Is it appropriate?

[Shackleton]

I think it's BS that someone can just change their username to run away from a poor reputation like Lazarus Long has. I understand if someone needs to change usernames for security reasons, but that's not the case here. It's just someone with a bad reputation who wants to hide from it.

BTW, there's nothing in the forum rules about disclosing the prior usernames of members. Is this really a site rule? If so, may I suggest editing the forum rules to make that clear?

[TexTushHog]

I fully agree that a gentleman (or any lady for that matter) should absolutely reveal any information that would bear on 1) a real conflict of interest or 2) any information that would even create the appearance of a conflict. It's just common sense and good manners. It also enhances the credibility of the poster over the long term.

However, I also recognize the reality that there is very little in the way that can be done to enforce that sort of disclosure obligation on a board such as this. But I'm all for disclosure and all for trying to enforce it.

[dentonseek]

Originally Posted by Shackleton

I think it's BS that someone can just change their username to run away from a poor reputation like Lazarus Long has. I understand if someone needs to change usernames for security reasons, but that's not the case here. It's just someone with a bad reputation who wants to hide from it.

BTW, there's nothing in the forum rules about disclosing the prior usernames of members. Is this really a site rule? If so, may I suggest editing the forum rules to make that clear?

I think its pretty similar to registering a second handle. However, i've seen both hobbyists AND provider do it. I understand getting a fresh start here but if you registered under one name and then changed it to hide your past...I think this site loses credibility since you never know who is really who. I understand you can do that on other forums (non hobby related) but the whole value of the information here relies on the basis people haven't been playing musical chairs. If so, then who cares what the reviews say...they only have a useful life of the persona.

[jfred]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

...It's just common sense and good manners. It also enhances the credibility of the poster over the long term...

TTH, you're an example (as far as I know) of a guy who has practiced that preaching. You just tell the truth. Makes life a lot simpler, doesn't it? Seriously.

Can't help notice that you brought your name with you from that other board. Folks who use common sense and practice good manners, and to whom the value of credibility over the long term is not a mystery, aren't usually looking for a "fresh start." Are they?

But ya know, dude, this is a new board, and losing track of who's who is gonna to be a necessary evil, for a little while.

I'm all for fresh starts. And I don't really mind just approaching posters simply at face value -- well, maybe a little bit. But, things have a way of sorting themselves out.

In this case I listen to CPI, he can be trusted. Don't know who LL might have been somewhere else, but I know now that he has an agenda that differs from mine, and from the straightforward purpose of this board. His statements (apart from obvious truths) are, therefor, subject to suspicion.

Enforcing disclosure? I don't know, man. How would you do that? Seems to me that unless straightforwardness is prioritized, and those who don't practice it are "disciplined" by the loss of respect that comes with being deceptive, it'll be hard to enforce externally.

[Little Stevie]

Originally Posted by 1thatgotaway

They should not be posting unless they disclose the business relationship they have. I think someone doing this should be required to register as a "promoter" and have limited access to the site.

+1 +1 +1 oh Hell +3

Originally Posted by Rebeccaofdallas

Why would a "client' be posting ads for a provider? Why wouldn't the provider be posting her own ads?

See answer below

Originally Posted by jfred

That would be because the provider can't put two sentences together, dear.

+1 but I did have to delete the reference to the gray box - too much information and probably not accurate considering whose box was referenced.

Originally Posted by cpi3000

This is a bullshit question/poll created by XXXXX. He is just forcing his agenda once again after being warned to back off by staff on this issue. He is pissed off at another member because he is banned yet again from another studio and just creating drama like he always has.

XXXXX has helped many a gal compose an ad and not disclosed it. So have many of us. The hobbyist he is talking about has shown no conflict of interest on the board.

Come up with something newsworthy for the staff. All you do is try to make everyone you dislike look bad and then make the staff look bad when you didn't get the answer you wanted.

You forgot the picture of the popcorn, cpi3000. LMAO

[PODarkness]

I'm trying to figure out how you know it's a WK and not the provider. The biggest issue I see isn't the WK reviews, because those tend to be pretty obvious, its the WK's access to the provider section.

Let's face it, the variations of relationship between provider and client are infinite. Where are you going to draw the line? How would you write the rule, without writing a book on the subject?