Why was Still Lookings review of Katie Foxx removed?

[guest042212]

Forgive me for my naivete here, but aren't cries for "transparency" on a board dedicated to an activity where discretion and privacy is a major concern for it's members rather oxymoronic?

The mods, admins, owners, or the easter bunny ain't gonna violate SL's or Katie's privacy to give you the transparency y'alls curiosity so desperately craves.

Remember, the owners "own" this entity called eccie, and freedom of the press let's them set the rules on their property.

We return you now to your regularly scheduled rant...

[SofaKingFun]

What we've got here is failure.

.

.

[dearhunter]

Originally Posted by Duke of G

No, it's called an "inclusive role." All administrators are also moderators.

I am liking the inclusive role.....it restores deleted and edited reviews.

I guess it does take a village.

[Boltfan]

For once dearhunter, you are barking up the wrong tree. Pissing match with one of the mods that "get it" probably isn't the most valuable use of your time. ijs

[LovingKayla]

dearhunter has valuable uses of his time?



I'm not getting all my memos.

[LazurusLong]

Originally Posted by J.G. Wentworth

and how many points has Prolongus received for his direct insults and attacks on the guy who actually paid the two session fees and wrote the reviews and has a national thread on his hobby tour?

Actually, if you read what he wrote (and then lied about in his 2 reviews), SL had a 30 minute with Allison and then a 30 minute with Katie for his ONE session fee.

His Allsion review appear to be embellished with him claiming an hour with her for the 300 fee for an hour but did he really pay the fulll fee?

SL got a half hour quickie with Allison followed by another half hour quickie with Katie. 2 for the price of what?

Really would like to know what he truly paid after all this mess and his whiney attitude about the agency.

Where can I sign up for that?

[Guest100513-2]

if it makes the mods happy, they can close this thread

[Guest082216-1]

Closed at OP request

[administrator]

monkmonk,

I know this thread is now closed, but I wanted to get back to you with the answer I promised you.

The review was pulled to the staff area for discussion based on some comments which were placed in the review that were essentially the same stuff that had also been posted in a discussion thread.

The question was: should this stuff be allowed to remain in the review or should it be edited out?

The answer was: The stuff should be allowed to remain in the review. Whether it's relevant or not, we go to great lengths to avoid editing, deleting, or modifying any content on this site from it's original unaltered form. The last thing we want is a public perception that staff will censor material from it's readers, or modify stuff to our liking.

In a situation like this, both parties should be allowed and encouraged to share their side of the story if they are compelled to do so, and once that has taken place, it's up to the members to carry on a discussion and share their various points of view on the matter. There should not be any real interference to this process by staff, other than to deal with any infractions which take place along the way, and to keep the conversation from becoming derailed or hijacked.

Once this consensus was reached, the staff member restored the review(s) in it's original form to the correct forums.

My apologies to all that the temporary removal of the two reviews created such a disturbance, but in the end I feel that the staff reached the proper conclusion.

Thanks gang!

St. C