Why a no review policy?

[Wizard of Ahhhhs]

Hey guys, next time your septic tank plugs up and needs cleaned out, you might want to call newtotown. He seems pretty adept at shit-stirring...

I always thought it was pretty clear why reviews are/aren't can/can't be written. Useless thread other than to stir shit. One thing you are apparently good at, ntt... Congrats.

[malwoody]

The op aka ss aka newtotown aka nimr....

It's really pretty simple imo. In order to maintain his premium access he has to post a certain number of reviews during a said period. I don't know how many and don't care. Of course out of 10 he wrote 7 about one provider. He asked the question at the start of this thread because I believe he has worn out his welcome with the 7 timer and now needs to move on. The only problem is that whomever his current victim is must not want reviews, so he is attempting to circumvent her rule by posing the question. Of course it's also possible that I'm way off base here but wtf..my warped mind made me post it anyway..

[Johnny4455]

Devlin criticized me for taking this board too seriously!

...and either her or her buddy mselena, suggested I go away from this board.

(ineresting that sins may have confused the two of them, I have too)

Devlin, take fritz advice, and dont take this so seriously. 99% of the few people looking at this thread are not a bit interested in your long rambling history of rule 22.6 (a), or whatever it is that you are taking way to seriously.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by johnny4455

Devlin criticized me for taking this board too seriously!

...and either her or her buddy mselena, suggested I go away from this board.

(ineresting that sins may have confused the two of them, I have too)

Devlin, take fritz advice, and dont take this so seriously. 99% of the few people looking at this thread are not a bit interested in your long rambling history of rule 22.6 (a), or whatever it is that you are taking way to seriously.

Rest assured, there is no confusing Elena and Jackie. When Elena chooses to unsheathe her claws, there is usually a good reason for it. Jackie, not so much.

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by johnny4455

[...]Devlin, take fritz advice, and dont take this so seriously. 99% of the few people looking at this thread are not a bit interested in your long rambling history of rule 22.6 (a), or whatever it is that you are taking way to seriously.

Johnny, hell must have frozen over because I agree with you in part. Most of you could probably give a shit less about the issues being discussed in this thread and may form the opinion that my posts in this thread are indeed bitchy and petty and I can certainly see how people could easily have the opinion I am taking this specific issue too seriously. Generally, when confronted with (or privy somehow to) a discussion about something which they feel doesn't effect their person directly, people tend to form such opinions (as I have outlined in the aforementioned) of the people addressing such topics - one might take most politics for example and the opinions people generally hold about elected officials, pundits, etc. However, this issue isn't petty, I'm not being bitchy and I AM taking THIS particular, specific issue quite seriously. And, in actuality, this issue does effect everyone here at ECCIE (male and female alike). My question to you would be why aren't YOU and others taking this issue seriously??

I REALLY, HONSESTLY don't take too much else on this or any other SHMB seriously, regardless of what any of you may believe. It is evidenced in my comments - if I really took things here very seriously, I would probably not post at all. And, that includes the last thread in which we had interaction - I really wasn't taking it seriously, HENCE MY COMMENT TO THE OP IN THAT THREAD (it was anything but serious). . . If you really KNOW me, as in spent time with me IRL, you'd know damn well that fact (that I don't care much about most of what is written on SHMB's) to be so absolutely true that you'd laugh when people attempt to suggest otherwise. In fact, it could be argued (and affirmed) that those of you that seem to care (the intended emphasis on seem is very intentional) about whether or not I'm being a bitch or taking things too seriously are themselves the ones that are taking (or usually do take) things here way too seriously . . .

The issue being discussed is whether or not ECCIE extends a policy they have had in place since the Website's creation, whether or not a lady truly enjoys a no review policy - and in what / under what circumstance(s). The rule regarding NRP/DNR is a carry-over from ASPD and it exists for a reason - for a myriad of reasons actually, not the least of which is to offer a lady (and in some instances the gentleman that wrote the review) insulation from prosecution. There many examples of over-zealous prosecutors that will use reviews to solicit testimony, pressure witnesses and even attempt (sometimes successfully) to have reviews entered as evidence against a lady at trial. These examples aren't isolated incidents and there have been several (many, actually) high profile investigations / prosecutions predicated solely on reviews. In any event, any lady that has reviews may be almost assured that they will be included and used against her if she is ever prosecuted - especially used in any plea arrangement/agreement she may reach - and she may be guaranteed that they will be used in any pre-sentence report written prior to formal sentencing following a successful prosecution. I've rarely heard otherwise. With every passing day, these issues are more relevant as tactics are passed from prosecutor to prosecutor and between jurisdictions.

I realize that many of you here don't care - as you may not have much (or anything) to lose. Others of us make a living navigating this endeavor and we do care. Which, as I said, is one of the many reasons why the rule exists.

Also, this thread illustrates (IMO) a failing common within the current structure of ECCIE (but a necessary/required "evil" if you'll pardon the expression, as the Website relies on volunteers). And, that is that the volunteer gentlemen moderators (for the most part) don't usually account for the "business" aspect of the endeavor when helping out on the board. It isn't a criticism in the manner many of you might take that - it is an observation of human nature and the differences inherent between someone that provides a service and those that consume the 'commodity'. FireSerpent, whom I have been erroneously accused of having an issue with, was actually one of the moderators that "got it" and was able to look at things from a working professional's perspective and moderate the board sans misogynistic undertones (which IMO was what I believe Oenghus was saying - I don't believe he was speaking to this thread specifically - more to the proliferation of threads being closed and the comments that accompany their closure).

Originally Posted by malwoody

The op aka ss aka newtotown aka nimr.... [...]

It's really pretty simple imo. In order to maintain his premium access he has to post a certain number of reviews during a said period. I don't know how many and don't care. Of course out of 10 he wrote 7 about one provider. [...]

Actually, I believe it is six reviews out of eleven. The same provider (Stacy, aka sinsoftheflesh) also has multiple reviews by Fritz (note - this sentence was revealed to be factually inaccurate and my error, my apologies for the mistake - Jackie). It would seem to be no coincidence that she has interjected herself into this thread (Stacy, aka sinsoftheflesh). She does so with a great deal of regularity where ss4699 (newtotown) and her client base is concerned (perhaps, he hasn't worn out his welcome after all) and her interest here is overtly transparent.

Stacy, you accused me in a previous posting of something that plainly doesn't exist. I scanned through my past postings last night, your prior statement about me having an issue with FS and this being "par for the course" as it relates to my opinion of or treatment of new moderation and those moderating really has no basis in fact. As I said before, if I missed something or if I am not remembering something correctly, find the thread and post it. As it is, all you're doing is sharing a presumption and attempting to create a 'factual representation' where the actual facts do not support your statement.

[Grizzly]

Jackie a bitch never! She has always been nice to me when I have spoken with her trying to get our schedules arranged for a date or for other reasons not to be discussed

I like a woman that is smart and gets straight to the point and does not beat around the bushes.

Jackie you rock and I hope one day we can finally meet.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

LOL Jackie, are Fritz's reviews of me the invisible variety? He has never reviewed me, and as far as I know, I've never seen him. Its not as though I have 100 reviews, which would be alot to sift through to find one particular name among my reviews. A quick check would have revealed that Fritz's name is not among my reviewers. So do tell, where is this overt transparency?

I would happily post the threads related to FS, except that they weren't on the public boards, so posting them would be a violation of the rules. They do say that the memory is the first thing to go though, so lets just let that be the reason you can't recall what I'm talking about.

[Guest121212]

Oenghus I appreciate your comments, but let's be honest, I CAN be a bitch . . . it is just that many times I'm NOT being a bitch but have been perceived to be one . . . Usually because I'm addressing something that typically a working professional would never comment upon (some comment only a male would normally dare say something about) or when I am perceived to be arguing.

I'm usually not arguing as much as I am trying to explain why I'm right - LMAO

Seriously though, you might want to dial it back less you be accused of being a WK. There's enough of that (WK'ing) being puked all over this thread by sinsoftheflesh.

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

LOL Jackie, are Fritz's reviews of me the invisible variety? He has never reviewed me, and as far as I know, I've never seen him. Its not as though I have 100 reviews, which would be alot to sift through to find one particular name among my reviews. A quick check would have revealed that Fritz's name is not among my reviewers. So do tell, where is this overt transparency?

I would happily post the threads related to FS, except that they weren't on the public boards, so posting them would be a violation of the rules. They do say that the memory is the first thing to go though, so lets just let that be the reason you can't recall what I'm talking about.

You're right - my mistake - there are too many "Stacy's" - wrong one, sorry. Maybe they should number the "Stacy's" - LOL

There's NOTHING in the Spiderhole that reveals my having this HUGE ISSUE with FS as you state - anyone can ask for access and go in and see for themselves. If YOU interpreted those discussions as my having a big issue with FS (which certainly wasn't the case) then my memory is the least of your concerns and you need to double-check REALITY. That was a pimple on the ass of my having an issue . . . in fact, I COMPLIMENT FS in the same thread you are referring to and apologized to him for my misunderstanding. You might want to keep in mind that the tenor of the Hole is much different than the open board and not allow frank and explicit speech to guide your opinion(s) - especially when it is information culled from that specific forum.

Again - you're correct - I read Fritz's review log incorrectly.

That doesn't change the "fact" that when ss4699 posts, you always seem to come a running. Now, I'm probably CERTAIN that is just my "opinion" or "view", as the ACTUAL facts probably don't support that assertion, any more than the actual facts support your assertion about me made previously.

I've modified the previous post to include a notation of my error.

Have a nice day Stacy.

[Johnny4455]

Originally Posted by Jackie Devlin

Johnny, hell must have frozen over because I agree with you in part. Most of you could probably give a shit less about the issues being discussed in this thread and may form the opinion that my posts in this thread are indeed bitchy and petty and I can certainly see how people could easily have the opinion I am taking this specific issue too seriously. Generally, when confronted with (or privy somehow to) a discussion about something which they feel doesn't effect their person directly, people tend to form such opinions (as I have outlined in the aforementioned) of the people addressing such topics - one might take most politics for example and the opinions people generally hold about elected officials, pundits, etc. However, this issue isn't petty, I'm not being bitchy and I AM taking THIS particular, specific issue quite seriously. And, in actuality, this issue does effect everyone here at ECCIE (male and female alike). My question to you would be why aren't YOU and others taking this issue seriously??

I REALLY, HONSESTLY don't take too much else on this or any other SHMB seriously, regardless of what any of you may believe. It is evidenced in my comments - if I really took things here very seriously, I would probably not post at all. And, that includes the last thread in which we had interaction - I really wasn't taking it seriously, HENCE MY COMMENT TO THE OP IN THAT THREAD (it was anything but serious). . . If you really KNOW me, as in spent time with me IRL, you'd know damn well that fact (that I don't care much about most of what is written on SHMB's) to be so absolutely true that you'd laugh when people attempt to suggest otherwise. In fact, it could be argued (and affirmed) that those of you that seem to care (the intended emphasis on seem is very intentional) about whether or not I'm being a bitch or taking things too seriously are themselves the ones that are taking (or usually do take) things here way too seriously . . .

The issue being discussed is whether or not ECCIE extends a policy they have had in place since the Website's creation, whether or not a lady truly enjoys a no review policy - and in what / under what circumstance(s). The rule regarding NRP/DNR is a carry-over from ASPD and it exists for a reason - for a myriad of reasons actually, not the least of which is to offer a lady (and in some instances the gentleman that wrote the review) insulation from prosecution. There many examples of over-zealous prosecutors that will use reviews to solicit testimony, pressure witnesses and even attempt (sometimes successfully) to have reviews entered as evidence against a lady at trial. These examples aren't isolated incidents and there have been several (many, actually) high profile investigations / prosecutions predicated solely on reviews. In any event, any lady that has reviews may be almost assured that they will be included and used against her if she is ever prosecuted - especially used in any plea arrangement/agreement she may reach - and she may be guaranteed that they will be used in any pre-sentence report written prior to formal sentencing following a successful prosecution. I've rarely heard otherwise. With every passing day, these issues are more relevant as tactics are passed from prosecutor to prosecutor and between jurisdictions.

I realize that many of you here don't care - as you may not have much (or anything) to lose. Others of us make a living navigating this endeavor and we do care. Which, as I said, is one of the many reasons why the rule exists.

Also, this thread illustrates (IMO) a failing common within the current structure of ECCIE (but a necessary/required "evil" if you'll pardon the expression, as the Website relies on volunteers). And, that is that the volunteer gentlemen moderators (for the most part) don't usually account for the "business" aspect of the endeavor when helping out on the board. It isn't a criticism in the manner many of you might take that - it is an observation of human nature and the differences inherent between someone that provides a service and those that consume the 'commodity'. FireSerpent, whom I have been erroneously accused of having an issue with, was actually one of the moderators that "got it" and was able to look at things from a working professional's perspective and moderate sans misogynistic undertones (which IMO was what I believe Oenghus was saying - I don't believe he was speaking to this thread specifically - more to the proliferation of threads being closed and the comments that accompany their closure).



Actually, I believe it is six reviews out of eleven. The same provider (Stacy, aka sinsoftheflesh) also has multiple reviews by Fritz (note - this statement was revealed to be made in error, my apologies - Jackie). It would seem to be no coincidence that she has interjected herself into this thread (Stacy, aka sinsoftheflesh). She does so with a great deal of regularity where ss4699 (newtotown) and her client base is concerned (perhaps, he hasn't worn out his welcome after all) and her interest here is overtly transparent.

Stacy, you accused me in a previous posting of something that plainly doesn't exist. I scanned through my past postings last night, your prior statement about me having an issue with FS and this being "par for the course" as it relates to my opinion of or treatment of new moderation and those moderating really has no basis in fact. As I said before, if I missed something or if I am not rememberin






g something correctly, find the thread and post it. As it is, all you're doing is sharing a presumption and attempting to create a 'factual representation' where the actual facts do not support your statement.

Devlin, wow, amazing, youve told me I take this board too seriously?? The mod tells you to lighten up, so your response is to write a boring manifesto on something (whatever the fuck it is that your rambling about) that nobody other than you gives a fuck about. I couldnt get through two lines of it. If you cant lighten up, then why do you post here? (in 100 words or less, and without insults, please)

[malwoody]

Jackie,

Actually it is 7, check page 2..
11 reviews about 4 providers.
7+2+1+1. I wonder what the policy is about reviews=PA..I would think there might/should be some kind of disclaimer regarding a broken record syndrome but dunno..

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by johnny4455

Devlin, wow, amazing, youve told me I take this board too seriously?? The mod tells you to lighten up, so your response is to write a boring manifesto on something (whatever the fuck it is that your rambling about) that nobody other than you gives a fuck about. I couldnt get through two lines of it. If you cant lighten up, then why do you post here? (in 100 words or less, and without insults, please)

I did answer you . . . RTFP.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by Jackie Devlin

That doesn't change the "fact" that when ss4699 posts, you always seem to come a running. Now, I'm probably CERTAIN that is just my "opinion" or "view", as the ACTUAL facts probably don't support that assertion, any more than the actual facts support your assertion about me made previously.

I've modified the previous post to include a notation of my error.

Have a nice day Stacy.

Links to posts where I have "come running" please. These would be on a public forum, which are fair game for linking to.

I will wait with breathless anticipation on those links.

I call it as I see it Jackie, the posts I refer to in the Spider hole only date back to September. Is your memory really that piss poor?

And I'll have a good day as soon as I see some links. Toodles.

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by malwoody

Jackie,

Actually it is 7, check page 2..
11 reviews about 4 providers.
7+2+1+1. I wonder what the policy is about reviews=PA..I would think there might/should be some kind of disclaimer regarding a broken record syndrome but dunno..

Ah, I missed page 2 . . . as for broken record syndrome, that would be best suited for the men's lounge and discussion on what you gentlemen between yourselves think is fair for PA credit.

Why he doesn't just pay for PA is anyone's guess.

[Guest121212]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Links to posts where I have "come running" please. These would be on a public forum, which are fair game for linking to.

I will wait with breathless anticipation on those links.

I call it as I see it Jackie, the posts I refer to in the Spider hole only date back to September. Is your memory really that piss poor?

And I'll have a good day as soon as I see some links. Toodles.

Stacy, did you miss the point of my post or just not bother to actually read and comprehend it??

I specifically wrote (quoting): " Now, I'm probably CERTAIN that is just my "opinion" or "view", as the ACTUAL facts probably don't support that assertion, any more than the actual facts support your assertion about me made previously. "

I also wrote: "There's NOTHING in the Spiderhole that reveals my having this HUGE ISSUE with FS as you state - anyone can ask for access and go in and see for themselves. If YOU interpreted those discussions as my having a big issue with FS (which certainly wasn't the case) then my memory is the least of your concerns and you need to double-check REALITY. That was a pimple on the ass of my having an issue . . . in fact, I COMPLIMENT FS in the same thread you are referring to and apologized to him for my misunderstanding. You might want to keep in mind that the tenor of the Hole is much different than the open board and not allow frank and explicit speech to guide your opinion(s) - especially when it is information culled from that specific forum."

So no, I realize (admit) it was my PERCEPTION and not something supported by fact - as was your own (that which you proclaimed previously - not fact, but your perception).

Wait with breathless anticipation all you want, OBVIOUSLY, they aren't coming (the citations) - be careful not to asphyxiate yourself (please?).

I swear, people have purposeful selective reading. My point was you are conjuring "facts" based on your perception.