Quote:
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.
Quote:
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