How many would...

feel more comfortable posting, posting reviews and posting ads if the "activities" section of the reviews were bcd access only?

If this thread is aimed MAINLY to point out who specifically is not interested in seeing free access to BCD activities and why then your thread is spot on.

But I'm sure if you added a few options that said maybe..."No the review wouldnt provide enough info for me to make an informed decision" or "Im a lurker and access to the activities part as well as other fields aids my decision" you might get different results totally.

As of now the poll is only geared toward people who dont prefer to reveal or see activities for free access, and a selection of different reasons for that preference and that preference alone

I think if you posted this poll in bigger cities, or even here with other options most times having the info availiable to see would be preferred for hobbyist. Im sure some ladies would disagree as well until they keep getting frequent service inquiries from guys who dont have access. Otherwise eccie reviews might be somewhat useless without paid membership such as TER currently and big doggie.

I understand your point gimme, but with all the "activity" with Uncle Leo and Aunt Elle, a lot of guys and girls feel like they are incriminated by reviews and this is why I left it just a point blank yes or no. I would think a simple GFE or PSE rating would suffice; especially when you guys and we girls back channel... use the locker room or yahoo group and keep it on the down low instead of open to the public. Every complaint I ever seen about ASPD in the papers or on tv always said something about the open view of "activities" offered. If not take the "activities" off, then at least the "fee". I know a lot of you hobbyists know how to hide your ip and use 7 different proxy servers bouncing your data all over the world but that doesn't keep the site as a whole safe. And lurkers, bless their hearts need to participate anyway. You gotta give what ya get and everyone needs to do their part. Most sites have options for paying for bcd that are utr once you are vouched by a couple of providers.

Your quote:

"Most sites have options for paying for bcd that are utr once you are vouched by a couple of providers."

I understand there are sites like that availiable. But take midnightlive.net for instance. The site is invitation only. But If you look at the traffic of the site it is very low somewhat unexistent for many areas.

I think more times often than not and I have heard this from providers.....the lurkers far outweigh the business earned of the guys who normally post regularly and/or write reviews. So if you limit the info availiable, you may limit new business ventures. Which for the most part will leave newbies and lurkers with no info. Frequently and individually inquiring from you ladies.

"I would think a simple GFE or PSE rating would suffice; especially when you guys and we girls back channel"

This answer could be totally subjective for some without service activities as some consider just sex or CBJ GFE, PSE, etc. Those labels are more attitude driven anyway.

e.com is a good example.

Your poll isnt a simple yes or no as you have stated based on your original question before the choices. Its biased towards no and the reason why they dont prefer it mostly.

I would post reviews if this changed (no, probably opposed to the current format)

I post reviews but wish this would change(no, they prefer not to see the services offered)

I am a provider and wish this would change(no, they prefer not to see the services offered)

It doesn't bother me and I am a hobbyist(neutral but still NO, seeing availiable services wouldnt matter either way to them)

It doesn't bother me and I am a provider(only "yes" option but its provider based, not a hobbyist "yes keep it as is option" choice) MY PICK lol.

You are more than welcome to repost it as you see fit Sweetheart! I worded it the way I hear it from hobbyists. The ones that don't post reviews don't because they feel that the activities they are required to list are incriminating. Do it your way and lets check it out. I would be interested in seeing the varying results too.

I don't see any real difference between listing or not listing activities, at least not as far as it being a 'confessional' or implicating in any way. It does help the client make a better informed decision on his 'see or not to see' dilemma.

Let's face it...whether you list the bbbj or not, you're still reporting that you paid x-hundred dollars per hour. Specifics aren't any more damaging. Not imho.

I worded it the way I hear it from hobbyists. The ones that don't post reviews don't because they feel that the activities they are required to list are incriminating. Originally Posted by Lacey Companion

I am not sure I completely buy that excuse from gents. I think that is the easy answer to give because it generally ends discussion that might lead to their real reason for not writing reviews. Sure some guys are worried about incrimination, but they could still use the current template and simply state:

"See ROS for more information on activities."

There are a number of other reasons gent's refuse to write reviews that range anywhere to they are just selfish and lazy to they are trying to avoid the drama that some reviews can lead to. Drama can come out of jealousy from another regular provider they see, or a disagreement over how they wrote the review. They will throw up the incrimination comment just to avoid any further discussion. They may have very good reasons and that is their choice. I just point this out, because changing the template probably won't have any impact on folks that simply choose not to write reviews for whatever reason.

There are more than a couple of actual lawyers that are members here, and perhaps they could speak to the probability of a prosecutor taking a stack of reviews as the only evidence to try a man for pandering or solicitation. Doesn't seem real likely.

As to the idea that reviews give a tool to LEO to put you on their radar, I have news for you--your general posting can do that just as easily. If you want to try an experiment, go to Google and type a screenname and some common keyword language specific to the hobby, and watch how many times this board will pop up in the top ten results--and they will be coed posts.

Of course, this is all just fantasy and entertainment. We never actually do these things we write about wishing we had done, right?

...Of course, this is all just fantasy and entertainment. We never actually do these things we write about wishing we had done, right?

Originally Posted by ANONONE

Yup, Anonone. My clients regularly fill my reviews with all kinds of fictitious nonsense - whatever pops into their heads first. It makes me look like such a freak!

Yup, Anonone. My clients regularly fill my reviews with all kinds of fictitious nonsense - whatever pops into their heads first. It makes me look like such a freak! Originally Posted by Ginger Doll

Huh???

Sorry, did you say something. . .I was gazing at your incredible legs and forgot what I was thinking. . .

I am not sure I completely buy that excuse from gents. I think that is the easy answer to give because it generally ends discussion that might lead to their real reason for not writing reviews. Sure some guys are worried about incrimination, but they could still use the current template and simply state:

"See ROS for more information on activities."

There are a number of other reasons gent's refuse to write reviews that range anywhere to they are just selfish and lazy to they are trying to avoid the drama that some reviews can lead to. Drama can come out of jealousy from another regular provider they see, or a disagreement over how they wrote the review. They will throw up the incrimination comment just to avoid any further discussion. They may have very good reasons and that is their choice. I just point this out, because changing the template probably won't have any impact on folks that simply choose not to write reviews for whatever reason.

There are more than a couple of actual lawyers that are members here, and perhaps they could speak to the probability of a prosecutor taking a stack of reviews as the only evidence to try a man for pandering or solicitation. Doesn't seem real likely.

As to the idea that reviews give a tool to LEO to put you on their radar, I have news for you--your general posting can do that just as easily. If you want to try an experiment, go to Google and type a screenname and some common keyword language specific to the hobby, and watch how many times this board will pop up in the top ten results--and they will be coed posts.

Of course, this is all just fantasy and entertainment. We never actually do these things we write about wishing we had done, right?

Originally Posted by ANONONE

Stirrin' it up again...

Stirrin' it up again... Originally Posted by cockforhire

So let me get this straight, CFH. When you express your opinion on a given topic it is wisdom that is apples of gold, and when I offer my viewpoint it is shit stirring?

Does that about sum it up?

LE can purchase premium access just like anyone else so keeping it BCD won't help if that's the concern.

My concern, and the reason why I voted, "I'm a provider and I wish it would change", is for the guys who don't pay for PA. The lurkers and the ones who have no intent of ever scheduling a frikkin' appointment. Why give them the entertainment? Our showcases are enough jack-off material for 'em IMO. But what do I know?

Hey Anon, nice to see ya on the Arkansas board. I have never asked a gent to write a review so sorry... the conversations I have are initiated by guys. I prefer to not be reviewed but if a gent wants to review me... I am ok with it as it is part of my agreement to advertise and does save me time giving referrals. It seems to be the ones that love me and just explain cause they want to see me again and want me to know their thoughts or the ones that would like bcd access and don't want to give up credit card 411. I tell them to get a gift card. Second, it is a BIG difference if the activities are available to the public or not because the fact that it is public is used in interviews about the board, which stirs the voter right wing and gets those hobby bustin dollars. Most cops don't even care about the hobby but they do care about job security so they do their job to please the public and this keeps your local mayor and governor in their seat, where you put them. You came on the Ohio board after the bust and sting op at the mansion so I expect that is why you are not aware of all that was said in the article when the mansion owner gave "the big scoop" on the hobby and brought LE to ASPD (in Ohio). You can ask JB, I was the one who thwarted their sting op on our board so where people think I may be guessing at what I say or giving my opinion, I assure you guys... I don't say anything that I don't know for a fact. Now, things are different because of venue and jurisdiction. There is a sweep across the US that is changing the law on what can be used against you and how incrimination is defined. Areas that have not changed still require the standard agreement for sex and $$$ "at the time of incident". The changed areas only require that you advertise bbbj or it be listed in a review; and the charge is "intent". Now most of us know that it violates your membership (ie: contract) to discuss 'private area conversation' on this board so whether they can see it or not is no matter- they are still bound to that agreement and a court will recognize that agreement. If they pay for access, they can't use it in court, if properly executed by a non-assembly line jar of vaseline attorney. Also, reviews are not evidence enough to stand alone, but they are supporting evidence when open to the public. I don't know about you guys, but my bottom line is what can be used against me in court. And why would an attorney voice anything here. They need their hobby dollars and have no problem with defending you for money but protecting you here is like shooting themselves in the career foot. Those lurkers are attorneys and take the STFU approach. They only protect you once they love you... ask me how I know and forgive me with trying to share.

This is what I know... take it or leave it. I just try to help. I am not interested in debate and feel I cover my ass very well. After all, I haven't been busted yet and neither has any of my clients or girls I have helped learn how to screen. I know this though, there is about too much drama on the Arkansas board for me so hey... you'll can have it. I prefer people who enjoy the finer things in life... such as laughing, having a good time and living drama free. I believe I have all ready chosen a select few good men in this area so ya'll carry on with the soap opera. If you appreciate drama free and want to see me, we can discuss it but I am very selective and will read your posts to see that you are not a troll.

Another thing I know, Anon is a nice guy. I have never felt attacked by him and we have had a lot of fun together on the boards and a few GOOD debates. He has a lot of class and it shows. He is expressing an opinion and it lacks experience (sorry Baby) but he too is just trying to help; probably by provoking the end of this drama. And, if there were no shit... it couldn't be stirred.

This is a poll, it speaks for itself. 27 people whom I have never met feel activities should be bcd.

It says more than intended as it is apparent there is a leader bcd. Go figure... wonder who? *giggles* Good luck in your endeavors to all, including those 30+ followers and their hero. Hopefully you are getting the advice you really need too.

Kisses Anon and legs is not all Ginger has... she's pretty smart and she seems to keep her guys safe too. She impresses me most on this board as far as professional and up-to-date. Sillygirls are the sweetest though. I'd party with them. We'd have a blast!!!!!!!