New girl Nikki is the hottest!!

[Galendracos07]

Ah....St. Gestapo's usual Bullshit. Ever since he came on this board he's wanted to lord over us. Pathetic. I wish he'd get hit by a bus, the board was just fine before he came along. smh.

[Ginger Doll]

I'm confused.

[watchoutthegameisrigged]

The mod's stated reason for their actions was to verify age. I think the vast majority of us here support age verification because it helps protect all of us, male or female. The young lady in question can take the same steps to be verified as all the other ladies do here. The mod's actions hardly qualify as Gestapo tactics.

[Initforfun]

Originally Posted by Ginger Doll

I'm confused.

He's saying that St. searcher is an overbearing, self important, jackass, modtard


That's generally the case with most internet "moderators" such as the case with a recent reviewer not being allowed to edit a review that used the word pudge

If posts can be edited why not reviews?

But I digress


With regard to the cum whores friend I emphatically want every girl to be age verified. That is just common sense and safe for all of us.

[Lazrback]

Originally Posted by Galendracos07

Ah....St. Gestapo's usual Bullshit. Ever since he came on this board he's wanted to lord over us. Pathetic. I wish he'd get hit by a bus, the board was just fine before he came along. smh.

This was not St. Searchers decision, this was a decision made by the board owner, if you wish to run your own board, start one,,, allow ANYONE to post ads.... and end up like Redbook genius. We are strict about age here, for YOUR safety as well as the ladies that may be affected. If you have an issue with us making sure that the providers here are of the age of consent, that says more about you than it does our guidelines, or the staff.

[Ginger Doll]

Originally Posted by Initforfun

He's saying that St. searcher is an overbearing, self important, jackass, modtard

That's generally the case with most internet "moderators" such as the case with a recent reviewer not being allowed to edit a review that used the word pudge

If posts can be edited why not reviews?

But I digress

With regard to the cum whores friend I emphatically want every girl to be age verified. That is just common sense and safe for all of us.

My point was that I didn't know what he was talking about. Initially it looked like the first post in a new thread. I see the rest of it now; guess I missed this thread entirely.

Seems as though the solution is as simple as agreeing to ante up photographic documentation that proves your case... Similar to disputing pudge, no?

Originally Posted by Lazrback

...We are strict about age here, for YOUR safety as well as the ladies that may be affected. If you have an issue with us making sure that the providers here are of the age of consent, that says more about you than it does our guidelines, or the staff.

+1, as you should be.

[Hogfan69]

With all of the federal work being done on sex traffic with minors, you'd think everyone would appreciate the extra steps from bringing that into here.

[Danielle Reid]

He's just acting like an ass by default. It's best to ignore the unneeded drama. No need for Lola's thread to be turned into another tainted post.

[Mikali72]

She said taint! Nobody tell Serenity!

[ncc72032]

Well I can verify that Lolahhhhh is not managing this new lady. I PMed Lolahhhhh on March 19th asking her for some info about the new lady and she has not honored me with a simple reply. So no, she is not managing Nikki.

[hogmanjones]

Verify age, completely, every time. Thanks to mods/admin for enforcing that strictly!

[Galendracos07]

FACT: violators of this policy have been too numerous to mention over the past 4 years without repercussion until St. Sillyface came along. It's never been a serious issue before this thread. My point is not against age verification, just pointing out that of course it's St. Goobersnatch coming off the top ropes to show everyone why he should be mod of the year and selectively enforce a rule...again. His "I want you to say 'happy' there instead of 'glad'" review stalling BS is getting so old. He's the reason I don't write reviews anymore. It took a month to get the last one approved so I don't know why I would bother anyway. He didn't even approve the one before that, still pending 5 months later, lmfao. So instead of doing something useful like lifting the "No Review Policy" on SRC or AHO so guys could make informed decisions, he'd rather harass reviewers on whether they used a $ instead of and S on some review title. He just needs to get a life.

[biomed1]

Originally Posted by Galendracos07

FACT: violators of this policy have been too numerous to mention over the past 4 years without repercussion until St. Sillyface came along. It's never been a serious issue before this thread. My point is not against age verification, just pointing out that of course it's St. Goobersnatch coming off the top ropes to show everyone why he should be mod of the year and selectively enforce a rule...again. His "I want you to say 'happy' there instead of 'glad'" review stalling BS is getting so old. He's the reason I don't write reviews anymore. It took a month to get the last one approved so I don't know why I would bother anyway. He didn't even approve the one before that, still pending 5 months later, lmfao. So instead of doing something useful like lifting the "No Review Policy" on SRC or AHO so guys could make informed decisions, he'd rather harass reviewers on whether they used a $ instead of and S on some review title. He just needs to get a life.

The Eccie Staff (Moderators and Administrators) are all volunteers, and give of their time to help the board function in a somewhat normal or routine manner.

For anyone wishing to use Eccie as a place to advertise their services; or be advertised by someone else, Age Verification became a requirement in 2014.

As with anything that requires regulation, Guidelines (or Rules) may need to be modified or amended to meet new challenges.

There have been many attempts by a number of people across the board to find a way around the Age Verification requirement. (This includes Verified Providers advertising an Unverified Friend.)

As these issues come to light, changes will have to be instituted for the safety of the Members. (Both Providers and Hobbyists)

On the topic of review stalling, you have authored a total of 5 reviews.

Of your 5 reviews, 4 were moderated on the same day; or the next.

The other review took 10 days to be moderated.

All of your reviews were approved for PA credit; except for 1, where your review failed to meet the Oklahoma AMP/SPA/MP Review Guidelines.

To date, you have not submitted any corrections for that review that might qualify it for PA Credit.

Staff availability may be the reason for your perception of the delayed moderation of reviews; just like any other member, there are times when the Moderators have other issues in their lives that keep them away from the board.

On the matter of the "No Review Policy" which seems to be another point of annoyance for you.

Eccie has a "No Review Policy" option for Verified Providers, Agencies and AMPS/SPA/MP accounts.

No-review Policies are selectively granted on ECCIE Worldwide for specific reasons, usually relating to privacy or security for the provider. Please understand that enacting a no-review policy on ECCIE Worldwide also forfeits your ability to post in the ad forums or create a Showcase. Also, please take note that No-Review policies are not granted to shield a provider from negative publicity, and that negative reviews may be allowed to stand to inform the membership, depending on the circumstances.

The existing No Review Policy for the Swedish Relaxation Center (SRC) and All Hands On (AHO) in Tulsa was requested and approved at levels above the Moderators before St. Searcher or I became Moderators.

So long as the Provider (AMP/SPA/MP) continue to meet their portion of the agreement, We (as Moderators) are obligated to meet Eccie's portion of the Agreement.

Until the No Review Policy is revoked; by action or request, the Moderators are required to adhere to the agreement.

Should you feel that this agreement is unjust or a huge hindrance to your ability to enjoy the Hobby or your active participation on Eccie.

I would suggest that you take you case to repeal this policy to the appropriate level.

Please feel free to send you reasoning and arguments to websupport@eccie.net

There you will have direct communication with the people who work closely with the board leadership to craft and modify the Guidelines by which this board operates.

My apologies for the length of this reply.

Biomed1