Is it appropriate?

[LazurusLong]

I'm curious about something.

If you were to have a "client" posting ads for a provider (or two or three) using their handles with the knowledge of the Dallas Mod staff, should that person, using their own handle, be permitted to post reviews, replies, or other white knight sorts of things in the review section?

Or should they be prohibited from posting to ANY review or thread about the providers he is posting ads for?

[Truckertom]

Should be allowed to answear specific questions but not review the person they are posting for.

[Spaulding Smails]

IMO, providers and anyone posting under their handle should not even be allowed access to the reviews section.

[TexTushHog]

I say let them post away and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions as to whether the poster is credible. In some cases they may well be credible. In others, not so much. But a per se ban runs the risk of depriving us or relevant information. I don't mind separating the wheat from the chaff. You've got to do that in any event.

[Shackleton]

I think anyone with any sort of monetary interest in a provider's business (e.g., ongoing business relationship, gets a share of the fee, or gets discounted/free sessions) should either not post about that provider OR disclose the relationship. I'm like TTH in that I don't mind separating the wheat from the chaff. But, if you don't know the relationship exists, it's a lot harder to do.

[jfred]

Conflicts of interest require recusal or disclosure.

If someone has a connection with a provider, beyond what his readers might naturally expect, it has to be disclosed in the review. If someone is reviewing and not disclosing a relationship, that needs to be made public, too.

It is very pertinent to an evaluation and anything else is deceptive.

[Lust4xxxLife]

Doesn't really bother me either way because as soon as I see that a WK is posting for a provider, my interest in seeing that provider and in whatever the WK is posting (about anyone) is zero.

Note: this is NOT the same thing as being a fan of a provider and reinforcing the information in someone else's review. That is legitimate and valuable information for all of us.

[Kelly TNT]

Ooof. Yeah, ....No.

I don't think it should be allowed. I think that it's a conflict of interest too.

~Kelly TNT

[MacTheKnife]

Are there any contracts involved?

[1thatgotaway]

They should not be posting unless they disclose the business relationship they have. I think someone doing this should be required to register as a "promoter" and have limited access to the site.

[Rebeccaofdallas]

Why would a "client' be posting ads for a provider? Why wouldn't the provider be posting her own ads?

[jfred]

Originally Posted by Rebeccaofdallas

Why would a "client' be posting ads for a provider? Why wouldn't the provider be posting her own ads?

That would be because the provider can't put two sentences together, dear.


P.S. I got your words into that little gray box by clicking on the "Quote" button at your post.

[Guest030911]

This is a bullshit question/poll created by XXXXX. He is just forcing his agenda once again after being warned to back off by staff on this issue. He is pissed off at another member because he is banned yet again from another studio and just creating drama like he always has.

XXXXX has helped many a gal compose an ad and not disclosed it. So have many of us. The hobbyist he is talking about has shown no conflict of interest on the board.

Come up with something newsworthy for the staff. All you do is try to make everyone you dislike look bad and then make the staff look bad when you didn't get the answer you wanted.

[shooter6.5]

No posting of former names from other locations!!

Everyone here got a free pass and a new start.

We will let this stand for right now.

I edited out his former name. Please do not do it again,

Thx

[Guest050911]

What Shooter Said.....