Main Menu |
|
Most Favorited Images |
|
Recently Uploaded Images |
|
Most Liked Images |
|
Top Reviewers |
| cockalatte |
650 |
| MoneyManMatt |
490 |
| Jon Bon |
408 |
| Still Looking |
399 |
| samcruz |
399 |
| Harley Diablo |
377 |
| honest_abe |
362 |
| DFW_Ladies_Man |
313 |
| George Spelvin |
296 |
| Starscream66 |
294 |
| Chung Tran |
288 |
| lupegarland |
287 |
| nicemusic |
285 |
| You&Me |
281 |
| sharkman29 |
261 |
|
|
Top Posters |
| DallasRain | 71189 | | biomed1 | 66486 | | Yssup Rider | 62309 | | gman44 | 54447 | | LexusLover | 51038 | | offshoredrilling | 49292 | | WTF | 48272 | | pyramider | 46397 | | bambino | 44385 | | The_Waco_Kid | 39064 | | CryptKicker | 37372 | | Mokoa | 36499 | | Chung Tran | 36100 | | Still Looking | 35944 | | Unique_Carpenter | 33280 |
|
|
05-16-2013, 11:07 AM
|
#226
|
|
Valerie's Mod Husband
Join Date: Dec 13, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 28,031
|
There's no discrepancy...there's now an exception...
Under the rule as written, Blowpop and theCFE were both guilty of a violation...under the new exception, Blowpop isn't guilty of a violation, but theCFE still is...
I'm never in favor of arbitrary exceptions to the rules...especially when they allow leniency for for one side and punish the other...but now that they've done it, they better change the forum guideline quick...
|
|
Quote
 | 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:26 AM
|
#227
|
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Feb 5, 2012
Location: Houston
Posts: 1,053
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeuр
There's no discrepancy...there's now an exception...
Under the rule as written, Blowpop and theCFE were both guilty of a violation...under the new exception, Blowpop isn't guilty of a violation, but theCFE still is...
I'm never in favor of arbitrary exceptions to the rules...especially when they allow leniency for for one side and punish the other...but now that they've done it, they better change the forum guideline quick...
|
It seems there are really TWO exceptions: One that spares BP because the provider in question was the one he gave ROS info to, and one that punishes theCFE for revealing not CONTENT of ROS, but merely that she'd seen it. (I haven't seen the original thread, so I'm just going off of BP's and others assertions). Following the language of Rule 20, I don't see that as a violation.
I understand the first exception, because it's logical to me. The second one, I admit, does leave me confounded.
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:28 AM
|
#228
|
|
Lifetime Premium Access
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 307
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeuр
There's no discrepancy...there's now an exception...
Under the rule as written, Blowpop and theCFE were both guilty of a violation...under the new exception, Blowpop isn't guilty of a violation, but theCFE still is...
I'm never in favor of arbitrary exceptions to the rules...especially when they allow leniency for for one side and punish the other...but now that they've done it, they better change the forum guideline quick...
|
I'm not trying to be a WK here. I've never seen theCFE BCD, but what did she do to violate the rule "as written"? The rule says you can't reveal content. AFIK, all she did was acknowledge she had seen it.
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:33 AM
|
#229
|
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Mar 16, 2011
Location: Dallas
Posts: 6,969
|
Big take away. Ladies don't acknowledge any information from a review, ML, or private tags that you acquired through a gent or your male handle  The one exception is when a gent reveals contents of ROS with out placing them in private tags which happens all the time.
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:37 AM
|
#230
|
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Apr 6, 2009
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,440
|
I hate to keep repeating myself, but apparently it is necessary. Wakeup is playing dumb for some reason.
I didn't share ROS with anyone. I wrote the provider an e-mail, sharing my opinions with her. I later released some of these opinions to Eccie in the form of a review.
Reasonably, I wasn't penalized for sharing my thoughts with the provider. (Thank you, mods, for confirming what seems obvious to everyone but WU.)
Unreasonably (In my opinion) the provider was penalized for admitting that she read my email. She didn't access any unauthorized information on Eccie.
That seems to be the state of things now. I'm sure Wakeup will now try to make things more convoluted, so we can all pay attention to him.
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:38 AM
|
#231
|
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Mar 26, 2009
Location: HTown
Posts: 3,540
|
The ban is even more insane then the previous discussion.
TheCFE received an email. She acknowledged that receipt. IF there was any real privacy on this Board, then she would have no way of knowing if the email she received was ACTUALLY the same as the ROS that was submitted. She did not state the content of the email (as that would have been a violation of something), and then after 15 pages of confusion by all the Houston Mods who put up their 2 Cents, the Rule is clarified and TheCFE gets banned based on the clarification.
And I thought the other Board was fucked up.
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:42 AM
|
#232
|
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Jan 25, 2010
Location: The rising sun
Posts: 9,926
|
Will you start a list of chicks you helped get banned?
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:47 AM
|
#233
|
|
Valued Poster
Join Date: Sep 23, 2010
Location: houston texas
Posts: 10,174
|
LMFAO
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:50 AM
|
#234
|
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Sep 19, 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 21,974
|
Man, all these "wanna be" Mods kill me 
Some of y'all should put in a request to ownership to help out...or in some cases, a second request 
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:54 AM
|
#235
|
|
Ambassadude
Join Date: Jan 4, 2010
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 6,427
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DickEmDown
Man, all these "wanna be" Mods kill me
Some of y'all should put in a request to ownership to help out...or in some cases, a second request |
Makes 2 of us..... the explanation, in detail has been given..... Seems some can't see the forest through the trees a bit on this one..... but so it goes I suppose.....
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:57 AM
|
#236
|
|
Making Pussy Great Again
Join Date: Jan 4, 2010
Location: In your closet, in your head...
Posts: 16,093
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by trey
Will you start a list of chicks you helped get banned?
|
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 11:58 AM
|
#237
|
|
Making Pussy Great Again
Join Date: Jan 4, 2010
Location: In your closet, in your head...
Posts: 16,093
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DickEmDown
Man, all these "wanna be" Mods kill me
Some of y'all should put in a request to ownership to help out...or in some cases, a second request |
I'll remind you that I got 1 vote...but it was a big one. 
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 12:01 PM
|
#238
|
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Sep 19, 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 21,974
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boardman
I'll remind you that I got 1 vote...but it was a big one. |
Yes, but "self votes" were not recognized
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 12:03 PM
|
#239
|
|
Ambassadude
Join Date: Jan 4, 2010
Location: Lone Star State
Posts: 6,427
|
But self love is..... ijs....
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
05-16-2013, 12:19 PM
|
#240
|
|
Making Pussy Great Again
Join Date: Jan 4, 2010
Location: In your closet, in your head...
Posts: 16,093
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DickEmDown
Yes, but "self votes" were not recognized |
Um...Lest you forget it was St. C himself that voted for me. Hell I voted for TG. I thinck.
|
|
|
Quote
| 1 user liked this post |
|
|
AMPReviews.net |
|
Find Ladies |
|
Hot Women |
|
