Yesterday, I spent some time with a very nice lady who is a well known porn star, and has been a reputable provider with a history of posting on this board. I made a post last night saying that she was a real pleasure to be with. I had a very nice time. I also mentioned her tits were pretty great.

But my post was taken down because I MENTIONED HER NAME without her contact information (which is readily available to any of you who do a little research). I didn't mention how to get in touch with her. And I didn't mention the rate I paid.

I guess I was only giving a heads up on a great girl that some of you might like to explore without being a pimp.

So I guess this board is just for what now???

that just because there is a hardcore picture of a porn lady does not mean she is an escort..You have wanna be porn stars calling these ladies and saying "Hey Danny Ocean posted your picture on an Escort Board"..

To my knowledge this is not a 100% escort Board..Heck if you go to the Discussion Boards you see plenty of topics other than escorting..You see topics such as Sports, Religion, etc..Also if you look at "Porn Star Friday" most of those girls who are listed are not escorting..

I need to put a disclaimer like Fast Eddie has on his site "the ladies you see her may or may not escort"..

D

"A Shill Thread is a thread that is started with a post that is praise, thanks, or a recommendation for a certain provider for reasons of self-interest, personal benefit, or out of friendship or loyalty. Starting a new thread with a Shill Post is not allowed by TER because such threads are considered extra "advertising" above and beyond what each provider is allowed each week.

Shill Threads are not allowed, and will be removed."

http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=16802&boardID=33

... when reviews get changed and scores differ from what you submitted.

The question is whether you can post to praise or give a recommendation for a certain provider  at all, such as for reasons of providing a service to fellow hobbyists (like a review) or wanting to say how great you felt, and not out of self-interest or personal benefit or loyalty to a provider.

I always thought the shill post rule was to stop actual shill posts, and in the past it seems to have worked that way, but in the past couple of months there seems to have been a crackdown to the extent that positively mentioning a provider in any way counts as a shill.  Is that right, is that meant to be how it's enforced?

If we can't talk on this board about our experiences with provides, it kind of limits the board to only being ads and off-topic garbage, is that really intended?

We're all intelligent guys here. And we have reason to be skeptical of "shills on the board". Some of them are done for favors, or they are the girls using aliases to post shills of themselves. And there is reason to question the veracity of a post which is a shill or the reason it was put up.

But over a period of time, some posters do gain credibility. Some of us who have come to know one another off the board would trust a post. And others should be skeptical. And the readers and the posters here have the intelligence to determine for themselves which of those kinds of posts are to be beleived, or not.

But as the TER directive indicates, the board is more concerned about advertising the sharing information.

And for the record, yes this board always used to be about porn stars who were or were not available. At it's genesis, no one discussed which porn scenes they think are hot. We discussed the girls, they're LIVE performances, which girls were sweet and which ones were bitches. Who came ready to rock, and who showed up drunk.

That type of information sharing seems to be gone. Pity.

So let me get this straight. A guy posts a thread praising a provider he has never seen before and has no ties to, that falls under your definition of a shill? It seems a stretch to call it friendship or loyalty if his relationship begins and ends with a paid for session.

But the same couple of guys post "who has the best tan lines" or "need a milf recommendation" and then trip all over themselves praising the same two providers day in day out and that is cool?

It seems this board is increasingly becoming the private dominion of a few well connected provders and their fan clubs and the posts of interest are being delted under very dubious interpretations of the rules.

The Porn Star Friday thread is a shill thread.

Frankly I find the policy to be far too broad and open to creative interpretation by certain people that I'd never heard of on this particular board until very recently.

Yes, boneboybob, I'm talking about you. Until you suddenly became a mod here, I'd never even seen you post here. And I've been here for more than 6 years.

I'm not going to rock the boat, but I'm not going to just sit here and take it either. So I'm leaving.

Goodbye everyone, it used to be fun.

Jack59

I see it all the time on all the other boards.

Isn't one purpose of the board is to share information? Blanket policies always end up being dumb like some of the TSA policies.

TSA taking milk bottle from the mouth of a 4 month old baby falls in the dumb category. Not making this up, actually happened. Generic same policy for everyone works for robots and CPU controlled systems, not for human beings. Exactly the reason human's have decision logic different from machine logic.

Indeed, there will be shill, that's part of life. Delete them, most of the time you know who the habitual offenders are, block them.

This board has turned in to a bunch of censored crap. Its a fucking PORN message board for god's sake not the PTA.  So we can't even say we had a great time with a "certain" Porn Star by name?  What good is this board then?

I've always felt this was a well-moderated board, and admired Eddie for the job he did.

Quite frankly, if this has turned into "you suck as a mod", it's time for me to go. I'm not foolish enough to think this is about me. Nobody goes to a football game to see the refs, nobody goes to a baseball game to see the umpires, and people don't come to this board to see me moderate. If I'm in the way of the discussion, it's time to find someone else who isn't.

-- Modified on 3/19/2010 7:25:12 PM

AMEN!!! I got the Shill BS myself. I made a comment about a great experience I had with with a well know porn star..and asked if anyone had seen another new porn star, because she had no reviews yet. I wanted to see if it would be worth my time and money...That is the reason I posted because she had NO reviews..wtf..

I call them like I see them.

That being said, I'm not interested in being at war with the longtime, regular posters here, and if how I moderate's getting in the way of the community having a good time with productive discussions and sharing information, then I think it's time for me to go.

Bob, you need to explain your post because it is either incomplete or inapplicable to the scenario you were replying to.

All DollarsandSense did--per him, not contradicted by you or anyone else--was refer to a provider by name and tell what sort of positive experience he had. No contact info, no website, no mention of rates.

That doesn't violate the terms you refer to. Unless you're claiming (without having stated so), that there WAS some self-interest/personal benefit/friendship/loyalty on his part. Sans that, there's no shilling involved and referring to the Shilling policy is irrelevant. So are you claiming that there was shilling involved, but did not mention that in your reply?

If there was no shilling, then it is a Chilling response to imply that we can't make a positive reference to a provider we've seen for the benefit of the community-writ-large. If, with my money spent to be here, I can't find references made to providers, or make any, without any shilling, then what's the point? It's obvious why some providers here don't want positive comments made about other providers, or don't want summary lists of providers posted, because of the competition factor (esp. having lower rate providers being mentioned). But very off-hand, general references made about the quality of a given provider without shilling being disallowed makes no sense.

The fact that his post didn’t appear is a problem of extreme concern to me, as it should be to all members, unless it did in fact violate a rule.  From what we know, it didn’t, so was there some other agenda involved on your part/TER?

So what's the REAL issue here: Why did DollarsandSense's post not appear? You didn't say it was shilling and explain how so, if so; What was the problem/violation and how so?

A thread that's started with unsolicited praise for a provider counts as a shill thread.

That is what D&S's post was.

And yes, that means REPLIES to a thread don't count. It's even explicitly stated as such.

FWIW, this rule has not been around during all of TER's history.

I think you read wrong, based on what you posted.....

....which quoted the rule, which includes this disclaimer to why a "positive post" starter isn't allowed.......

"…for a certain provider for reasons of self-interest, personal benefit, or out of friendship or loyalty."

That's what I'm talking about. Since we don't have DollarsandSense's submitted post, we don't know what he actually wrote, but per what he said he wrote, no indication of self-interest/personal benefit/etc. was involved. Unless there was, in your judgment, but you didn't say that was the case.

In the post of yours I'm replying to, your explanation of the rule is inaccurate because you act as if the self interest part of the rule isn't a necessary factor, when clearly the rule says that it is.

So: Your interpretation of the rule is inaccurate in my opinion. You've ignored an entire clause in the rule, one that gets at the motivation that makes a simple positive comment into a shill. I don't want to read shills, a form of advertising, but I do want to read sincere comments from another member not done to promote anyone,

Do you see the disconnect I'm pointing out re: you appear to have ignored the self-interest part. As it appears then, you've rewritten the rule to fit your own theory.

Without claiming a violation of the self-interest/etc. part of the rule, there is no violation.

Have you changed the rule to drop the self-interest/etc. requirement to make something constitute an inappropriate post?  It seems so.

How would you suggest I prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is not motivated for reasons of self-interest, personal benefit, or out of friendship or loyalty? (FWIW, sharing information with fellow hobbyists outside of the review system, and getting some in return seems to me to be self-interest, since the point is to find out which ladies are good, bad, etc.)

You're also missing the point. Providers are allowed one ad a week. The problem is extra threads singing their praises in effect give them extra ads. Yes, I know: just mentioning the name and how awesome a time you just had with her isn't giving a website or rate information. Well, product placement in a movie isn't a 30 second TV commercial, either, but companies sure do that a lot.

The intent of the rule is not to give ladies extra ads every week. That being said, the rule also says response to queries or other posts are OK... and, by the by, had the original poster made his comment as a response to the ad the lady posted this week (she does have one), it would have been allowed.

your writing of "it's time for me to go" as a moderator has been repeated in this thread a few times. and in all honesty, it seems like the way you moderate *is* getting in the way of the community sharing information and having good discussions.

i figured i'd help call your bluff, but i don't think it will matter much.

Yes. Exactly. My point. Which is why there's a problem with the rule itself as worded. The root of it all comes down to, if at an aggregeate level, the question of what/when/where/how can be said that's positive about a provider without it being considered a shill. A BIG, messy issue. Just trying to point that out.  I recognize that that's what the mods are contending with, but wanted to point out (clearly) the one particular wording issue and the bigger (everpresent) issue. Thanks for your work here.