JAG Down?
- Thread starter DannyNJ
- Start date
wsb-
1) I presumed LE had some access, but I felt that opening it up via INSTANT ACCESS made it too easy for ANY LE to have access. Most JAG members are paying $120 per year and I felt that for that kind of fee they deserved some security.
2) JAG requires their members to post DETAILED reviews - contact phone numbers, street addresses (or at least a very close idea of the exact location) and so forth. Failure to provide that info meant that your review was invalid. (Unfortunately they recently began an automated program to accept reviews and there were many lame reviews that would never have been accepted by a human moderator.)
3) The linquistics actually make the least difference as far as I was concerned. I must admit I was one of the most graphic of reviewers - I wrote 'em like I experienced 'em. I have a review that I want to post here on UG and I am struggling with certain experiences I want to describe... I'll post it in a few days and see what the reactions are. (Are there a set of guidelines posted anywhere for UG reviews?)
Regarding JAG, I think it has been going downhill ever since it decided to become a pay site. It was a much more interesting site when it was free - there was a much greater influx of info that spanned a wider range of provider experiences. I guess it's greed that is slowly killing JAG.
Wowie69
1) I presumed LE had some access, but I felt that opening it up via INSTANT ACCESS made it too easy for ANY LE to have access. Most JAG members are paying $120 per year and I felt that for that kind of fee they deserved some security.
2) JAG requires their members to post DETAILED reviews - contact phone numbers, street addresses (or at least a very close idea of the exact location) and so forth. Failure to provide that info meant that your review was invalid. (Unfortunately they recently began an automated program to accept reviews and there were many lame reviews that would never have been accepted by a human moderator.)
3) The linquistics actually make the least difference as far as I was concerned. I must admit I was one of the most graphic of reviewers - I wrote 'em like I experienced 'em. I have a review that I want to post here on UG and I am struggling with certain experiences I want to describe... I'll post it in a few days and see what the reactions are. (Are there a set of guidelines posted anywhere for UG reviews?)
Regarding JAG, I think it has been going downhill ever since it decided to become a pay site. It was a much more interesting site when it was free - there was a much greater influx of info that spanned a wider range of provider experiences. I guess it's greed that is slowly killing JAG.
Wowie69
Wowie --
I agree that JAG declined in value after it became a pay site, but I am still having a hard time following some of your logic.
As Justme states above, comparing UG and JAG is like comparing apples and oranges. They are geared toward providing two completely different services. A comparison of UG and TBD would be a much better fit in my view.
At any rate, irrespective of whether you prefer UG, TBD, EA, *** or JAG, that's your business, but I really don't see how the intant access feature is a problem. Indeed, it is actually a benefit for JAG members as it brings new members/ideas/reviews/etc. into the fold.
As Ozzy states above, LE can get into any site, so instant access hardly increases the risk of LE presence. Moreover, most hobbyists don't seem to understand that writing a review of a commercial sex experience is not akin to prostitution and is not illegal (in the same way describing how to make a bomb is not illegal). I can give you the more detailed Constitutional analysis on this point if you would like. Separately, if your concern is that you think LE needs to read reviews in order to locate providers, think again.
Lastly, JAG does not require detailed address info. Telephone info and general location (e.g., "upper east side"), which is info the provider has probably already made public, is sufficient.
--WSB
I agree that JAG declined in value after it became a pay site, but I am still having a hard time following some of your logic.
As Justme states above, comparing UG and JAG is like comparing apples and oranges. They are geared toward providing two completely different services. A comparison of UG and TBD would be a much better fit in my view.
At any rate, irrespective of whether you prefer UG, TBD, EA, *** or JAG, that's your business, but I really don't see how the intant access feature is a problem. Indeed, it is actually a benefit for JAG members as it brings new members/ideas/reviews/etc. into the fold.
As Ozzy states above, LE can get into any site, so instant access hardly increases the risk of LE presence. Moreover, most hobbyists don't seem to understand that writing a review of a commercial sex experience is not akin to prostitution and is not illegal (in the same way describing how to make a bomb is not illegal). I can give you the more detailed Constitutional analysis on this point if you would like. Separately, if your concern is that you think LE needs to read reviews in order to locate providers, think again.
Lastly, JAG does not require detailed address info. Telephone info and general location (e.g., "upper east side"), which is info the provider has probably already made public, is sufficient.
--WSB
general location (e.g., "upper east side"), which is info the provider has probably already made public, is sufficient
I remember that fight.
WSB - By and large I agree with your previous post, however I think that traditionally JAG had been a labor of love and now it seems if MM and MC (does he even post anymore?) view it as more of a burden. As such, the quality of moderation on the review side has definitely diminished.
Moreover, in the last year the new JAG has clearly become a fairly well known entity. I believe part of the success of JAG in years past was its relative secrecy. This created a community of Johns that by and large trusted eachother. I'm fairly sure that that trust is far gone. The problem is that much of the details posted on JAG require a certain amount of mutual trust. That absent, I think that the board drops down some significant notches in utility.
More than that, it creates an atmosphere of cautiuon which has carried over onto the discussion boards (which I often stated were my only reason for visiting JAG). No offense to the current frequent posters to JAG, but the discussion board that I last saw in April was a very faint shadow of what it had been just one year before.
I remember that fight.
WSB - By and large I agree with your previous post, however I think that traditionally JAG had been a labor of love and now it seems if MM and MC (does he even post anymore?) view it as more of a burden. As such, the quality of moderation on the review side has definitely diminished.
Moreover, in the last year the new JAG has clearly become a fairly well known entity. I believe part of the success of JAG in years past was its relative secrecy. This created a community of Johns that by and large trusted eachother. I'm fairly sure that that trust is far gone. The problem is that much of the details posted on JAG require a certain amount of mutual trust. That absent, I think that the board drops down some significant notches in utility.
More than that, it creates an atmosphere of cautiuon which has carried over onto the discussion boards (which I often stated were my only reason for visiting JAG). No offense to the current frequent posters to JAG, but the discussion board that I last saw in April was a very faint shadow of what it had been just one year before.
JM --
As usual, I agree with much of what you say, especially the diminished state of the message board. However, I believe that even a diminished JAG is better than the public alternatives for posting certain kinds of information. Specifically, reviews and frank discussion concerning a host of issues related to providers that simply cannot be discussed in a public forum.
I think JAG, to a certain extent, has been the victim of a bit of rumormongering by individuals who would prefer to see the key contributors post elsewhere. While some on the supply-side may have access or gain access from time-to-time, I don't believe the problem to be pervasive. I think there are people who would want you to believe that it is, but I don't believe that to be the case. LE having access is similarly a red herring, for the reasons I stated in my reply to Wowie, among other reasons.
I must admit though that I am a bit mystified by the reaction of some to the "problems" at JAG. You are correct when you state that trust is important, but how much trust can you ever really have for people who post anonymously and who you don't really know (even if you've met them for drinks once or twice)??? This goes for any forum, public or private, so I don't know if I would really agree that there has been a break-down in the trust between johns. I think it all comes back to a few people claiming that JAG is overrun with providers and leveraging this into a general state of mistrust (sounds like Macarthyism).
Many people disagree with the way JAG is run and were disappointed with the conversion to a pay site, as well as the ostensive overall change in philosophy. I believe that many were also deeply dismayed when they got a peak behind the curtain and found out that OZ (as in "the wizard of", not "Ozzy") wasn't all he was cracked-up to be. That's all well and good, but I don't see how any of the foregoing should have any effect on utilizing JAG for its original purpose - a forum where clients can have frank discussions about the supply side.
Best,
WSB
As usual, I agree with much of what you say, especially the diminished state of the message board. However, I believe that even a diminished JAG is better than the public alternatives for posting certain kinds of information. Specifically, reviews and frank discussion concerning a host of issues related to providers that simply cannot be discussed in a public forum.
I think JAG, to a certain extent, has been the victim of a bit of rumormongering by individuals who would prefer to see the key contributors post elsewhere. While some on the supply-side may have access or gain access from time-to-time, I don't believe the problem to be pervasive. I think there are people who would want you to believe that it is, but I don't believe that to be the case. LE having access is similarly a red herring, for the reasons I stated in my reply to Wowie, among other reasons.
I must admit though that I am a bit mystified by the reaction of some to the "problems" at JAG. You are correct when you state that trust is important, but how much trust can you ever really have for people who post anonymously and who you don't really know (even if you've met them for drinks once or twice)??? This goes for any forum, public or private, so I don't know if I would really agree that there has been a break-down in the trust between johns. I think it all comes back to a few people claiming that JAG is overrun with providers and leveraging this into a general state of mistrust (sounds like Macarthyism).
Many people disagree with the way JAG is run and were disappointed with the conversion to a pay site, as well as the ostensive overall change in philosophy. I believe that many were also deeply dismayed when they got a peak behind the curtain and found out that OZ (as in "the wizard of", not "Ozzy") wasn't all he was cracked-up to be. That's all well and good, but I don't see how any of the foregoing should have any effect on utilizing JAG for its original purpose - a forum where clients can have frank discussions about the supply side.
Best,
WSB
Well, I think that trust can be established in multiple ways, or perhaps I mean a different idea than what is conveyed in that particular word. In the past, there was kind of a MAD strategy working. Ostensibly, each poster on JAG had about the same things to lose if the information on the board became overly public. I think at one point JAGsters were fairly uniform in their approach to hobbyboard activities - at least that was the perception. It seems now, however, that there are some fairly scummy elements wandering around JAG (and wouldn't Catelli feel vindicated). Now, I'm willing to admit that these elements may have always been there, but regardless of that there has been a significant shift in the perception of comraderie. Add this to wowie's observation that you can buy your way in to JAG and I think that it's obvious that MAD is gone (it should be noted that I personally believe that MAD was one of the worst 'ideas' to come out of the 20th century).
There have been other changes, too. Two years ago, I believe that the feeling was that JAG was run somewhat democratically. We were greatfull to MC for his efforts, but really viewed the board as being owned by no one. Well that certainly changed. Their treatment of several veteran members of the boards established a stratification of membership that wasn't present before. I'd be wiling to bet that this has caused several once prolific posters to tone down their posts.
All of this and other factors have led to a shift in tone on the discussion boards, and I believe that this drives a similar shift in the review section and therefore an overall diminshment of the board.
I'm not sure if I believe that JAG is a victem of anything but its own poor management. The idea of certain people benefiting from its demise has occured to me, but I question whether or not alternatives to JAG would even have been created save for the divergence in vision between key posters and JAG management. The market will usually serve a need, and this divergence created a need which in turn created an alternative to JAG. Moreover, I think that by refusing to aknowledge this divergence, the twins left themselves open to speculation about ulterior motivations. Still, your point about the possibility of ulterior motives of others is not lost, and as usual anything online must be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.
There have been other changes, too. Two years ago, I believe that the feeling was that JAG was run somewhat democratically. We were greatfull to MC for his efforts, but really viewed the board as being owned by no one. Well that certainly changed. Their treatment of several veteran members of the boards established a stratification of membership that wasn't present before. I'd be wiling to bet that this has caused several once prolific posters to tone down their posts.
All of this and other factors have led to a shift in tone on the discussion boards, and I believe that this drives a similar shift in the review section and therefore an overall diminshment of the board.
I'm not sure if I believe that JAG is a victem of anything but its own poor management. The idea of certain people benefiting from its demise has occured to me, but I question whether or not alternatives to JAG would even have been created save for the divergence in vision between key posters and JAG management. The market will usually serve a need, and this divergence created a need which in turn created an alternative to JAG. Moreover, I think that by refusing to aknowledge this divergence, the twins left themselves open to speculation about ulterior motivations. Still, your point about the possibility of ulterior motives of others is not lost, and as usual anything online must be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.
wsb & ozzy,
What makes you think that LE does not have any bearing on the nature of the posts? I always felt secure posting graphic reports on JAG, but those type of reports do not seem to appear on UG or TBD. I realize that the boards serve different purposes, but is the veiled language of UG & TBD for the sake of the ladies? Or LE?
If you seem to think that LE has complete access to all boards, then should I surmise that reviews on UG & TBD are 'polite' because of the ladies?
Wowie69
What makes you think that LE does not have any bearing on the nature of the posts? I always felt secure posting graphic reports on JAG, but those type of reports do not seem to appear on UG or TBD. I realize that the boards serve different purposes, but is the veiled language of UG & TBD for the sake of the ladies? Or LE?
If you seem to think that LE has complete access to all boards, then should I surmise that reviews on UG & TBD are 'polite' because of the ladies?
Wowie69
of course it's because of the ladies and the fact that they(UG & TBD) are more public boards over all. tbd until recently never required any type of logon or membership to read the board, so you got there and just read away. it's also very high profile...tbd turns up in all search engines even when you don't directly search for tbd.
try and find jag on a search engine using creative writers........ or jag.......you have to go thru hundreds of links before you get the right one.
try and find jag on a search engine using creative writers........ or jag.......you have to go thru hundreds of links before you get the right one.
and LE is not reading the boards or more girls and guys would be busted. the only busts that i can remember had nothing to do with jag, tbd or UG.
the agency or incall most discussed on the boards is probably julies.....and how often do they get hit. same goes for all the indies..... the only ones who get busted on occasion are the south american woman in that 51st bldg. and thats only because theres like 20 of them in a bldg with about 50-60 apts in it.
the agency or incall most discussed on the boards is probably julies.....and how often do they get hit. same goes for all the indies..... the only ones who get busted on occasion are the south american woman in that 51st bldg. and thats only because theres like 20 of them in a bldg with about 50-60 apts in it.
that goes for any board.
and since i don't live in NYC i nevr noticed this, so maybe to some of you this is nothing new but, i was over at a friends house the other night in midtown and noticed that on time warner cable ch 35?...there were escort agency commercials running all night long....on an open channel...not PPV or HBO ect......and you think LE is more concerned with a few horny guys on a semi private website writting mostly fake reviews just so they can gain access to a site and read more mostly fake reviews.
Wowie --
Ozzy is correct. From a legal stanpoint, the average john his little to fear from LE for anything embodied in the average JAG review. The average provider also has little to fear from LE for those same reviews. In terms of leading the horse to water, if you don't post the exact street address or other info that the lady may use to screen clients, you probably aren't disclosing anything that the lady isn't already disclosing in her own advertisements. I also strongly doubt that LE relies heavily on escort reviews to locate providers. LE primarily focuses on brothels and they pretty much know where most of those are located. LE doesn't waste a lot of resources on indies, but they do call those Voice and NY mag. adverts every once in a while and also focus on high traffic spots where they get complaints (e.g., 51st street). So I guess that's why I have a hard time understanding your sudden concern about LE and JAG.
JM --
The funny thing is, I've been posting on JAG's discussion board since its inception, and in all that time I recall perhaps two alleged instances of providers claiming they had some sort of serious issue with a JAG member. If you read TBD, it seems that providers are being attacked left and right based upon that info, so I'm still pretty unclear on these "scummy elements" that supposedly lurk at JAG. Indeed, UG is sort of the new kid on the block and I seem to recall at least one instance of a UG contributor being **accused** of some sort of malfeasance, so I'm not sure if I'm buying the "bad JAGster" theory. While there are clearly some elements at JAG with whom I vehemently disagree concerning their chosen methods and practices of hobbying, I strongly doubt that JAG members are any more likely to be "scummy", harmful, down-market, etc., than anyone who posts on any other escort message board. JAG is an easy victim b/c it is somewhat secretive and has no public voice. It is also pretty easy to blame "lurking elements", as it can really be verified if they exist or not.
Regards,
WSB
Ozzy is correct. From a legal stanpoint, the average john his little to fear from LE for anything embodied in the average JAG review. The average provider also has little to fear from LE for those same reviews. In terms of leading the horse to water, if you don't post the exact street address or other info that the lady may use to screen clients, you probably aren't disclosing anything that the lady isn't already disclosing in her own advertisements. I also strongly doubt that LE relies heavily on escort reviews to locate providers. LE primarily focuses on brothels and they pretty much know where most of those are located. LE doesn't waste a lot of resources on indies, but they do call those Voice and NY mag. adverts every once in a while and also focus on high traffic spots where they get complaints (e.g., 51st street). So I guess that's why I have a hard time understanding your sudden concern about LE and JAG.
JM --
The funny thing is, I've been posting on JAG's discussion board since its inception, and in all that time I recall perhaps two alleged instances of providers claiming they had some sort of serious issue with a JAG member. If you read TBD, it seems that providers are being attacked left and right based upon that info, so I'm still pretty unclear on these "scummy elements" that supposedly lurk at JAG. Indeed, UG is sort of the new kid on the block and I seem to recall at least one instance of a UG contributor being **accused** of some sort of malfeasance, so I'm not sure if I'm buying the "bad JAGster" theory. While there are clearly some elements at JAG with whom I vehemently disagree concerning their chosen methods and practices of hobbying, I strongly doubt that JAG members are any more likely to be "scummy", harmful, down-market, etc., than anyone who posts on any other escort message board. JAG is an easy victim b/c it is somewhat secretive and has no public voice. It is also pretty easy to blame "lurking elements", as it can really be verified if they exist or not.
Regards,
WSB
When I was looking to get serious about the hobby after a couple of experiences in Vegas, I went to Yahoo, figuring there must be someplace on the web with reviews of providers. Based on the directory listings in Yahoo, JAG was actually the first site I ended up getting to.
While my experience may be atypical, JAG is certainly not hidden from view.
While my experience may be atypical, JAG is certainly not hidden from view.
WSB - Jag may indeed have fewer questionable members than TBD, but as you mentioned the discourse on JAG is a little more intmate and necessitates (imho) a higher degree of integrity of its membership. While I'm not pointing to any specific incidents, I will say the tone of posts on JAG has gotten to where I just don't see the integrity there to post the kind of posts that I'd normally save for JAG (even if I were willing to shell out $120).
justme-
Perhaps you hit it exactly right - THE INTEGRITY OF JAG IS GONE. I guess the Instant Access feature was the final straw for me, but JAG has been declining since it became a pay site.
I actually met with MC about 2 years ago, before there was any payment plan for JAG. I thought we were meeting to discuss my programming ideas for JAG (a new user interface and database), but the only thing he really wanted to discuss was how to implement a fee structure for JAG. I began to get a bad feeling when he told me that he was paying his staff several thousand dollars a month to keep the site going. I thought it sounded ridiculous as I knew that I could I could handle the entire NY board with ease, but he didn't want to accept my volunteer work. If anyone remembers, MM (MC's assistant), would occasionally rant and rave that he didn't want to hear about anyone volunteering to help JAG - he just wanted members to send their fees.
I began to realize that MC's vision of JAG was a money making business - which was not the original purpose of JAG. But since he runs the show, I have to respect his vision. After all, it is his site and he sets the rules - none of this is meant to knock MC. Unfortunately, I just couldn't agree any longer with his concept of JAG.
Wowie69
Perhaps you hit it exactly right - THE INTEGRITY OF JAG IS GONE. I guess the Instant Access feature was the final straw for me, but JAG has been declining since it became a pay site.
I actually met with MC about 2 years ago, before there was any payment plan for JAG. I thought we were meeting to discuss my programming ideas for JAG (a new user interface and database), but the only thing he really wanted to discuss was how to implement a fee structure for JAG. I began to get a bad feeling when he told me that he was paying his staff several thousand dollars a month to keep the site going. I thought it sounded ridiculous as I knew that I could I could handle the entire NY board with ease, but he didn't want to accept my volunteer work. If anyone remembers, MM (MC's assistant), would occasionally rant and rave that he didn't want to hear about anyone volunteering to help JAG - he just wanted members to send their fees.
I began to realize that MC's vision of JAG was a money making business - which was not the original purpose of JAG. But since he runs the show, I have to respect his vision. After all, it is his site and he sets the rules - none of this is meant to knock MC. Unfortunately, I just couldn't agree any longer with his concept of JAG.
Wowie69
Has anyone considered whether the JAG discussion board may have simply talked itself out? I was away from the board for about six months last year. When I returned, I was surprised to find very little new blood. When JAG was relatively new, it was fun and exciting to finally be able to discuss topics that were otherwise impossible to discuss with anyone. But how many times can you discuss the merits of Greek and how much fun you had with Kayla Kat?!? It gets stale after a while. I'm beginning to feel as if none of the regular posters really have that much left to say to each other that they haven't heard before.
Consequently I have mixed feelings about the "instant access" and other attempts to promote the site and bring in new blood. In the end, new members may be the only thing that salvages the JAG discussion board.
If you do bother to read the reviews, however, you'll notice a lot of newbies posting. The site still contains lots of information -- evaluating the overall quality of that info is another topic for discussion. And, personally, I wish they'd clean up the format of the reviews. They've jazzed up the site otherwise, why not create some user-friendly graphic design for the reviews. After all, it's not an e-mail community any more.
As for LE, I imagine that they do read the board the way they used to bug the phones of political activists. They gather all sorts of info from all sorts of sources. That doesn't necessarily mean they act on it. I'm sure LE has many competing motives and strategies behind their busts. Bear in mind, most hobbying activities are pretty transparent. If we can find them, they can.
Consequently I have mixed feelings about the "instant access" and other attempts to promote the site and bring in new blood. In the end, new members may be the only thing that salvages the JAG discussion board.
If you do bother to read the reviews, however, you'll notice a lot of newbies posting. The site still contains lots of information -- evaluating the overall quality of that info is another topic for discussion. And, personally, I wish they'd clean up the format of the reviews. They've jazzed up the site otherwise, why not create some user-friendly graphic design for the reviews. After all, it's not an e-mail community any more.
As for LE, I imagine that they do read the board the way they used to bug the phones of political activists. They gather all sorts of info from all sorts of sources. That doesn't necessarily mean they act on it. I'm sure LE has many competing motives and strategies behind their busts. Bear in mind, most hobbying activities are pretty transparent. If we can find them, they can.