Provider ads may not mention sexual favors? Many ads violate this guideline.

[stevesanderson]

I see this guideline here: ECCIE Provider Advertising Guidelines (PLEASE READ)
.
.
.
Your ad may not suggest an exchange of sexual favors for money. Avoid using code words or acronyms (greek, BBBJ, etc.) You may not use obscene images in your ad. (porn, exposed genitalia) Content which advertises an illegal service will be removed.

When I search for bbbj in the Dallas provider ads forum, I see:

BBBJ for HH100

BBBJ for $120/HR

I could go on and on with a dozen ads in the last week, and that's just in the Dallas section.

So I'm confused here. Are we not following the policy, enforcing it only when it seems fit, or am I reading the policy wrong?

There are many ads which need removing, according to the policy.

[gman44]

This says different

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=108584

[Guest030911]

From this thread here back on 9/23/10: http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=103939

Originally Posted by TBONE

Please continue to post your ads as you've been doing

Thank you!

T

Other providers and members should just hit the RTM button and quit trying to rule enforce on their own. If they have an opinion they would like to express privately to you, then that would be a good reason to PM.


I am not a mod. Just a member expressing an opinion for being in this thing too damn long.

[daddyo67]

good old Steve! just keeps stiring the pot. don't know how to have fun.

[CenterLock]

After reading the guidelines, the supplemental posts, and going through more ads than I ever have at one sitting I'd have to say this was the correct place to "ask for clarification on the guidelines as they are written. (As opposed to RTM or PM)

I certainly saw no real issues with the ads, but if the guidelines state - and they do - not to use "code words" then the instances of violations are overwhelming. If these are to be allowed - and again I hope the follow on references stand and they are - a slight modification to the "guidelines" would appear in order. It seems ridiculous to say "here are the guidelines" and then follow up with "caveat posts" on a case (new provider) by case (post here suggesting violations) basis.

Crap - did I just agree with the op?