The prohibition against discussing UTRs has to do with naming an actress and stating that she provides UTR, or stating that a specific agency handles a named talent UTR - in effect, outing them.
It's really not that complicated. The ad below does not fit that criteria because she does not give her name publicly.
Of course, if all one wishes to do is whinge, why they can always find something to whinge about.
If you want to engage in whining about the mean ol' moderators being hypocrites, do it elsewhere than in a lady's ad. She has nothing to do with my being a hypocrite.
Ladies get ONE ad a week. You, on the other hand, are free to make any number of threads discussing things during that week. Please make your questions, comments, whatever germane to the ad- preferably addressed to the lady in question rather than trying to snipe at someone rudely (and flaming a lady who's been setting up PS dates on this board longer than you've been around, because you don't like how she designs her page? Kinda rude). People who seem to have problems with this concept will be moderated.
I'm letting the ad below stand. If it makes me a hypocrite, so be it. My goal is to make things work within the rules, and traditionally, the PS Board has larger latitude in allowing ads than any other board- because we have UTR PS's, models, etc. as part of our scope. That comes straight from Admin- some of the guidelines do not apply. I allow ads that link to sites that aren't badged, and would be bounced on any other board, for instance.
I'm going to let agencies say things like "we have UTRs" in their ads.
I'm going to allow general discussions ON UTRs that don't say "I think this lady might be with this agency" or "I think this agency is the one to talk to". Like this:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=23&MessageID=150385
Basically, when it comes to what I want: I want to get people in the habit of doing what Fast Eddie suggested years ago:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=23&MessageID=71725
"Asking if a girl is UTR is really a waste of time... if someone said she was, then she wouldn't be UTR, would she?
FYI, Both Sly and myself believe if a girl desires to be UTR, her wish should be honored, so you won't see any UTR provider being outed here. That's what PM's and back channeling are for. So if you're a VIP member, I'd suggest asking someone to PM you if they know the answer, or provide an email address where you can be reached."
Now, if all of the above makes me a flaming hypocrite who is the dumbest moderator ever to moderate an adult discussion board EVAR, well, so be it. If you'd like to tell me what a dumbshit I am, or maybe even convince me this is all wrong, fine. This is your thread to do it in.
-- Modified on 2/2/2011 3:05:52 PM
"Asking if a girl is UTR is really a waste of time... if someone said she was, then she wouldn't be UTR, would she?
FYI, Both Sly and myself believe if a girl desires to be UTR, her wish should be honored, so you won't see any UTR provider being outed here. That's what PM's and back channeling are for. So if you're a VIP member, I'd suggest asking someone to PM you if they know the answer, or provide an email address where you can be reached."
The prohibition against discussing UTRs has to do with naming an actress and stating that she provides UTR, or stating that a specific agency handles a named talent UTR - in effect, outing them.
It's really not that complicated. The ad below does not fit that criteria because she does not give her name publicly.
Of course, if all one wishes to do is whinge, why they can always find something to whinge about.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=23&MessageID=150473
So, apparently it IS possible to go "hey, backchannel me about UTRs" and a mod will let it through.
And as far as insults from you, I don't mind them so much. I have rather low expectations of someone who would betray the trust of others (me being one of those others).
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?BoardID=9&MessageID=139795
Oh, you mean doing THE EXACT SAME THING YOU DID?
Yeah, right.
You want to out it here, we can...
My point is that I don't expect much but contempt from you, given your own public admissions regarding your past behavior, and haven't for quite some time. You do an excellent job of meeting my expectations in that regard in this forum.
I'd happily take this to PM. And you know Admin's email address regarding issues on moderation if you think my douchebaggery is intolerable.
Also, I recall you weren't always Eddie's #1 fan either, so you not being best buds with a moderator here isn't much of a change. And there's no need for you to like me, respect me or whatever.
But this isn't the Mr. French Board, so, no, we're not going to turn this into extended discussion about why you had to write a resignation letter, and that's not my intent. I am simply noting that things like that don't pass unnoticed.
The PS board seems like it should be the easiest board to mod, but the opposite is true. There is never black and white, only gray when it comes to enforcing the rules that were not crafted for PS's ,but for providers. B3 and I used to PM every day about posts and it never ended. Coming from someone who has a little perspective, B3 and Puck are doing a great job. The old PS mod regime had a very unique way of doing things and these guys have fought hard to reign it in. I now return to the hole from whence I crawled out of.
I miss your sage counsel, not that I don't like my current co-mod.
I hope this means you'll be around here more often.
I think a few very simple rules would be fine:
1. Don't out an utr by name (e.g., Yeah x girl is available, but she's utr). This is a rule that was in place with previous moderators and is reasonable.
2. If someone asks if a girl is available utr. And someone say's, "PM me" beneath the message or "you have mail." The girl was obviously outed, so I would be against this.
3. Saying to someone who asks about a particular girl, "you may want to contact x or y agencies" That was tolerated under the previous moderators, but doesn't appear to be tolerated currently, which is rather puzzling, because neutral advice should be allowed.
-- Modified on 2/3/2011 8:35:39 AM
Please note that agency owners have specifically asked me that they NOT be invoked as potential sources for UTR ladies- saying "you might want to call around to an agency" without specifiying one is OK, but no, I do not want specific names invoked (because in the past, this has been used as a dodge to say "wink wink, I have access to this agency's UTR list and I know she's on it"). So, no, no naming names or agencies when you're responding. That sort of stuff is to stay off the board.
As for BBFS, I'm not censoring any longtime users when discussion on the topic predates my being here as a mod. TER guidelines are that "which providers do it" isn't to be discussed in provider reviews or board posts, but it is most specifically NOT a universal ban on discussing the topic. I would not interpret my allowing discussion as being an endorsement of a practice, as you seem to be doing- and I think that you'll find that I've even said, in this very forum, that I completely understand why a PS who shoots scenes uncovered with male talent won't see a hobbyist uncovered, even if said hobbyist had stacks of AIM tests demonstrating that he's clean as a whistle.
That's nice of the agency owners to ask, but the fact of the matter is that if someone merely suggests that someone should check with a particular agency or two for information that does not out them and thus are the types of posts that should be allowed.
And it's not a dodge to do so.
-- Modified on 2/3/2011 10:46:18 AM
No matter how many times you bring it up, no matter how many times I have to dump a post saying 'ask xxx agency' when you have been specifically told it is not permitted, no matter how much you protest - it is not permitted and it will not see the light of day.
Period.
Ever.
What, you thought B³ had the douchebaggery thing all to himself?
