Here is why we don't want members commenting on provider prices
- Thread starter AlwaysHavingFun
- Start date
- Status
I definitely understand your statement. The only thing I can say is that I could swear that I had read a previous posting to #360 by Pokler that said something along the lines that her pricing was out of his range of comfort, something like that. So I responded by adding my two cents in the event that this would help in his decision making. Otherwise your right, why would I interject such a statement when nobody was asking about pricing. Also how would I know that there was any pricing issue by Pokler to begin with?His previous post to #360 was about her going into the city. Maybe Pokler or Banacek can shed some light into this matter.
It's quite simple. You are suffering from monger hallucinatory syndrome. After reading too many posts about providers, the mind plays tricks on you and things you think you read are no longer there.
Or, it is quite possible that post #359 (and #360) magically disappeared when a waterclone waved his magic wand over it for complaining about price, which is a no-no on UG.
Or, it is quite possible that post #359 (and #360) magically disappeared when a waterclone waved his magic wand over it for complaining about price, which is a no-no on UG.
You can argue that the wording does not specifically exclude whining that a girl is to expensive for you. Well, this is not a court and we are not restricted to strict adherence to the wording of the rule. We are capable of following the spirit of the rule. I interpret this rule to include no bitching about prices a specific girl charges or begging for discounts.
1) I never commented on what someone else paid let alone enjoyed
2) my comments were only about me and my budget
3) I've asked you 3x to show the rule where such comments are prohibited and you have not done so since there is no such rule
4) I interpret your actions as being evidence of your own inabililty to understand the rule and of your vendetta against me
2) my comments were only about me and my budget
3) I've asked you 3x to show the rule where such comments are prohibited and you have not done so since there is no such rule
4) I interpret your actions as being evidence of your own inabililty to understand the rule and of your vendetta against me
I found the first part of this sentence troubling and brought it to the moderators attention:
"Unfortunately you are cost prohibative and have priced yourself out of my market."
even though you tried to temper it by the last part.
On the other hand, we let this comment slide even though it continued down that same road:
"Her website says $500 for an hour. $260 is very doable but Evidenty she has raised her price."
And I chose to address it by pointing out that the posted prices in her ad thread for UG members were less than the prices on her website.
Our concern is to prevent any discussions about whether or not a provider is worth the money they are asking. They can ask whatever they want. You can see them or pass based on that. But imagine if every member chimed in and posted whenever a provider is out of their price point. It's the same argument we made recently regarding posting comments about personal preferences. We are just trying to keep threads moving along without getting bogged down on everyone's personal preferences in REVIEW THREADS.
So while you are correct in that you did not violate the specifics of the rule as Slinky posted it:
"No one should be commenting about what anyone else has paid for a session which they enjoyed. Pay what you want and STFU about what other people feel they want to pay for their sessions."
we felt you violated the spirit of the law.
And to your fourth point, neither Waterclone nor I nor Slinky has a vendetta against. I can personally say that I usually welcome your contributions and look forward to your insight. However, and this is a BIG however, you do have a tendency at times to cross the line and cause situations that we frown upon. It is in this instance that we have cautioned you. (You have 4 warnings, so this is clearly not the first time we have had issues with your content.) You are making a bigger deal out of this than is necessary. Accept what waterclone has said and move on.
"Unfortunately you are cost prohibative and have priced yourself out of my market."
even though you tried to temper it by the last part.
On the other hand, we let this comment slide even though it continued down that same road:
"Her website says $500 for an hour. $260 is very doable but Evidenty she has raised her price."
And I chose to address it by pointing out that the posted prices in her ad thread for UG members were less than the prices on her website.
Our concern is to prevent any discussions about whether or not a provider is worth the money they are asking. They can ask whatever they want. You can see them or pass based on that. But imagine if every member chimed in and posted whenever a provider is out of their price point. It's the same argument we made recently regarding posting comments about personal preferences. We are just trying to keep threads moving along without getting bogged down on everyone's personal preferences in REVIEW THREADS.
So while you are correct in that you did not violate the specifics of the rule as Slinky posted it:
"No one should be commenting about what anyone else has paid for a session which they enjoyed. Pay what you want and STFU about what other people feel they want to pay for their sessions."
we felt you violated the spirit of the law.
And to your fourth point, neither Waterclone nor I nor Slinky has a vendetta against. I can personally say that I usually welcome your contributions and look forward to your insight. However, and this is a BIG however, you do have a tendency at times to cross the line and cause situations that we frown upon. It is in this instance that we have cautioned you. (You have 4 warnings, so this is clearly not the first time we have had issues with your content.) You are making a bigger deal out of this than is necessary. Accept what waterclone has said and move on.
1. Don't care.
2. That is a lie. Just because it's deleted doesn't mean I can't see the post and call you out. You made a disparaging comment about her price in general as it related to the market, not your own budget.
3. I quoted the rule in the post to which you are replying. I even explained, in small words for you, how your post fell into my interpretation of the rule.
4. If I had a vendetta against you, you wouldn't still be posting here.
I'm done fighting with you on this.
2. That is a lie. Just because it's deleted doesn't mean I can't see the post and call you out. You made a disparaging comment about her price in general as it related to the market, not your own budget.
3. I quoted the rule in the post to which you are replying. I even explained, in small words for you, how your post fell into my interpretation of the rule.
4. If I had a vendetta against you, you wouldn't still be posting here.
I'm done fighting with you on this.
From reference.com:
If something is cost prohibitive, it has such a high price that someone struggles to be able to afford it. The phrase "cost prohibitive" is subjective, and an item that may be affordable to one person may be considered cost prohibitive to another person.
So, you see how this can result in a debate that we don't want here?
If something is cost prohibitive, it has such a high price that someone struggles to be able to afford it. The phrase "cost prohibitive" is subjective, and an item that may be affordable to one person may be considered cost prohibitive to another person.
So, you see how this can result in a debate that we don't want here?
No, I replied to your second post. See my reply in #361. This was in reply to your followup post. I specifically replied to the second post rather than the first, because it contained an actual price that I found to be contrary to her stated ad thread price. Your original post did not mention any specific price and I found it to be contrary to UG policy, so I reported it and intentionally did not comment on it here so as to not draw any more attention to it. Unfortunately, that didn't work too well as we can all see.
Now, I guess the mods will have to have a meeting and come up with a new, all expansive price discussion rule to satisfy these situations and prevent it from happening again.
Now, I guess the mods will have to have a meeting and come up with a new, all expansive price discussion rule to satisfy these situations and prevent it from happening again.
Now you are getting the gist of the problem. Simply put, neither I nor waterclone nor Slinky nor anyone else on this board gives a rat's ass about your lack of funds or your other problems. And we therefore don't want to see you posting about it. Does that make it clear enough for you? If not, you may find yourself gone. Because while waterclone is not the APM, I can safely say that this is exactly the type of shit that annoys the APM to the point of banning members. So, if you keep this up and wind up being banned, don't say that I clearly did not warn you.
The irony here is that before I made the comment I looked at the rules to be sure I'm not breaking any ( since the topic was $). I concluded I was ok since my remarks were not about what someone else spent. This shows my respect for Slinkys rules.
Anyway I see 2 positives from this latest episode of the Pokler files:
1) The newly defined position on not commenting on pricing is now clear to all
2) Kk will benefit since guys now realize she offers a generous UG discount from her stated rates
Anyway I see 2 positives from this latest episode of the Pokler files:
1) The newly defined position on not commenting on pricing is now clear to all
2) Kk will benefit since guys now realize she offers a generous UG discount from her stated rates
- Status