Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Cpalmson · 12-07-2016, 07:44 PM

I'm not looking to start some type of war. First off, it was only a warning. Second, we do have a rule about bumping threads. Reviews are definitely a 30 day rule. As for other threads, it is by discretion. Since this thread is linked to a review, I sent the warning. No need to bust balls over this. Just a gentle reminder of our rules.

Jardinier · 12-07-2016, 11:03 PM

Oh, I was just having fun... Let's see if you can get Hotlips off on a Sunday without the help of a blue pyramid pill in his palm. Have a great holiday...you guys are too easy.

hotrix1 · 12-08-2016, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cpalmson

I'm not looking to start some type of war. First off, it was only a warning. Second, we do have a rule about bumping threads. Reviews are definitely a 30 day rule. As for other threads, it is by discretion. Since this thread is linked to a review, I sent the warning. No need to bust balls over this. Just a gentle reminder of our rules.

Neither am I looking to start a war but here's why I disagree about the warning:

#13 - In our review forums, be mindful of the 'maturity' of threads you are posting to, ie. the date of the last item posted. We ask that you refrain from posting to a review in which the last post was made 30 or more days ago.[Since my original review was denied review status since it was NCNS and moved to COED, this makes it a an open forum discussion. Whether it be linked to a review or not.] Some exceptions may apply if you are providing relevant, valuable or updated information about the provider,[If the exceptions can be made for bumping a review over 30 days for this reason, it should be even more so on the COED discussion forum.] but as a general rule of thumb, this can best be accomplished by writing a new review altogether and avoiding the bumping of old ones. This applies to our review forums, in particular, as discussion threads are often allowed to flow for an unspecified length of time. [And which part of the unspecified length of time did my bump cross to warrant a warning? At what point in time does the UNSPECIFIED LENGTH OF TIME become discretionary on a discussion thread?]

Since this is now a discussion thread, kindly explain why did it necessitate a warning when I linked it to brians' current review, when it makes it even more relevant? Calling BS on this. Just another form of CENSORSHIP all over again.

dearhunter · 12-08-2016, 08:43 AM

It is not a review. The 30day GL on bumping reviews does not apply.

It is possible to get a GL13 infraction for posts older than 30days in open forum. An example of this would be a member getting a GL13 infraction for bumping multiple threADs about a particular subject and/or retard from the history of the forum; making all other threADs disappear from the front page. In truth, the correct infraction would be for spamming. But, that is a 10pt hit and a modtard may not wish to hit an aggrieved member with that kind of infraction. When, a GL13 infraction will help him/her move along.

Modtards who say "it was only a warning" crack me up.

Wakeup · 12-08-2016, 11:24 AM

Don't issue warnings unless you are trying to change a behavior pattern. When you issue a warning and say "it's only a warning", you're saying "you didn't do anything worthy of points" and it doesn't change any behavior at all. A warning is an infraction. Use it like one. A warning should be interpreted as "I should have issued you points, but didn't, because I'm explaining what you did wrong and hope you learn from your mistake."

Guideline 13 says nothing about issuing infractions for posting in an old thread in open forums. It specifically says to refrain from posting in an old review. It also says that this applies to review forums because open forums are often allowed to go on forever. That doesn't mean that if you post in an open forum on an old thread that you're violating guideline 13. It's saying that open forum discussions are not like review forums, that's it.

Open forum threads can be closed at any time, that's what the "often allowed to flow for an unspecified length of time" means. That doesn't mean you can't post in old threads, or be issued an infraction for it.

dh's comment deals specifically with spam postings. There isn't a guideline that specifically covers it, but there is an infraction that mods can issue for it, so it's often lumped into guideline 13, but it has nothing to do with that really.

hotrix1 · 12-08-2016, 01:46 PM

So Wakeup, dh, just to clarify, does this mean that you both agree that there was no infraction worthy of receiving a warning then? Because GL#13 is the nearest thing I could find even remotely relevant, because all I was warned for was bumping a thread that was older than 30 days.
Seems that the warning was issued rather punitively on me and I take it rather personal at that.

Wakeup · 12-08-2016, 03:48 PM

That warning only applies in review forums...and only when the new post doesn't add new, relevant information to the review. There is no such infraction that applies in discussion forums...

I'm not saying that you did nothing worthy of an infraction...oh, and stop taking shit personally...it's a fucking hooker board for Tebow's sake...

Precious_b · 12-08-2016, 09:28 PM

^^^^^

dearhunter · 12-09-2016, 12:27 AM

Post 21 is not a GL13 violation.

Jjsunday · 12-09-2016, 06:04 AM

Heh.......

acr52 · 12-09-2016, 12:15 PM

I apologize if this is not relevant or not in the correct place, but being new I ask for some slack? Anyway, I have read many of the threads on here and maybe the most wordy post was this one http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1678381 and my curiosity makes me wonder if the so-called ", Dream Girl" and the one mentioned here is the same person? I found also the author or this story has passed away so isn't available to tell me, so I ask if any of you know ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotrix1

Date: 9/16/16
Provider: SexyChloe001
User ID:: 154011
Phone: changes all the time
Email Address: sexychloe007@yahoo.com
URL / Website: http://www.eccie.net/providers.php?do=view&id=154011
City: Niceville/FWB
State: Florida
Address: Never found out.
Appointment Type: Incall
Did the Appointment take place at the agreed-upon time?: No
Activities: Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, and a whole lot of texting back n forth, all afternoon, Does jerking me all over town count? Still jerking.
Session Length: never happened
Fee: 000
Hair Length and Color: Can't tell you, was blonde last time I saw her.
Age: 27 for the last 4-5 years
Smoking Status: Smoker
Ethnic Background: White/Caucasian
Physical Description: Was pretty hot last time I did get to see her.
Recommendation: No fucking way ever again

Jjsunday · 12-09-2016, 04:23 PM

Hey A52 I enjoyed reading that about the dream girl I haven't seen it. around that time that was posted. I wasn't on alot and missed it Glad you posted that !

hotrix1 · 12-09-2016, 08:10 PM

I do believe it was written about SexyChloe. goodguy (the OP) knew her from when she was still going by the name Tiffany.

A real sad turn of events for goodguy, as well as not-so- Sexy-anymore-Chloe. SC had chance after chance to redeem herself. I used to have great times visiting her until she decided there were other more enticing avenues and started her slippery slide down the slope of no return. I have actually stood up for her in the past because my experiences with her were nothing short of stellar. But her actions these days tell me she's not willing to turn from the headlong plunge. Only so much you can do.

Cpalmson · 12-10-2016, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotrix1

I do believe it was written about SexyChloe. goodguy (the OP) knew her from when she was still going by the name Tiffany.

A real sad turn of events for goodguy, as well as not-so- Sexy-anymore-Chloe. SC had chance after chance to redeem herself. I used to have great times visiting her until she decided there were other more enticing avenues and started her slippery slide down the slope of no return. I have actually stood up for her in the past because my experiences with her were nothing short of stellar. But her actions these days tell me she's not willing to turn from the headlong plunge. Only so much you can do.

Hotrix, you are correct about the OP. It is truly a sad turn of events for all involved. PM me for more details if you want.

hotrix1 · 12-12-2016, 12:57 AM

On my bump of this thread that is. It is still relevant as ever. Still think it warranted a warning? The general consensus does point to the fact that it was draconian to say the least.

Just want to be sure where you stand. As for goodguy's departure, I have no need to know. Chloe's downhill slide should be more of a concern.