Outing Poll

[Scribe]

With all the news surrounding Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal - it's clear these women are "outing". Debate all you want about if they were paid providers (I mean, judge for yourself - would you bang his Trumpness for free?)... but right now, they are "Outing" discretionary BCD encounters. Here, we all live in a world of BCD encounters.

What should be the penalty (here - in our realm) for "Outing"?

1. Lifetime Banning - :Broke the cardinal rule, Babe... Sorry, you're gone."
2. Reverse Outing - "Two wrongs might make a right"
3. Rate Hit - "Don't throw baby out with bathwater; but your $300 is now worth $100"
4. Supportive Therapy - "He deserved it! All you guys do!" (so nothing)

[Grace Preston]

I'd love to see it equal a lifetime banning. When you've BEEN outed... you gain a new appreciation for how life altering it can be.

[Guest082718]

If it's a true "outing" giving a person's real life information on purpose yes, lifetime is appropriate. Inadvertent I say 60 days is about right.

[rcinokc]

I agree on a lifetime ban, but I also know that there is no real way to do it here. Ban one handle and another one pops up.

[grean]

If there is any blackmail involved, there could be very real consequences.

[grean]

And scribe, wherever have you been?

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by Grace Preston

I'd love to see it equal a lifetime banning. When you've BEEN outed... you gain a new appreciation for how life altering it can be.

+1 Grace

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by grean

And scribe, wherever have you been?

LOL - "Zipper club" alumni

[WinterNicole]

There are certain lines not to cross. Any outing on purpose or due to negligence should be a lifetime ban.

[Wakeup]

There are already established penalties for outing...

[Grace Preston]

Yep... and then they come back into the fold and often times they out again.

[TexTushHog]

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s clear that these gals were being paid by Trump for sex. If they were, they shouldn’t out him, though he had too much to loose to be fucking around. No one deserves to be outed, but someone running for office or who is a major public figure with a lot to lose is clearly a more tempting target and can’t really be surprised when it happens. But I think these gals were just fucking him to be closer to wealth and celebrity. It was a 1,000:1 against chance to be a major gold digger and be Mrs. Trump IV to them. I also think he he was paying them, they be telling that, too.

[Chung Tran]

Trump was paying them.. not directly cash, but paid vacations, jewelry, etc.. nothing is free.

along that line, should Marla Maples be muzzled, since she wasn't a Provider?

what about all the people from Trump's Administration who have been fired? should they say nothing about known ties to Russia, because they were paid previously?

tangential, sure.. my point is money and silence aren't directly related. it's more of an ethical issue.

[Scribe]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Trump was paying them.. not directly cash, but paid vacations, jewelry, etc.. nothing is free.

along that line, should Marla Maples be muzzled, since she wasn't a Provider?

what about all the people from Trump's Administration who have been fired? should they say nothing about known ties to Russia, because they were paid previously?

tangential, sure.. my point is money and silence aren't directly related. it's more of an ethical issue.

Good point CT, but then isn't really every non-disclosure agreement in the same predicament? I mean - if its always "Pay me - and I'll be silent" (oh... until a time comes when I don't wish to be - or its more valuable NOT to be - then I should have the right to not only tell everything, but be allowed to HINT about everything prior to a legal court ruling on validity of the restraint)...

...it sort of becomes " Are any non-disclosure legalities or guidelines ever valid?"

...and, if those contracts are - "you can beak them without penalty", then aren't ALL contracts subject to "being followed until the person they obligate feels differently about the matter?"

Seriously. Lets say you loan someone money... they agree to repay you... then later, for their own reason (change in circumstances) they decide "I don't want to"... that should be "forgiven"? or should they be held responsible.

Mind you everyone. "Outing" is an "unwritten law"... but so is "Provide services as stated" (No cash & Dash); "Be respectful of the clock" (on BOTH sides - be prompt, timely, and fair)...

...if everyone just starts acting "how they see fit", then its chaos.

...if there is no "group justice" which holds us all to some level of decorum & responsibility on our actions... why review? Why complain? Why even discuss?

[grean]

Let's face it. If the money is deemed good enough, I think a lot of the ladies who pride themselves on discretion, you will discover, suddenly have lose lips.