Banacek...
- Thread starter Hollander
- Start date
- Status
Quite a bit to reply to here, so I will answer in a list that coincides with your points.
• I forgot that I put the link to this thread in her review thread. Thanks for reminding me. Because I don't want to limit her right to comment, I will leave that as is. If she wants to say anything in here, so be it. But I will not be debating her.
• I didn't say there was a specific board policy to ignore their wishes. I said, "I believe it goes against the spirit of the board to encourage members not to review girls if they ask that." My issue is with any member telling another what they should do in that case and judging them for it like you did. You said Wiggs was a bit of a dick for doing it. If someone agrees not to review a provider who doesn't want the publicity, that is fine with me because it's a personal decision by that individual. But telling others what to do and judging them for it is not fine with me and that's what I feel goes against the spirit of the board since this is first and foremost a review board. And, in fact, you yourself are proof of that. Remember when you were first put in moderation? Waterclone told you that the only posts of yours that would be approved would be reviews.
• Your "chiming in" solution sounds like it skirts the issue just enough to grant you sanctuary. In reality, Wiggs replied to an ISO just like in your example. So how does his review differ any from your "chiming in" with a confirmation? Both types of comments review the provider, just to varying degrees. Both types of comments bring her added unwanted attention, which is the whole point of her asking not to be reviewed. It's seems like a cop-out you are using to fool yourself into looking like you are honoring her wishes. And then to call someone a dick for doing what you yourself would do to a lesser degree crosses a line for me.
• As for the use of sock puppets, I thought that is frowned upon here. Did you do that while you were a mod? Did Slinky know about that? Is that something that was ever discussed among the mods and Slinky?
• To what degree do you think changing a review is okay? How do you change it without changing facts? You made the distinction that changing when you saw them is okay, but you don't think it's okay to change where you saw them? Because if I understand correctly, the fact that you have an issue with is the motel. How does it affect the review if I said I had the provider in a motel, a hotel, my car, her car, my office, my house, her house, etc. in the case of an outcall? How were the members confused by Wiggs claim that he saw her in a motel? I really don't see the importance of that detail in the overall take of a review. And if it helps to disguise yourself, then I see it as a good tactic. Had I used it myself, Heather of a thousand names would never had known it was me and I never would have had to endure her wrath.
• As for your example with Karla, am I understanding you correctly in that you continued to honor Karla's request to not be reviewed but you reviewed the other girls there under a sock puppet? Why would Karla have a problem with your reviewing the other girls that you would need to use a sock puppet? Did her request for no reviews extend to the other girls also?
• I forgot that I put the link to this thread in her review thread. Thanks for reminding me. Because I don't want to limit her right to comment, I will leave that as is. If she wants to say anything in here, so be it. But I will not be debating her.
• I didn't say there was a specific board policy to ignore their wishes. I said, "I believe it goes against the spirit of the board to encourage members not to review girls if they ask that." My issue is with any member telling another what they should do in that case and judging them for it like you did. You said Wiggs was a bit of a dick for doing it. If someone agrees not to review a provider who doesn't want the publicity, that is fine with me because it's a personal decision by that individual. But telling others what to do and judging them for it is not fine with me and that's what I feel goes against the spirit of the board since this is first and foremost a review board. And, in fact, you yourself are proof of that. Remember when you were first put in moderation? Waterclone told you that the only posts of yours that would be approved would be reviews.
• Your "chiming in" solution sounds like it skirts the issue just enough to grant you sanctuary. In reality, Wiggs replied to an ISO just like in your example. So how does his review differ any from your "chiming in" with a confirmation? Both types of comments review the provider, just to varying degrees. Both types of comments bring her added unwanted attention, which is the whole point of her asking not to be reviewed. It's seems like a cop-out you are using to fool yourself into looking like you are honoring her wishes. And then to call someone a dick for doing what you yourself would do to a lesser degree crosses a line for me.
• As for the use of sock puppets, I thought that is frowned upon here. Did you do that while you were a mod? Did Slinky know about that? Is that something that was ever discussed among the mods and Slinky?
• To what degree do you think changing a review is okay? How do you change it without changing facts? You made the distinction that changing when you saw them is okay, but you don't think it's okay to change where you saw them? Because if I understand correctly, the fact that you have an issue with is the motel. How does it affect the review if I said I had the provider in a motel, a hotel, my car, her car, my office, my house, her house, etc. in the case of an outcall? How were the members confused by Wiggs claim that he saw her in a motel? I really don't see the importance of that detail in the overall take of a review. And if it helps to disguise yourself, then I see it as a good tactic. Had I used it myself, Heather of a thousand names would never had known it was me and I never would have had to endure her wrath.
• As for your example with Karla, am I understanding you correctly in that you continued to honor Karla's request to not be reviewed but you reviewed the other girls there under a sock puppet? Why would Karla have a problem with your reviewing the other girls that you would need to use a sock puppet? Did her request for no reviews extend to the other girls also?
The way I read your comments in the thread I didn't know that was the case, I thought we were giving him credit for posting a review. I really only picked up the thread once Lucinda went batshit on you.
I had my Sock Puppets before I was a mod so yes I had them while I was a mod.
Yes Slinky knows about them because he put them into moderation along with billyS.
Sock Puppets are frowned upon if they are used to stir shit or to help someone gang up on someone.
If they are benign like @Perry White it is no problem.
Not only Karla but the owner Jenny spoke to me about reviews.
I had my Sock Puppets before I was a mod so yes I had them while I was a mod.
Yes Slinky knows about them because he put them into moderation along with billyS.
Sock Puppets are frowned upon if they are used to stir shit or to help someone gang up on someone.
If they are benign like @Perry White it is no problem.
Not only Karla but the owner Jenny spoke to me about reviews.
I did give Wiggs credit for posting a review. The distinction is that the thread was already there. The cat was out of the bag so to speak. Others had posted her name, her number, her photo. Kpro reported seeing her. Others, including Wiggs, commented on having conversations with her. And then, over a week later, Wiggs reviewed her.
Perry was a test account that I created to be able to have the experience of a member when I was checking on board function. Slinky and the mods knew about it because I would report on issues I would find using that account. When I came back to the site before moderating again, I posted as Perry for a bit while I decided whether I wanted to come back. When a few members surmised that it might be me, I ran with that and had fun with the banter. It's certainly no longer a secret.
Thanks for explaining about Karla and her spa. I see your dilemma there. But it means that you reviewed providers there even against the wishes of the owner. So do you make a distinction between an individual asking you to refrain from reviews and an owner?
Perry was a test account that I created to be able to have the experience of a member when I was checking on board function. Slinky and the mods knew about it because I would report on issues I would find using that account. When I came back to the site before moderating again, I posted as Perry for a bit while I decided whether I wanted to come back. When a few members surmised that it might be me, I ran with that and had fun with the banter. It's certainly no longer a secret.
Thanks for explaining about Karla and her spa. I see your dilemma there. But it means that you reviewed providers there even against the wishes of the owner. So do you make a distinction between an individual asking you to refrain from reviews and an owner?
I try to balance what's best for me, the board and the provider.
My point was if a provider specifically asks me not to review her I won't write a typical detailed billyS type review.
The rest, especially in regards to Wiggs I'm just going to have to agree that we disagree on his actions and leave it at that.
My point was if a provider specifically asks me not to review her I won't write a typical detailed billyS type review.
The rest, especially in regards to Wiggs I'm just going to have to agree that we disagree on his actions and leave it at that.
Funny, because that's exactly what I saw Wiggs doing. On balance, after seeing an ISO and much discussion about a provider, he decided over a week later that what was best for him and the board was to write a review. And for that he gets slammed by her and judged by you.
You keep shading your take on it with the nuance of how detailed you would comment. If we take her objection as the sole qualifier of that, it has absolutely zero relevance in the matter. She wants no publicity. None. Zero. So just giving her a little is going against her wishes. But if a limited comment helps you sleep at night, so be it.
We certainly do disagree. I will say it again. I think he TOFTT and I applaud him for it. If anyone else feels they should honor a provider's wishes and not review them, that is fine with me. It's a personal decision for them. But I don't condone anyone on here telling anyone else that they have to follow that. Or to judge them for not agreeing with that. That is where I draw the line. Because I stand by what I said, "I believe it goes against the spirit of the board to encourage members not to review girls if they ask that." I hope you see that distinction.
You keep shading your take on it with the nuance of how detailed you would comment. If we take her objection as the sole qualifier of that, it has absolutely zero relevance in the matter. She wants no publicity. None. Zero. So just giving her a little is going against her wishes. But if a limited comment helps you sleep at night, so be it.
We certainly do disagree. I will say it again. I think he TOFTT and I applaud him for it. If anyone else feels they should honor a provider's wishes and not review them, that is fine with me. It's a personal decision for them. But I don't condone anyone on here telling anyone else that they have to follow that. Or to judge them for not agreeing with that. That is where I draw the line. Because I stand by what I said, "I believe it goes against the spirit of the board to encourage members not to review girls if they ask that." I hope you see that distinction.
Yes I waited some time before posting my review and during that time I realized that if there was ever a problem some details needed to be changed to make sure it could not be traced to me personally. I had a VERY good reason for doing this which I pointed out to Banacek. Her threats to Banacek unfortunately proved me correct. And frankly what’s in my review doesn’t matter since “it never happened”.
If anyone is not comfortable with my reviews feel free to ignore them. I do think there is an “ignore” button on here somewhere, use it, please.
That said, if she was adament about nothing being posted and I made a mistake then I totally fucked up. I honestly don’t remember as this was months ago.
As a side note I DID NOT post the ad and I DID NOT post the photo. I believe those were from a PUBLIC website. But since none of it happened it shouldn’t matter.
I had a fun time. I thought others might have had fun as well. Apparently not.
If anyone is not comfortable with my reviews feel free to ignore them. I do think there is an “ignore” button on here somewhere, use it, please.
That said, if she was adament about nothing being posted and I made a mistake then I totally fucked up. I honestly don’t remember as this was months ago.
As a side note I DID NOT post the ad and I DID NOT post the photo. I believe those were from a PUBLIC website. But since none of it happened it shouldn’t matter.
I had a fun time. I thought others might have had fun as well. Apparently not.
I would like to make something clear: if someone here doesn't want to post a review of someone because the person asked them not to then I can't make them, but service providers don't get to tell anyone if they can or cannot be reviewed. And no one here should be telling anyone else here what they can or cannot post (aside from pointing out when they are clearly breaking the rules).
How about if some cash-and-dash/ROB didn't want a review which outed their activities? Would you honor that? Or some massage woman who advertised in a "sensual massage" section with pics in lingerie and then wouldn't even offer a HE and didn't want to have that get our in a review?
Anyone can review any session which they actually had themselves and it's not up to the service provider in the same way Consumer Reports doesn't need permission to review a product.
How about if some cash-and-dash/ROB didn't want a review which outed their activities? Would you honor that? Or some massage woman who advertised in a "sensual massage" section with pics in lingerie and then wouldn't even offer a HE and didn't want to have that get our in a review?
Anyone can review any session which they actually had themselves and it's not up to the service provider in the same way Consumer Reports doesn't need permission to review a product.
When I was in college, I had considered becoming a doctor. I took an entrance exam for medical school and for one of the questions we were asked to rearrange the letters
PNEIS
to form the name of a human body part which is most useful when erect.
Those who answered SPINE are spending their days as doctors now, while the rest of us like me are probably spending their days and nights on Utopia Guide.
PNEIS
to form the name of a human body part which is most useful when erect.
Those who answered SPINE are spending their days as doctors now, while the rest of us like me are probably spending their days and nights on Utopia Guide.
I put up a post in the humor section that you can play along with. Be sure to check it out and check in with your answer.
https://utopiaguide.pl/forums/index.php?threads/audience-participation-jokes.55053/
https://utopiaguide.pl/forums/index.php?threads/audience-participation-jokes.55053/
I'm bumping this thread because the naming of other websites has continued. I just cut a guy some slack and did not enforce my threat because I felt what he had to say was valuable and I hated to lose the post. But that is the last time I'm doing this. Starting this minute, any post that references another website will be deleted.
- Status