Q for the Mods: Sharing my own reviews?

[enderwiggin]

Split hairs with mealy-mouthed rationalizations all you want. Bottom line: you know very well what the intent behind the rule is. If you abided by it, you wouldn't be asking this inane question.

[Eccie Addict]

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

Why should he have to? The rule is pretty clear: don't share ROS information. It doesn't state when the information becomes ROS or give a statute of limitations or invite discussion/interpretation. Don't share ROS information. Seems pretty simple and straight-forward to me.

The better question is this one: even if you were inclined to share ROS information -- regardless of when -- why would you post publicly admitting to it? Why even invite the drama and controversy, demand of the staff/ownership to come interpret the rules because you think you've found some goofy gray area where you can abide by the letter, but not the spirit of the staffs' intent? We can all read between the lines: you want to set the staff up for failure. No matter which way this comes down, somebody's pissed. There's either a loophole for people to share reviews or you get to puff yourself up with righteous indignation and say the staff is kissing WU's ass. Talk about bad-attitude brigade. WU isn't underhanded enough to do something like this... This is a new low.

Not that he needs it from the likes of me, but my counsel to St. C is to ignore this bullshit altogether and let time unruffle the drama-queen's feathers.

You are absolutely right in the fact he shouldn't have to. However if its left up for discussion which it obviously is then we have threads like this and two answers from two different mods. He answers then its put to rest period no fuss.

He certainly doesn't have to and to be honest it makes no difference to me.

[Champagne Brown]

Hold on to your seats its going to be a bumpy ride

[Dorian Gray]

[blowpop]

Originally Posted by enderwiggin

Split hairs with mealy-mouthed rationalizations all you want. Bottom line: you know very well what the intent behind the rule is. If you abided by it, you wouldn't be asking this inane question.

Seriously, Ender? "Mealy-mouthed"? How many times have you now insulted me in this thread?

With all due respect, you don't seem to have the temperament to moderate a board like Eccie.

[enderwiggin]

Maybe so, but this is pretty ridiculous of you to put the staff/ownership in a position like this. I don't think I've insulted you, rather I've characterized your conduct... (See I can play these cute little rhetorical games too.) It makes no difference to me if St. C asks me step aside as a mod. Send your little complaint and let the chips fall where they may.

[Eccie Addict]

You'd be surprised BP.

I think he has the perfect temperament. Ever notice he never really comes down on one side or the other. Pretty equal about things IMO.

[VictoriaLyn]

The entire review(ros and all) can be shared with the lady BEFORE it is posted here...

[Pistolero]

Originally Posted by Jusanotherdude

The way that I understand it is, that comments made by you are yours to share as the only infringement on private content is your own..... that being said, as soon as the info is posted it is considered PA info and if the provider then posts what she's been told then she is in violation of the guidelines and is subject to the resulting punishment. But you as the posters of the original content are not in violation...... so basically..... you telling TheCFE about the ROS is fine.... her posting about it is not......

Clear as mud?

Originally Posted by Pistolero

Here is my take on that.

If you post it, there are comments on the review and she wants to know what you said and you tell her, not OK. Once you post it , the PA rules apply..

Since it was obvious that JAD and I did see it a little different, I went and got the correct view. And JAD is correct. I am wrong. You can give her your comments, but if she comments on it, then she is in violation.

Originally Posted by Champagne Brown

Hold on to your seats its going to be a bumpy ride

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

[blowpop]

Thank you, Pistolero.

[Raptorcg]

Isn't the real intent, To stop other members from sharing your ROS with the providers or persons without ROS access.

And the spirit of that from my understanding is to allow those posting reviews to feel free to be honest without the fear of retaliation or ThreadWars.

So if a provider admitted another board member gave them the ROS, without posters knowledge or ok, is a violation.

I don't see why sharing between the two or more people directly involved in the review in question, before posting, is even an issue, just a personal choice.

[blowpop]

Raptor, I always assumed the logic behind ROS secrecy was to encourage guys who were worried about provider retaliation to be honest in their reviews. We all know that leaks happen, and with the rule in place mods can deal with WKs who share information that reviewers want to have kept private.

I was surprised (OK, not all that surprised, considering his history) when tried to spin my sharing my review of the session with a provider with her into some sort of rules violation. It never occurred to me that it would be considered so on Eccie, and thus my request for clarification.

[Raptorcg]

Originally Posted by blowpop

Raptor, I always assumed the logic behind ROS secrecy was to encourage guys who were worried about provider retaliation to be honest in their reviews. We all know that leaks happen, and with the rule in place mods can deal with WKs who share information that reviewers want to have kept private.

I was surprised (OK, not all that surprised, considering his history) when tried to spin my sharing my review of the session with a provider with her into some sort of rules violation. It never occurred to me that it would be considered so on Eccie, and thus my request for clarification.

Sure, I get why you asked the question, and in the short life of the thread we can already see a small divide of a sort, so clarification seems like a good idea. There also seems to be a lot of hungry people eating popcorn, waiting for the action scenes

[Jusanotherdude]

Ok..... here us my non-mod response in regards to this: Why?

What Earthly good can honestly come from sharing what will be ROS /PA content with the lady FOR the lady?

Let's be honest, the chances any type of "constructive criticism " that many may argue would be reasons, would almost CERTAINLY be overly flowery and glossed over. Chances are the reviews would only be a way of making the hobbyist look better to said provider to curry favor for future visits. Which is fine for the hobbyist to be sure. But again, what are the gains for the provider? Hoe many of these "shared" reviews do think ACTUALLY contained useful to the provider info like "TCB skills need work", "breath was less than fresh/bad", "incall smelled like shit or was nasty/dirty", or something of the like? I would venture to guess pretty Damn close (if not absolutely ) zero!

Meanwhile she stands to gain points and or a ban for posting she is in the know. She gets to wear that veil of being one who t again and reacts to her reviews which may persuade others yo not review her on future visits.

Whether you and she feel she has the right to know or not, that is not how this board is setup.

[Raptorcg]

Originally Posted by Jusanotherdude

Ok..... here us my non-mod response in regards to this: Why?

What Earthly good can honestly come from sharing what will be ROS /PA content with the lady FOR the lady?

Let's be honest, the chances any type of "constructive criticism " that many may argue would be reasons, would almost CERTAINLY be overly flowery and glossed over. Chances are the reviews would only be a way of making the hobbyist look better to said provider to curry favor for future visits. Which is fine for the hobbyist to be sure. But again, what are the gains for the provider? Hoe many of these "shared" reviews do think ACTUALLY contained useful to the provider info like "TCB skills need work", "breath was less than fresh/bad", "incall smelled like shit or was nasty/dirty", or something of the like? I would venture to guess pretty Damn close (if not absolutely ) zero!

Meanwhile she stands to gain points and or a ban for posting she is in the know. She gets to wear that veil of being one who t again and reacts to her reviews which may persuade others yo not review her on future visits.

Whether you and she feel she has the right to know or not, that is not how this board is setup.

Perhaps asking it from another direction and see if you feel the same way: If providers could review Hobbyist and openly post them with a section only providers could see, would you like to have a chance to see it first, Good or Bad, if the provider offered too?

Professionals/Adults should take critiques as an area they can improve, of course that assumes everyone is adult and professional, which does not seem to pan out in real life, unfortunately.

This discussion has been going back an forth for a long time, I recall this very same issue on some adult Bulletin Boards way back before internet was not everywhere and you were the shit if you had a 9.6K dial up modem. It will not get solved here, it will just be a Mod saying “Thy will be done, now bow before me”, and we move on to more list wars...lol