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.)
Images posted by males
