Not sure if there was an official TOS change or they are just trying to do a CYA with the same LE that persecuted BackPage.  

There is a new blog post on SA at the link below that talks about "reportable" salt daddies (i.e.: Daddies who are violating SA's TOS).  One of the reportable types of "salt" is offering (or accepting) PPM arrangements. Here's a snippet with the relevant text:  

"PPM or “Pay per Meet” is strictly out of bounds on SeekingArrangement.com. Allowance is King (or Queen!) within the Sugar Bowl because it removes any confusion about the nature of your sugar relationship. Read more about why we so strongly suggest allowances here. If a potential Sugar suggests PPM or asks “how much for xxx??” – SALT! Report, block, & move on Sugars!"

Obviously the best practice to avoid this is to always move communications about "allowance" off the site.  But be careful. The blog also advises SB's to get and keep proof of salt actions by capturing emails and screen prints and sending this to SA's customer support team.  

Anyone else seen this or noticed a formal TOS update? Anyone here been warned or kicked off the site for offering PPM?  

Feedback, please.

The TOS has always said that PPM is not allowed.

 
The fact is, they don't police anything, so unless you get reported somehow you're good to go. Even if you were reported, you're probably still good to go.

SA knows the hand the feeds it, and that hand is the Daddies through and through.

Instead of PPM say that you "provide a monthly allowance on a pro rata basis as we meet".

There. Done.

There is no way I'm giving these flakey SBs a monthly allowance in advance. Come to think of it, the payment could be done in arrears, like a mortgage. Hey, I like that idea!

I mostly meet for PPM or P4P but never actually use the acronym, always stick with friends with benefits

it's a "reportable" event if they ask for money for a M&G, or any activity prior to actually meeting, to where SA will allegedly suspend their account.

However, as others have mentioned, SA does not police any of this but has apparently stepped-up taking action if presented with hard evidence (emails/screen prints).

Met a woman for dinner while visiting the area. Long story short, she went BSC, and turned me in to to SA. Am 99% certain nothing written that was specifically "sex for money" in our messaging, not even verbal. But, whatever was there "on the record" was enough to satisfy SA as I got an email notifying of the "repeated" violation of the TOS. Have no idea how they arrived at the offense, much less the repetition of it. The email included the permanent ban of my account.  

So, yes, they are taking action if the SB, 1.) makes a stink, 2.) there is anything remotely like a "suggestion" of P4P to back it up. Have no idea if a screen shot of a text message, off the site, is admissible in SA's eyes as a violation of their own TOS.

Register under a new credit card?

same name, different CC and number, you mean?  

I can't imagine getting another CC with a different name (credit check, etc.?), but maybe it's done . . .  

thanks for any advice on how to get back up and running SA style

Using a different card probably won't make you look like a different person.  The services used by SA and other ecommerce sites to process payments do not share the card number with the "merchant" (SA in this case) due to security issues.  

I don't have any specific knowledge of how SA identifies account owners, but I'd be surprised if they don't use: Name, address (or at least city), email address, and IP address (although there can obviously be multiple accounts under one IP).  

As suggested in above posts, they probably don't care unless there is a problem report. But once an SA agent starts investigating, I expect they will also look at the uploaded pics from old and new accounts to see if a banned user is opening a new account.  

The blog did mention that SB's who are reporting a "Salt Daddy" should send screen caps or copies of SA messages. It also said they must send screen caps of text messages and/or emails that support the "investigation".  They essentially said a "she said, he said" without evidence will resolve in favor of the accused.  

One more interesting point from the blog:  They were very clear that if an SB submits a report AND SA determines that the SB has violated the TOS (whether or not the SD did), the SB will be warned or banned as well.  

Just had a lady ask for 450/hour.

Me Too! except in my case it was $250 per hour that she requested. Might just go for it. She's cute!

I just got suspended for allegedly using escort terminology... Some crazy know it all bitch - reported me...

Damn this is fun shit!!!