Since the spirit of the rules had been consistently violated, why not make it simple. Females may post according to guidelines. Males may not post, link, or offer to share. Anyone offering or requesting same would be in violation.
This particularly applies to the AMP section. It has become almost useless as an informative forum with all the noise about images.
- Quark
- 03-13-2019, 05:47 AM
- BobbyMann
- 03-13-2019, 01:23 PM
Quark may wish to stop the free expression and info exchange which is the whole purpose of this board, and the pictures which are the most clear route to the true depiction of what a provider looks like (disproportionately important in light of our species' disproportionate attention to the visual sphere of beauty in our brains -- and yes, sometimes to busts as well!).
But he is obviously colossally wrong (when ironically and hilariously chastising people for failure to read accurately) in misleadingly claiming that the CURRENT image guidelines only allow links to showcase pics.
They in fact expressly say:
"Male members may only post photos of ladies that the lady herself has made available in her posts on ECCIE or the publicly viewable portion of her website or another publicly available internet source." (emphasis added)
Contrary to the repeated false attacks from Quark (and related handles Chung Tran and Purlie) that I had deliberately violated the guidelines, I had actually tried to strictly comply with them. I did nothing more than link to pics the lady made available publicly, and then to mere stock and generic conservative internet images to suggest the lady's "type." But was banned twice nevertheless.
The guidelines also apply to avatars, so Quark's own avatar appears to be in violation under the more narrow reading. As does Chung's, under a literal conservative reading. And hundreds (thousands) more.
So yes, I agree that the guidelines could be usefully clarified -- just not in the self-interested and biased way that Quark would propose. Obviously eccie should do whatever is legally advisable to protect itself and its members/participants -- but should do so clearly, intelligently, fairly, and consistently.
All of this is separate and apart from the issue of whether pics may be privately shared, and I agree that with the notion staff has previously expressed that regulating such private conduct is beyond the pale because staff is not (and should not be) the "image police." So I fail to see how prohibiting such private communications could possibly be consistent with either the purposes of this site or basic free expression. Such regulation of private conduct actually seems antithetical to the laudable values of this site, which embrace consensual private conduct.
(The trolls and shills don't like pics because they come closer to depicting truth and reality than do fake reviews endlessly bumped by themselves and their additional handles, so they will always oppose the sharing of truthful pictorial information in whatever form.)
But he is obviously colossally wrong (when ironically and hilariously chastising people for failure to read accurately) in misleadingly claiming that the CURRENT image guidelines only allow links to showcase pics.
They in fact expressly say:
"Male members may only post photos of ladies that the lady herself has made available in her posts on ECCIE or the publicly viewable portion of her website or another publicly available internet source." (emphasis added)
Contrary to the repeated false attacks from Quark (and related handles Chung Tran and Purlie) that I had deliberately violated the guidelines, I had actually tried to strictly comply with them. I did nothing more than link to pics the lady made available publicly, and then to mere stock and generic conservative internet images to suggest the lady's "type." But was banned twice nevertheless.
The guidelines also apply to avatars, so Quark's own avatar appears to be in violation under the more narrow reading. As does Chung's, under a literal conservative reading. And hundreds (thousands) more.
So yes, I agree that the guidelines could be usefully clarified -- just not in the self-interested and biased way that Quark would propose. Obviously eccie should do whatever is legally advisable to protect itself and its members/participants -- but should do so clearly, intelligently, fairly, and consistently.
All of this is separate and apart from the issue of whether pics may be privately shared, and I agree that with the notion staff has previously expressed that regulating such private conduct is beyond the pale because staff is not (and should not be) the "image police." So I fail to see how prohibiting such private communications could possibly be consistent with either the purposes of this site or basic free expression. Such regulation of private conduct actually seems antithetical to the laudable values of this site, which embrace consensual private conduct.
(The trolls and shills don't like pics because they come closer to depicting truth and reality than do fake reviews endlessly bumped by themselves and their additional handles, so they will always oppose the sharing of truthful pictorial information in whatever form.)
- Quiet Cal
- 03-13-2019, 05:38 PM
You are right BobbyMann, and though I'm new here, I have learned first hand the RISK of posting pictures in my review of Piper of Portland. I was BANNED briefly due to an honest error but a Admin reversed it within hours. Yet shills have used my error-ban over a picture to diss me to two ladies so they will not see me. WONT WORK.
Bobbymann, Ive seen how you and Abe are routinely trashed and I think it's because you and Abe see the hottest ladies first and PROVE IT with your pictures.
For every few who trash you, just know that 95% of us don't care what some dude we will never meet thinks. Keep doing what you do. It's APPRECIATED!
Bobbymann, Ive seen how you and Abe are routinely trashed and I think it's because you and Abe see the hottest ladies first and PROVE IT with your pictures.
For every few who trash you, just know that 95% of us don't care what some dude we will never meet thinks. Keep doing what you do. It's APPRECIATED!
- Quark
- 03-13-2019, 06:16 PM
To the contrary, I wish to restore the free exchange of information. The constant offer and request of images has caused real information to be pushed to page 7 in a couple of hours. If someone wants to host a site to exchange images, please do so.
The legal climate today means images are risky at best. ECCIE has tried to establish rules to minimize the risk. Bobby's has worked hard at avoiding the rules. Putting up fake sites and stating they were private sites owned by the women in the image was fraud.
In spite of numerous attempts to inform members of the risk, endless requests for images prove that few are paying attention. That is why I suggest we simply end image sharing by male members.
The legal climate today means images are risky at best. ECCIE has tried to establish rules to minimize the risk. Bobby's has worked hard at avoiding the rules. Putting up fake sites and stating they were private sites owned by the women in the image was fraud.
In spite of numerous attempts to inform members of the risk, endless requests for images prove that few are paying attention. That is why I suggest we simply end image sharing by male members.
- Quark
- 03-17-2019, 11:55 AM
A slight refinement to my suggestion. The problem seems to mostly exist in the AMP section. How about a special rule just for that section?
- needingmilking
- 03-19-2019, 11:14 AM
OK Quark, what rule of acquisition is that one?