Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

GlobeSpotter · 06-01-2016, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

ROFLMAO! ... You can log into your account from numerous public access WiFi's and devices ... As long as you're not logged into one account from two different locations at the same there's no way to be certain who logged in if more than one person knows the password to the account.

That's fuckin' stupid talk. I'm always logged in and posting from several devices at the same time using different networks.

You generalize the system can't detect who's logged in and anything is possible.

Then you say something stupid like the above.

Tony Gambino · 06-01-2016, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

You're assuming the MODS took one person's word over another (just like you assumed the big black bouncer guy was with NM and was following you ... see a pattern there)

Perhaps there was evidence the proved one parties case and none to prove the other. I suspect the MODS had the evidence they needed to conclude beyond a doubt that the review was FAKE.

You're now claiming that the MODS are not being fair to all parties since you did not get the outcome you were hoping for ... Dude, you're sounding more and more like WTF and E2D by the minute.

I cant imagine how someone could think a Mod would take a whores side over a member.........most are beyond reproach.......good luck with your ban.....

chicagoboy · 06-01-2016, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtoman

There should be some standard level of basic requirement for the information that is to be provided for a Mod or Mods to take one person's word over another. Either that or someone is blowing them to get the answer they want and the whole idea of them weighing the info objectively is worthless.

Or Eccie2ndAve needs to work on his blowjob technique.

dearhunter · 06-01-2016, 07:49 AM

Natalia's crew is shrincking. She needs to evangelize more.

Fancy is tight with all the fucking whores. She gets to call quacks in coed.

Anna Nickkol (whatever her handle is this week) gets to call quacks for her homegirls.

All these fucking pimps get a pass for their stables too.........right?

Or is the exception just for the ones you Houston modtards pick and choose?

Natalia, I know what their proof is. They took the word of a pimps bottom bitch over a sleazy fucktard. They should have pointed you for this thread and addressed the review in private as GL 11 requires.

You act like this is a super special circumstance. It is not. There is a process for a whore to rebutt her review. The reviewed whore posts a rebuttal in coed, it is given a short life of conversation to allow her to explain her side. Then, it gets locked.

The whores pimp does not get a say in the matter. He sits in the fucking car like a good pimp. The pimps bottom bitch stays in the second room........ijs

Dorian Gray · 06-01-2016, 08:13 AM

gtoman · 06-01-2016, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NubianPrince

I'm pretty sure all that information came from another monger
One who has seen Eve but got rejected by NM and still holding a grudge

And the appointment requests don't mean shit.. they have to be accepted for the appointment to take place

And why would he need to erase any information from the screenshots?
What the fuck are mods going to do with his p411 info??
How else are they supposed to prove anything if important info is missing?

Come on..

Dude. Read what I wrote and quit missing the point. I am not supporting his decision to only provide certain details. I am asking what is required by the Mods to make a reasonable decision. Your post means dick and irrelevant to the questions I asked. They provide no answer in the slightest at all.

gtoman · 06-01-2016, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

You're assuming the MODS took one person's word over another (just like you assumed the big black bouncer guy was with NM and was following you ... see a pattern there)

Perhaps there was evidence the proved one parties case and none to prove the other. I suspect the MODS had the evidence they needed to conclude beyond a doubt that the review was FAKE.

You're now claiming that the MODS are not being fair to all parties since you did not get the outcome you were hoping for ... Dude, you're sounding more and more like WTF and E2D by the minute.

Am I claiming something or are you assuming my statement is me claiming something? Guess, what it is the latter of those two. My question is still valid for any case of a review being called fake. So pull your head out of your ass. This info would be good to have for any hobbyist to make sure he can support an accusations of his review being fake.

And they must have taken one persons word over the other to deem it fake. Otherwise, why would it be fake? They would not any supporting evidence to make it so. For that matter, what does the provider have to supply to make a review be deemed fake?

SpiceItUp · 06-01-2016, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dearhunter

You are incorrect. You open Pandora's box. If you allow Natalia to attack a reviewer in coed for another whore, you allow all whores to do it.

The fact that Natalia has financial gain on the line is an added bonus......your common sense not withstanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dearhunter

Natalia's crew is shrincking. She needs to evangelize more.

Fancy is tight with all the fucking whores. She gets to call quacks in coed.

Anna Nickkol (whatever her handle is this week) gets to call quacks for her homegirls.

All these fucking pimps get a pass for their stables too.........right?

Or is the exception just for the ones you Houston modtards pick and choose?

Natalia, I know what their proof is. They took the word of a pimps bottom bitch over a sleazy fucktard. They should have pointed you for this thread and addressed the review in private as GL 11 requires.

You act like this is a super special circumstance. It is not. There is a process for a whore to rebutt her review. The reviewed whore posts a rebuttal in coed, it is given a short life of conversation to allow her to explain her side. Then, it gets locked.

The whores pimp does not get a say in the matter. He sits in the fucking car like a good pimp. The pimps bottom bitch stays in the second room........ijs

You know as well as I do that's not the intent of GL#11. This was rebuttal by proxy not a quacked review.

Your argument is a straw man anyway, you're the one expanding the allowable circumstances not I. I've already explained the limited circumstances under which I'd have no problem with it. The Pandora's Box does not exist here nor the slippery slope.

Is it your contention that any provider without sufficient grasp of the English language should be unable to dispute a review in coed via the help of a proxy? She's just shit out of luck eh? I'm fairly certain I've made it clear that is a key factor here.

All of your other examples of the hypothetical sky falling, while clever, are irrelevant. Any individual case will be looked at on its own merits.

Let's not forget that the review in question was deemed to be fake after deliberation. I didn't see your name on the Houston mod PM chain as we discussed it so I'm not sure how you presume to know what factors we did or did not consider and how we arrived at our conclusion.

dearhunter · 06-01-2016, 08:52 AM

You did this in public. You live with the public ridicule.

Your exception is bullshit. A pimps bottom bitch going to the mat for another whore in the stable. The correct process is for the reviewed whore to RTM the review, and then you do your job. If in the modtard deliberation it is determined a fake review, the tag is placed on the review and removed from her cache. The reviewer gets a short vacation for writing a fake review.

Your twisting to fit this round peg in a square hole has everyone scratching their ass. The whores are wondering why the idiot is not banned. The fucktards are wondering if you are going make an exception of them.......for the right whore.......and the bottom bitch whore is gloating at your tomfoolery.

chicagoboy · 06-01-2016, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

The Pandora's Box does not exist here nor the slippery slope.

Pandora would be an excellent handle for a hooktard with a slippery box.

oilfieldscum · 06-01-2016, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dearhunter

Fancy is tight with all the fucking whores. She gets to call quacks in coed.

Anna Nickkol (whatever her handle is this week) gets to call quacks for her homegirls.

All these fucking pimps get a pass for their stables too.........right?

Or is the exception just for the ones you Houston modtards pick and choose?

I'll take door number 4 Drew.

What's my showcase look like?

SpiceItUp · 06-01-2016, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dearhunter

You did this in public. You live with the public ridicule.

Your exception is bullshit. A pimps bottom bitch going to the mat for another whore in the stable. The correct process is for the reviewed whore to RTM the review, and then you do your job. If in the modtard deliberation it is determined a fake review, the tag is placed on the review and removed from her cache. The reviewer gets a short vacation for writing a fake review.

Your twisting to fit this round peg in a square hole has everyone scratching their ass. The whores are wondering why the idiot is not banned. The fucktards are wondering if you are going make an exception of them.......for the right whore.......and the bottom bitch whore is gloating at your tomfoolery.

I have no problem with public scrutiny of moderator actions, it goes with the territory.

That's your perception of the situation, it is not ours. You are not a moderator in Houston and as such you're no different than any other member here who is welcome to share his opinions. They will be given the due consideration they deserve.

We have no knowledge of any pimps or bottom bitches here and you're avoiding the thing we do know, which is that EC is entitled to a public rebuttal thread if she wishes not just a RTM of the review and that her English is insufficient for that so she got one by proxy from her friend and known associate. Where is the harm? Is it your contention that this is what GL#11 was designed to prevent?

Also, you are incorrect. A ban is not always warranted for a fake review. In fact, it is usually not unless there are extenuating circumstances or it's a second+ offense.

You're the only one I see twisting to shoehorn your argument that's not fit for purpose and move the goal posts. It's ok though, I can follow the bouncing ball and I'm fairly certain I've been clear from the start what the Houston modtard stance is on this subject.

dearhunter · 06-01-2016, 09:50 AM

You have no knowledge that the review is fake. It is your opinion that the review is fake. Because of what the whore tells you vs what the fucktard is willing to tell you.

You have no knowledge that the two whores are merely associates. It is your opinion that they are nothing more than associates. Because of what a whore tells you.

You have no knowledge that EC is incapable of posting her own rebuttal. It is your opinion that she is an illiterate whore. Because of what a whore tells you........one who brags about learning all of this in 2 years.

There is one confirmed retard in this fiasco with financial skin in this game. It is the whore you accept as gospel and allow to post this rebuttal for a 3rd party.

I am surrounded by stupid........ijs

Grace Preston · 06-01-2016, 10:03 AM

Spice--

So if a ban is sometimes warranted for "extenuating circumstances" and it has been determined that the review in question is fake-- why would the member not be banned under this notion? The contention is that he wrote the review in retaliation of a conflict between himself and Natalia-- I would think that an attempt at coercion would certainly be an extenuating circumstance-- particularly since the "fake review" was written against a third party.

Not arguing with mod decisions or anything-- but I am curious as to what would classify one for a banning vs. what we have here. When rules are ambiguous like this one-- it would be helpful to know what does and doesn't qualify.

SpiceItUp · 06-01-2016, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GracePreston

Spice--

So if a ban is sometimes warranted for "extenuating circumstances" and it has been determined that the review in question is fake-- why would the member not be banned under this notion? The contention is that he wrote the review in retaliation of a conflict between himself and Natalia-- I would think that an attempt at coercion would certainly be an extenuating circumstance-- particularly since the "fake review" was written against a third party.

Not arguing with mod decisions or anything-- but I am curious as to what would classify one for a banning vs. what we have here. When rules are ambiguous like this one-- it would be helpful to know what does and doesn't qualify.

No worries. Feel free to argue with mod decisions all you like lol, this isn't some kind of tyranny we're just community members helping out and trying our best to be impartial adjudicators.

There are details here which I am not at liberty to share but the overall consensus upon deliberation was that it did not apply in this case.

As always it's a murky sea of gray areas and imperfect information. Each case is looked at on its own merits and as such it is really impossible to clarify further and draw a hard line for you.