In the past it was never allowed to discuss delisted providers. The written policy still confims this. However the rule was quietly relaxed a few months ago and it is now allowed to discuss delisted providers on the boards.
I believe that is a terrible idea, and the old policy should be reinstated. Many ladies are delisted at their own request, for reasons such as retirement, or going UTR. Many times it is for safety reasons such as stalking, S/O problems, legal issues, child custody etc. If a lady wishes to be delisted for those types of reasons, it can be very hurtful to allow public discussion about said ladies. It almost defeats the purpose of delisting. Her reviews and profile might be gone, but there can still be public discussion. It just doesn't make sense.
In the case of ladies being delisted for cause, such as breaking TER rules, then allowing discussion on the boards sort of gives them free advertising. Why would TER want to do that for rule breakers? So, in my opinion, even ladies delisted for cause should not be discussed. The very few exceptions (which were already in place with the old policy) are ripoffs and scams.
-- Modified on 8/1/2012 11:42:39 AM
The recent change makes no sense at all.
For the exact reasons that you stated.
The policy is probably another "experiment" because it is lacking in the logic department.
But there is one big problem that has always existed, namely, how does one ever know if someone is delisted?
Shouldn't there be a database (sort of a rogues' gallery, if you will) of all the providers (and why not clients too who misbehave?) that can be checked first if there is any question about them?
And, if this is done, there should be some way to delineate between the gals who left in good standing and come back anytime they want to, and those who are more or less bannished. There's no reason why the former should be tarred by the later, after all.
Even as a moderator(ex) said "database" was inaccessible to us. Don't expect to ever have access to it.
It is also none of our business as to why a provider is delisted.
Well that would totally defeat the whole purpose of being d-listed. Infact most delisted providers and d-listed because they want to be . Most girls who are up to no good are exposed via reviews and really dont care about the hobby anyway
When you see discussions of a delisted provider. Doesn't that solve the issue?
The point is they allow discussing delisted providers now. How do you think I found out they allowed it? It's not like they made a big announcement. I reported a post, and the reply was that it is allowed now. My post here on the S&P board is for them to change the rules back.
Because a certain highly ranked MN based provider just got delisted and a discussion thread about it on the MN board was deleted by Admin based on the old rule, simply that "delisted providers may not be discussed".
Personally, I think there needs to be distinction made between delisted vs banned. Delisted meaning at the request of the provider and that should be respected as a desire to be completely uninvolved with TER. Banned meaning that the provider was at fault for breaking a TER rule. I don't agree that discussion of her is free advertising. I think its important to be able to point out a provider who has come back under a new name and be able to reference her old name for the benefit of the hobbyist in that most of the time that is done to escape a problem with the past. I also have to wonder if a provider should be allowed to be delisted if she had bad reviews. Perhaps exceptions for rip-off's should be made, or even if she had reviews of less than a 5 on performance.
At a minimum, I think if it can be proven to TER that a delisted provider had returned under a new name, and had requested delisting, then it should be fair to discuss her and her old reviews should be combined with her new ones. If she was banned, she should not be allowed under the new name either (I think that part is current policy)
In the case of discussing delisted providers, There were some threads where delisted providers were being discussed, people reported the psot and were told that discussing delisted providers is allowed now. I was one person who reported a post and was given that answer. through some PMs and some posts on various boards, I found out that some others got the same info in the same way.
If what you are saying happened on the MN board is true (and I have no reason to doubt you) then maybe they 'quietly" changed the rule back. (Or they are just being inconsistant)
Here is the reason given for my post regarding the newly delisted provider being "not allowed":
"Reason: Your post contains a reference to a delisted / banned provider which is not allowed per TER board posting policies."
This was yesterday, 8-21-12
This just proves what I said. They either changed the rule back (wisely), or they are being inconsistant. (which would not be a surprise)
The message I (and others) got back in May was that discussing delisted providers is now allowed. There are threads still up which discuss delisted providers.
I hope they did change the rule back.
This might help clear this up, NOT! - the response I got when I raised a problem report about the recent thread being pulled due to the original rule. I had pointed out to them the thread on the Chgo board that was allowed:
By TER Customer Support [1508685] - 8/23/2012 1:03:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
It is dependent on the circumstance of the providers reasons for not being listed on TER.
We thank you in advance for understanding.
Thank you for the support,
--TER Support Staff
====================================================================
====================================================================
By oleoneeye - 8/22/2012 6:36:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
you, Admin, took this post of mine down along with the entire thread which was about a delisted provider, and the reason givin to me was because it referred to a delisted/banned provider. However, there has been discussion on the suggestion board recently stating that the TER policy had changed on this and that it was now allowed. There was a thread on the Chicago board a few months back where the discussion about Renata was allowed to stay up even though she had delisted herself as well. So what is the correct policy? There seems to be inconsistency on this.
====================================================================
By TER Customer Support [1617324] - 8/23/2012 3:23:32 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
We are working on a new version as well as guidelines that will address some of this.
It is not a black and white area and we usually have to take the cases one by one.
Thank you for the support,
--TER Support Staff
====================================================================
====================================================================
By oleoneeye - 8/21/2012 11:36:54 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently a provider named xxxxxxxxxxx - TER name xxxxxxxxx, was delisted. I think the membership deserves to know when this is because a provider has delisted herself vs having been banned by TER for violations. It goes to her credibility and hobbyists deserve this information.
Is there a way this can be determined? I know there is a rule about discussing delisted providers. It would seem valid for cases where the provider does not wish to be involved with TER. But it would seem appropriate to allow discussion of banned providers, especially when they did not request the delisting and are still active with a web-site and ads.
====================================================================
-- Modified on 8/23/2012 9:23:11 AM