read it, there is no clause that states you are still subjected to bans if you violate the rules and as it is not stated, the courts tend to favor the account holder as the rules and guidelines were not specific.


As for this thread I saw a couple of mods not on the same page and that to me shows problems Originally Posted by Spirit13

S13, I can answer your "LIFETIME" question.

When a LIFETIME member violates the rules that stipulate part of the penalty is that you lose access to areas of the board, he loses access to those areas........he can also lose his LIFETIME status........ijs

Wakeup, no one admitted to having ROS info. I sent the provider an e-mail. She has the prose I sent her. Could it be similar to what I posted in ROS? It could. But I'm the only one who knows for sure.

With your "logic", posting anything in the locker room makes it essentially contraband for Eccie members who don't have ROS access.

If a provider were to post in the provider's area the content of an e-mail she sent to you, she could follow your rule, turn you in, and you'd be subject to a vacation. Hmmm. Maybe this is a good rule after all. Just kidding.

I think the problem with your viewpoint is that you're misunderstanding the obvious spirit of the rule.

Let's think a bit about the actual reason that ROS/BCD info is private. Eccie wants a way to penalize those who break the implicit trust in the private areas - that the information posted there will be seen only by those who should have access. It's to allow those who post to share freely, without worrying about an unintended audience reading their words, and thus fostering a freer flow of information.

(It's the same logic behind the prohibition on sharing private messages on Eccie.)

An author sharing his own writing doesn't impact this at all. His words are being read by precisely the audience he selects.

If he did choose to share what others wrote in response, that would violate the spirit of the rule.

Why are you confused TA? I've already explained that the rule makes no distinction about timeline. It simply says that it is our responsibility to keep info restricted to those who have access to it. When the info was posted is irrelevant. Providers don't have access to review ROS info. He gave her, what would later become, review ROS info.

End of story.

S13, I can answer your "LIFETIME" question.

When a LIFETIME member violates the rules that stipulate part of the penalty is that you lose access to areas of the board, he loses access to those areas........he can also lose his LIFETIME status........ijs Originally Posted by dearhunter

that is your opinion...as you are not a MOD, you lack authority to speak with authority.

I read the information about premium access, no where does it say you can lose it if you violate the rules.. and since that is not pointed out, it can lead to some confusion.

In Fact the guidelines do not even mention anything about revealing what is in the ROS.

Wakeup, no one admitted to having ROS info. I sent the provider an e-mail. She has the prose I sent her. Could it be similar to what I posted in ROS? It could. But I'm the only one who knows for sure.

With your "logic", posting anything in the locker room makes it essentially contraband for Eccie members who don't have ROS access.

If a provider were to post in the provider's area the content of an e-mail she sent to you, she could follow your rule, turn you in, and you'd be subject to a vacation. Hmmm. Maybe this is a good rule after all. Just kidding.

I think the problem with your viewpoint is that you're misunderstanding the obvious spirit of the rule.

Let's think a bit about the actual reason that ROS/BCD info is private. Eccie wants a way to penalize those who break the implicit trust in the private areas - that the information posted there will be seen only by those who should have access. It's to allow those who post to share freely, without worrying about an unintended audience reading their words, and thus fostering a freer flow of information.

(It's the same logic behind the prohibition on sharing private messages on Eccie.)

An author sharing his own writing doesn't impact this at all. His words are being read by precisely the audience he selects.

If he did choose to share what others wrote in response, that would violate the spirit of the rule. Originally Posted by blowpop

FTR That is your interpretation of the spirit of the rule. Opinions and assholes and all that. Only the owners can give us an explanation of the "spirit of the rule". It could be that you are correct in your interpretation I'm just saying we can't assume that.

Wakeup, no one admitted to having ROS info. I sent the provider an e-mail. She has the prose I sent her. Could it be similar to what I posted in ROS? It could Originally Posted by blowpop

Then share what you sent her with the mods and let them determine if what you sent her was "close enough" to warrant punishment. Please. "Exactness" has nothing to do with the rule. It mentions "information", not exact information.

With your "logic", posting anything in the locker room makes it essentially contraband for Eccie members who don't have ROS access. Originally Posted by blowpop

Huh?

Of course any and all LR info is EXACTLY contraband for those members who do not have Premium access...that's what the rule states. You believe otherwise?

If a provider were to post in the provider's area the content of an e-mail she sent to you, she could follow your rule, turn you in, and you'd be subject to a vacation. Hmmm. Originally Posted by blowpop

Lost me completely.

If a provider posts an email that I sent her, she gets pointed for sharing communications between board members, and the email gets deleted. So what the hell are you saying?

I think the problem with your viewpoint is that you're misunderstanding the obvious spirit of the rule.

Let's think a bit about the actual reason that ROS/BCD info is private. Eccie wants a way to penalize those who break the implicit trust in the private areas - that the information posted there will be seen only by those who should have access. It's to allow those who post to share freely, without worrying about an unintended audience reading their words, and thus fostering a freer flow of information.

(It's the same logic behind the prohibition on sharing private messages on Eccie.)

An author sharing his own writing doesn't impact this at all. His words are being read by precisely the audience he selects.

If he did choose to share what others wrote in response, that would violate the spirit of the rule. Originally Posted by blowpop

You just proved my point about why you violated the rules. Thanks.

You are absolutely correct in that the rule is meant to punish those who violate the concept that info "will be seen only by those who should have access." Does theCFE have access to review ROS? No. The rule is meant exactly as you say to stop people "worrying about an unintended audience reading their words, and thus fostering a freer flow of information." Your problem is that you think your intended audience is the provider, so sharing info with her isn't bad. You're wrong. There's a reason providers specifically can't respond to reviews in those forums. Your review isn't for the benefit of the provider. Your audience is the hobbyists, and until you realize that, you'll always put the hobbyists of this board down, even though you preach about how much you want to help them...

that is your opinion...as you are not a MOD, you lack authority to speak with authority.

I read the information about premium access, no where does it say you can lose it if you violate the rules.. and since that is not pointed out, it can lead to some confusion.

In Fact the guidelines do not even mention anything about revealing what is in the ROS. Originally Posted by Spirit13

Topic for a different thread?

I read the information about premium access, no where does it say you can lose it if you violate the rules.. and since that is not pointed out, it can lead to some confusion. Originally Posted by Spirit13

Well, I am a Mod and you can lose it...it has been discussed in areas of the board that you can't see. Should it added to the guidelines, maybe so, maybe no but that shit is above my pay grade





I'll keep it real and say I could give a fuck less if some trick shares his ROS with a Hooker that HE saw...I mean, they were both there right


Now, if that same trick cut/copy and paste ROS info from SOME OTHER TRICK's review playing WK to his Hooker princess letting her know what someone said about her then, yes, that's a problem....but that's me



Question...if the guideline is changed, amended, enforced up to member standards etc etc, do we REALLY think that ROS, Locker Room, Men's Lounge info will not CONTINUE to be given out

Only the Owners/Admins can actually CHANGE shit around here...yes, members can call for changes but if they, the owners, don't feel the need to change shit, it ain't changing....

There is no and never will be an easy fix to this shit but again...that's me

Just for the record...you moderators should probably not speak your opinions until you get a ruling from Chris. If you have a ruling from Chris, then speak that and nothing else.

All this "go ahead and share reviews with providers" shit needs to stop unless that's the official determination from the admins...you're making yourselves look stupid...

Just sayin'...

Then share what you sent her with the mods and let them determine if what you sent her was "close enough" to warrant punishment. Please. "Exactness" has nothing to do with the rule. It mentions "information", not exact information.


Huh?

Of course any and all LR info is EXACTLY contraband for those members who do not have Premium access...that's what the rule states. You believe otherwise?


Lost me completely.

If a provider posts an email that I sent her, she gets pointed for sharing communications between board members, and the email gets deleted. So what the hell are you saying?


You just proved my point about why you violated the rules. Thanks.

You are absolutely correct in that the rule is meant to punish those who violate the concept that info "will be seen only by those who should have access." Does theCFE have access to review ROS? No. The rule is meant exactly as you say to stop people "worrying about an unintended audience reading their words, and thus fostering a freer flow of information." Your problem is that you think your intended audience is the provider, so sharing info with her isn't bad. You're wrong. There's a reason providers specifically can't respond to reviews in those forums. Your review isn't for the benefit of the provider. Your audience is the hobbyists, and until you realize that, you'll always put the hobbyists of this board down, even though you preach about how much you want to help them... Originally Posted by Wakeuр

Hmm so you are saying that if a provider rocked your world and you posted all about it in the ROS, you be in violation in telling her that information (not using the exact words you put in the ROS but the information in general, as pointed out is the same thing)

If ECCIE is truly an "Information Exchange between clients and escorts, then both good and BAD information should be exchanged, nothing hidden.

A lady gets a bad review, her not being able to see it and where she screwed up does more harm that her seeing it and dis-agreeing with it. She can at least see her bad reviews, and if she see's a pattern of behavior she might be able to correct it.

Let us look at another information exchange.... the clients.... I give it to a lady to verify me, and if I request another lady and she wants to check up on me via other escorts whom I have seen... I did not give that info out to them to share to other ladies who ask for it.

We all talk about discretion on here and how some things are not supposed to be shared, yet we encourage the exchange of information.

PICK one or the other..

That and the fact that this thread gave proof that the Houston mods are not all on the same page which backs up my theory that one might see something as an infraction, and another not. Or you can report a post for something, one says "yes it is valid report" and another say NO...

Consistency from the upper brass is a MUST!