and they are linked by the agreement to terms at membership purchase. your assertion that they are different is _contrary_ to fact. agreement to terms is the only mechanism by which TER can enforce any rules without risking a contract violation suit or some other such annoyance. ask a lawyer if you don't believe me.
since there are entities that would probably like to have a pretext to sue TER over zealous rule making and enforcement as you suggest seems risky to me.
1. it is a pretty good speculation. sure TER can modify the rules, but why? you have yet to cite an example of benefit from your proposed rule change other than the FL board incident. the present rules are sufficient to deal with it. a clear headed reading of them includes banishment as a possible sanction. so your proposed rule change adds nothing.
2. my arguments are better than opinion. they are derived from facts and well argued. as a free and clear thinking individual i have the right to dismiss your arguments as faulty. they are not fact based and the logic is defective. defective logic and fallaciaous argument structure is a fact about your presentation.
5. i will not leave my personal risk assessment to TER. if TER is bullied by you into adopting a plan that in my opinion risks a lawsuit it may be in my personal risk management interest to discontinue membership.
6. i can express doubts about what is in your mind based upon other experience with you. the suggestion as posted is poor. it only adds another largely unenforcable rule. it makes much more than the behavior on the FL board a violation. it in fact would mean that a harmless satirical and humorous post that does no harm could be grounds for banning. your proposal is in essence a rule that sneaks in YOUR definition of political correctness into the rule set.
of course you disagree. but progress is also not always positive. excess, meaningless regulation such as you propose has never helped any enterprise grow.
sure at the end of the day TER admin will address it and we will all make our individual decisions. but until that day i am quite happy to debate you and point out the flaws in your thinking and argument.
i challenge you to name any additional incidents that would be covered under the rule aside from the Fl board. it seems to me that to make up a new set of rules to cover one incident only is by itself an indication that your proposal is ill considered and intellectually bankrupt.
Anyone registered as a reviewer can not pose as a provider in posts, either using their handle or an alias.
Anyone registered as a provider can not pose as a reviewer in posts, either using their handle or an alias.
Violations of these rules will result in being banned from discussion boards.
I hope this will help us all better know the real views of each side and avoid game playing.
if your first item is to deal with "alleged provider" buat actual paying "reviewer" members who express views that are contrary to TER policy for providers, then it fails. a _real_ provider could still purchase a reviewer membership and still post those views.
to remedy that you would need to have a means of _verifying_ at membership purchase whether the person was a provider or a reviewer.... i.e. a screening method. that will be good for membership...not! it would discourgage newbies who have never encountered screening before.
both of your proposed rules about "posing" violate the disclaimer that everything here is a work of fiction. presumably there is a legal or risk management reason for that disclaimer.
denying a reviewer membership to a provider who pays for it has discrimination consequences unless thee is a screening mechanism in place to verify provider/reviewer status for all members.
the additional labor of checking posts to discover that no "posing" is being done is a cost of enforcement that is missing in your analysis.
1 - They pick a membership status when they join TER. For example, I am a registered reviewer. They have to stick with the status in discussion boards is all. No background checks needed. LOL
2 - We currently have rules regarding what you can and cannot do and say on the boards. What can be said under alias and handle. Posts are moderated and often not accepted. Nothing new here.
3 - Probably no disclaimer violation, am sure TER lawyers will tell us if there is. You simply are picking your own "fictional" status when you join and need to keep you fictions within that framework.
4 - No discrimination, women can still register as reviewers. There is a female reviewer in here I like A LOT. I am not sure our legal system has yet to come up with anti-provider discrimination laws. Well, except the ones that land them in jail for being providers. LOL
5 - Cost of enforcement? We already have mods and many participants more than willing to point out violations - both voluntary. So not sure what costs you mean. True, doing nothing is always free.
So no one is declined TER membership because of this. They are simply new discussion board rules that preclude something like what happened on th eFL board when a reviewer pretended to be a provider. Also works the other way around.
your separation of them is artificial.
1) so how do you exclude a provider being a real registered reviewer? if they then post that they are a provider with certain policies that violate TER policy then they aren't "posing". with no check then providers can ve reviwing members and vice versa. without a screening your proposal is unenforceable and meaningless.
2) and posts violating those rules are often allowed to stand. having more rules that are unevenly enforced will simply create more chaos not less.
3) if the status is "fictional" then no worry. except then why bother with the rule? it seems to be introducing yet another layer of oversight and a burdensome one at that for the mods. so a mod will now have to scan every post to make sure that it has the appropriate role fro the membership.
4) OK.
5) time is a cost. diverting resources to this would be a waste IMO.
the FL Board incident was handled appropriately without your proposed rules. that would seem to argue that your new rules are not necessary.
now if you have some other incident you would like to discuss????
1 - Nothing excludes a provider from being a reviewer here. If she wants to be 100% reviewer here and provider elsewhere, OK. Again, this is a BOARD suggestion, not registration suggestion.
2 - Is this you advocating there be no rules? Actions may not always happen, but sometimes they do. This provides a basis for action.
3 - It will likely help cut down bogus behavior. No additional layer, as there are already board rules. Mod duties remain the same. They screen those as they do now and not screen those they do not now. Just one more rule to know and another tool in the kit.
5 - No resources diverted. If we are concerned about "time is cost" then we need to limit the board more. That will make mod lives easier. Should we limit the number of posts people make in a month so as to save TER time?
6 - The suggestion could have detered the FL incident because of a stiffer penalty. It is your opinion that it was handled appropriately, not necessarily the opinions of others.
Some seek to improve things, other just like to cling to the status quo. I welcome eveyone's views on how to improve TER.
by clicking on / agreeing to terms and conditions you bind yourself by the rules. that is an essential step in being able to enforce them with no hazard. so your claim that the two are distinct is a false claim.
1. in order to make a rule enforceable on the board it has to be made a part of the registration process. otherwise you may risk a lawsuit from a troll.
2. you are making a false argument since you cannot make a valid one. my argument is that multiplying rules without a demonstrable need is risky. selective enforcement is also risky. many existing rules are not enforced.
3. there is no demonstrated necessity for this tool in the kit. at least you haven't brought forward an example yet that would establish the need.
5. false. checking that a membership and a board persona are in synch requires additional effort. it can't make mod's lives easier to have anothe compliance regulation to check. i have no opinion as to limiting posts per month. that is a purely economic decision for TER. i would think that if there is a hot topic involving community safety it could be a problem.
6. i really doubt that the FL board incident is foremost in your mind. while i think that the punishment is appropriate your rule _doesn't_ make a stiffer punishment easier. IMO TER could have banned the reviewer posing as a provider and been within its rights under the existing rules. IMO TER could have required that his source for the leaked information from the Provider Only board be outed as a condition for not being banned too. there are numerous violations of TER rules that could have led to the banishment of the reviewer and/or his source from the Provider Board.
sometimes you have to recognize that a proposed fix for an alleged problem is completely useless or has the potential to make things worse. different and new need not be an improvement. it may have the appearance of doing something while it in fact does nothing.
rules, new or old, are nothing without an enforcement process. there are numerous violations of TER rules that are called out and no enforcement happens. to pretend that a new rule is needed to fix such a rare situation is silly, illogical. the existing rules cover the case you cited.
Your implication was that you can not change TER board rules without changing terms and agreement. So you acknowledge the fact that by signing up you agree to follow the board rules, even if they change? Or are you saying TER can not change its rules? I do not buy you as the expert in that area. TER Admin probably is. Board rules are located with the boards for a reason. So, back to Board Rules.
1 - Speculation on your psrt. Please cite source. I am sure TER retains the right to modify its rules. Now if there is a way to ban discussion board participation while they keep membership, perhaps there is a compromise position. But I do not think I have seen TER say they can not modify their rules and enforce them. So your opinion is speculation unless legal citations can be provided. I will also accept a TER lawyer saying you are correct. LOL
2 - And your arguements are opinions, not fact. So you equally make "false arguments". Well, my opinion at least as no one has made me the TER judge of what is a valid arguement or not. I guess you were granted that authority. LOL Enforcement of rules is a separate issue. The point here is to include a new rule rather than sitting on hands fretting change.
5 - Your argument was increased cost. Effort to do this rule would likely have less impact than an significant increase of posts by moderated personnel. I will leave risk assessment studies to TER.
6 - You are not one to determine what is in my mind, so don't claim to be. Address the suggestion as posted instead of seeing the boogyman in everything. Stick with facts rather than speculation. And it does not matter what my various motivations are anyway. Perhaps they are to make TER better? Address the suggestion, not the poster's motivation.
I disagree with the do nothing conclusion. Great businesses and civilizations evolve. They learn as they go. They typically evolve by being open to new suggestions. So your view is noted. Cool, thanks. But I don't buy many of your conclusions that seem to be more opinion-based rather than fact-based. Let's have TER admin address it.
and they are linked by the agreement to terms at membership purchase. your assertion that they are different is _contrary_ to fact. agreement to terms is the only mechanism by which TER can enforce any rules without risking a contract violation suit or some other such annoyance. ask a lawyer if you don't believe me.
since there are entities that would probably like to have a pretext to sue TER over zealous rule making and enforcement as you suggest seems risky to me.
1. it is a pretty good speculation. sure TER can modify the rules, but why? you have yet to cite an example of benefit from your proposed rule change other than the FL board incident. the present rules are sufficient to deal with it. a clear headed reading of them includes banishment as a possible sanction. so your proposed rule change adds nothing.
2. my arguments are better than opinion. they are derived from facts and well argued. as a free and clear thinking individual i have the right to dismiss your arguments as faulty. they are not fact based and the logic is defective. defective logic and fallaciaous argument structure is a fact about your presentation.
5. i will not leave my personal risk assessment to TER. if TER is bullied by you into adopting a plan that in my opinion risks a lawsuit it may be in my personal risk management interest to discontinue membership.
6. i can express doubts about what is in your mind based upon other experience with you. the suggestion as posted is poor. it only adds another largely unenforcable rule. it makes much more than the behavior on the FL board a violation. it in fact would mean that a harmless satirical and humorous post that does no harm could be grounds for banning. your proposal is in essence a rule that sneaks in YOUR definition of political correctness into the rule set.
of course you disagree. but progress is also not always positive. excess, meaningless regulation such as you propose has never helped any enterprise grow.
sure at the end of the day TER admin will address it and we will all make our individual decisions. but until that day i am quite happy to debate you and point out the flaws in your thinking and argument.
i challenge you to name any additional incidents that would be covered under the rule aside from the Fl board. it seems to me that to make up a new set of rules to cover one incident only is by itself an indication that your proposal is ill considered and intellectually bankrupt.
I think you are attaching entirely too much importance to the "real views" of anyone posting here. Honestly, it's an internet discussion board about paying for sex, not life and death.
What is the difference who says what? How does it effect who you decide to see? Hopefully it doesn't since we should all be making our decisions based on reviews and one-on-one contact, not on what gets posted on a fairly frivolous phenomenon known as a message board.
I view the review section and the discussion boards as two entirely separate components of TER. One is useful in making decisions, the other is entertaining and, though educational at times, not to be taken too seriously.
goes for both advocating changes and defending the status quo.
As you say, either way it will not effect how you choose.
The fact I use TER posts by providers in my analysis is my business. I HAVE nixed some based on their views as I know I would not have fun with them. True, reviews and other factors usually out weigh.
So while this is certainly not the major crisis of the day, the Suggestion $ Policy board is here for a reason so I am participating on it.
You generally have a good perspective, so view sincerely appreciated.
Unfortunately I will only be able participate in the debate until probably Tuesday night or Wednesday. I need to stop starting threads unless I have free days to follow up on them. 
so satire would pose a risk....