Board policy on escorts responding in review threads

[Mike Mercury]

Mike Mercury,

The reply authored by Kaii was neither self promotional fluff nor banal. While that may be a concern for the Mods, that is not what why the subject post was deleted here.

I have no clue what you are talking about.
I quoted a generality and agreed with it in the contect of the OP title.

 

[HornyForEver]

Pimping 2.0?

In my book every provider, whether being an advertiser or not, is entitled to defend herself. There is no harm to give one or two shots (read posts) to a girl to give her side of the encounter. Restricting this basic right to advertisers only is, IMHO, a total lack of respect towards providers in general and is borderline a new and modern form of pimping. Many of us have already witnessed how another board admin and a mod did encourage their hounds (read very few contributors) to attack some SPs. Surprisingly, these SPs became advertisers shortly after these attacks, so in all they were paying for protection. I would really hate MERB to degenerate towards such low levels.

MERB is making all of its income thanks to reviews posted by guys about providers and many of these providers do not advertise here. It does not bother you having guys posting very intimate details about the appearance and "performance"of these non-advertising girls on a public web site, but then you deny these same girls to speak up their minds unless they accept to give you some money?

I thought that the Mods were here on a voluntary basis and that their sole goal was to help the community, but I am less and less inclined to believe so.

 

[EagerBeaver]

First post and a barrage of anger. That's why she was banned permanently: she had no other reason to join. It had nothing to do with the fact she was not an advertiser. We have banned permanently other people in similar situations, posters who post insults at their first post, and we will certainly do it again.

Although I will not dispute your overall characterization of the post, my interpretation of Kaii's post was that she was trying to explain the aserted lack of sexual chemistry she had with NJ Dude. NJ Dude basically said 2 things in his review, (1) that he was not struck well by Kaii's looks, and (2 that there was no sexual chemistry because of it. I interpreted Kaii's "barrage of anger" reply as giving an explanation for why there was no sexual chemistry from her point of view. This goes to the absolute crux of the information people log on to this board to read about. Not just Kaii's explanation, but her manner of explanation and what she said, was information to the reader. The reader uses that information to decide whether her "sassiness" is something they like, or "attitude" that they do not like. We heard both in the since deleted replies to Kaii's deleted "burst of anger" reply to the NJ Dude review. However, now you are telling us that her being a nonpaid advertiser had nothing to do with it, it was the fact that it was angry and insulting alone that caused the Moderator decision to delete.

Well let me submit to you that Kaii stands on different footing than I or any other male member does because if I authored the same angry reply to NJ Dude's post, nobody here is interested in fucking me. On the other hand in Kaii's case, she is an SP and her manner of reacting to the NJ Dude reply stimulated interest in the community as to how she handled it, both good and bad. Such interest would not have existed had any non SP member authored the reply. If I replied to NJ Dude with insults my post would have been deleted and nobody would have cared. Again, there was an informational value in Kaii's reply that was lost, which would not have attached to any similarly deleted male member reply.

I have listened to the various flimsy excuses for not allowing limited replies by SPs and they are just that, flimsy excuses. Strong rebuttal has been made to each justification for the "no SP reply rule" except for one: it would create a lot of work for the Moderators. If you were just honest and told us that, membership probably would have accepted it for the reasons stated in johnmbot's post above. However other justifications are being put forth that simply defy logic and not only that, they insult the intelligence and character of most members (I don't care about the girlie men members) and offer a misogynst view of what SPs might have to say and the potential information lost from their postings.

I have not read Nelly Arcan's book "Putain" but I have been told that it is nothing more than an angry reply to a review. Maybe that is why the book sold. People were interested in what she had to say, and the publisher did not delete her manuscript, they published it and made money because many readers found that information interesting and useful.

I still think Kaii's reply should have been edited or else she should have been asked to re-write her reply in a noninsulting manner, which she could have done to express the same point of view, although one can argue that the passion and intensity of her reply may have also been lost. Another thing you have not touched on is that Kaii in her reply addressed the issue of the "look" of the reviewer possibly being a factor in sexual chemistry and it is informational to hear what she has to say in this regard. How many SP websites have Q and A where they ask the SP what turns her on and what she likes most about men. Shit Playboy has been doing this in Q and A with their centerfolds for 50 years. But now we are being told that these time honored business models that give women a forum to speak out about what makes for good sexual chemistry is not something anyone wants to hear. Come on now! Are you telling us Hugh Hefner knows shit about how to sell sex?

 

[Mod 8]

If ONE person can come up with a method on how we can determine that the person posting as an SP in response to a review is in fact the SP concerned, and not an impostor, we will continue this discussion. Until that point can be resolved, there is nothing to discuss. We will not spend hours of our time attempting to contact each and every SP who posts a reply to verify their identity. Do not forget that this would have to be done each time a reply is posted, not just the initial time they make a post. This would make moderating the rest of the board an impossible task. No one at all has even attempted to answer the concerns regarding the bloat of review threads what will occur or the damage that will have on the ability to find useful information.

This discussion is also focusing on only one SP and her angry, insulting reply. That type of post will not be permitted by ANYONE on this board. It is time to move on as that has already been addressed numerous times and the answer will not change.

It seems that there are members here who love to express their point of view but who are not willing to look at any other part of the equation. Yes, the extra work it would require from the moderators also factors in to the decision. We are volunteers who have lives and jobs away from MERB. We do not have the time to spend 24 hours a day moderating and investigating identities.

EB,

You are totally correct with your reference to Nelly Arcan's book. Yes it did sell and it did make money. The thing is that on MERB, no one is paying to read the content of the board. The only way your argument is valid would be if MERB was a pay board. In that case, the number of readers MERB attracts will increase the profit line. I suggest you start a poll to see how many members would be willing to pay $10 dollars a month or so to access the board.


Mod 8

 

[Ricky bonds]

<<{[]}>>. <{[]}>

 

[EagerBeaver]

cutebitch's identity was confirmed

We do not have the time to spend 24 hours a day moderating and investigating identities.

I think everyone accepts that and would have accepted that if it was asserted as the main reason for the rule from the beginning.

However, in this particular case one of the Moderators already posted to say Kaii's identity was confirmed. And the board members who viewed the deleted reply know that Kaii referred to and described a part of NJ Dude's anatomy, and NJ Dude posted to corroborate that description as accurate. So unless one of the board pranksters like Tony or Doc Holliday who have in the past created fake SP identities also had sex with NJ Dude, there is no impostor. I know Doc Holliday personally and he is not gay or bisexual. We would also have to assume that NJ Dude is gay and that his gay escort posed as Kaii or "cutebitch". This is preposterous to imagine.

There is only one conclusion that could be drawn by anyone that read the deleted posts: that "cutebitch" was Kaii. NJ Dude effectively confirmed this by admitting the accuracy of the physical description in cutebitch's reply, and then in deleting his review (which he shouldn't have done). All the members who read these posts before they were removed know that the above is correct.

So the "difficulty in proving SP identity", while generally a valid concern, isn't one in this particular case.

 

[Mod 8]

And this is only one case of what would eventually be hundreds or thousands of cases.

The time required to moderate is not the primary reason as I have already posted. If necessary we could always choose more moderators to do the job. My own primary reason is to keep the review threads as uncluttered as possible and not to allow them to be filled with off topic arguments over each marginal review. I am sure that Fred's concern is advertising dollars.

All that really matters is that the policy will not change no matter what is posted in this thread.

M8

 

[Mod 8]

To satisfy everyone and put an end to the Kaii subject once and for all, this is what would remain of her post after editing to remove the personal attacks.

Ordinary looks? You're the one who said the quality of Montreal girls don't rival the ones in the states,...edited personal attack.

If you want to comment about my looks...edited personal attack

You can take your review and ...edited personal attack

I am a nice girl but ...edited personal attack

Yes, I can certainly see how what remains is very valuable and informative to members.

Mod 8

 

[Doc Holliday]

So unless one of the board pranksters like Tony or Doc Holliday who have in the past created fake SP identities also had sex with NJ Dude, there is no impostor.

Me? A board prankster? Excuse me, but when have i ever created a fake SP identity?

 

[CS Martin]

Dear Mod 8,

For some reason I see you having to defend yourself against all reason. Yours and the board's position is clear, sustainable and supportable. I'm surprised some people are wasting so much time picking this issue apart, and re-picking it apart and revisiting it. Some people's "arguments" in this thread are quite surprising given their real lives experiences. I can't speak for others, but I doubt I'm alone when I say the current policy is effective and well thought out.

I know if I was a Moderator, I would never spend the time you're spending debating this matter.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I am satisfied with Mod 8's recent posts and explanation on the board policy, and I thank him for posting an edited version of the reply posted by cutebitch/Kaii to NJ Dude's review of her.

 

[Tommy G]

You guys are killing me!!!

I Cant believe I missed this post!! All this talk about Kaii's post and I was not there to read it. I am trying to desypher all the posts to get an Idea of what was written. I think it would be funny that an sp would write a negative review about a date with me . I think it would be great entertainment for all. if it was too personal and offensive. I would simply ask mod to delete the post.

 

[Mod 8]

Hello everyone,

I am always willing to discuss any concerns that members may have regarding MERB and how it is moderated. We do our best to explain our decisions and the board policies and hope that members will understand the reasons behind them. There is no possible way that MERB will ever be the perfect board for every member as someone will always have something they believe should be changed or handled a different way. What we try our best to achieve is a happy medium that works for the majority of MERB members.

Sometimes the input of members does lead to changes in board policy, the No Review Policy is one that immediately comes to mind. Due to the concern expressed by members of providers using it to hide from negative reviews, the policy was modified to exclude any currently working SP from requesting a NRP.

No one should ever hesitate to start a discussion on any board policy or to PM or email a moderator regarding any of our decisions. We are always ready and willing to discuss these concerns.

Mod 8

 

[CS Martin]

OK, I just had to find somewhere to post how BLUE it is to have a NRP (No Review Policy). History repeats itself, repeats itself..........well, you get the idea.

 

[panthere]

wow..i am completely in disagreee..that sp or agency post there comments....i saw and read a few thread(like two minute ago)...and i was shock to see a agency reply..since when that ***** happens...omg...and for sure it is gonna be he said she said...or he said..and the *** said..common...i dont find that really good..all problems..that are according..between a agency and a client..should resolve by pm....but i was always pround to tell good or bad stories about all the sp,bar,or agency...that i did affair with..but that the sp or agency now post..... FOR SUREEE mods gonna have a harder job and receiveeeeee numbers 0f complaint about it....very disapointed...vraimenttttt