Jump to content

A suggestion for a new forum...


Guest jc92103
 Share

This topic is 7493 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest jc92103

Why not add a new forum here for the "Rookies"...a forum where new escorts who have yet to be reviewed can post a few lines about themselves. Once they have been reviewed, they can't post on that forum anymore. It woulfd be nice to hear from some of the new faces out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent suggestion. Rather than writing one's own review and hoping that the M4M police don't notice another first time reviewer for another first time escort review we could have the escort "strut his stuff" so to speak with perhaps a picture. Probably could be integrated into the reviews section with what the escort says about himself as the first listing. This way, they could also spell out their talents (top / bottom / fisting / snuggling / whatever) the kind of clients with whom they're comfortable (rich sugar daddy's / fatties / young buff guys only / whatever ethnic minority floats their boat or sinks it / virgins / etc) and their rates.

 

It might even be a good idea for some of the guys who have been reviewed already to be able to toss in a paragraph about themselves which would help explain why the chemistry was good with one client and not with another.

 

More work for the overworked Hooboy and Daddy.

 

EWC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a danger here that you will attract a lot of poseurs. I really loved when Hairy Pony was milking this site for all the information he could before he actually became an escort. In fact, I rather miss him. However, I don't think that he ever became an escort did he? And I think that such a section might attract more people like him. And I think that one reason this site has not been raided is that it is obvious that it is not an escort agency and that this new section might bring that into question with certain sections of the law enforcement agency. And people are already - see the title of another thread - thinking that Hoo runs an advertising agency, and for those of us who remember the classifieds section, the one thing that Hoo never let be advertised here was escorting. So, this is a pleasant day dream, but I don't think that it would work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest trekker

>I really loved when Hairy Pony was milking this site for all the

>information he could before he actually became an escort. In

>fact, I rather miss him.

 

I didn't (at first it was cute, but it got very tiresome very fast), and I don't.

 

>However, I don't think that he ever became an escort did he?

 

There's no evidence of it (surprise!), and that's what a lot of people suspected back at the time. But there was no consensus about what else he might be doing - journalist? novelist? cop? voyeur? just getting his rocks off? just toying with us? ...

 

>And I think that such a section might attract more people like him.

 

He was pumping for info, not posing as an escort.

If a poseur were attracted, the game would be up the first time someone tried to hire him.

How would letting guys "come out" as escorts in the review section or anyplace else here attract more people like him? And why would they flock here instead of just listing themselves on one or more of the many existing sites for escort listings?

 

>And I think that one reason this site has not been raided is that

>it is obvious that it is not an escort agency and that this new

>section might bring that into question with certain sections of

>the law enforcement agency.

 

That's why I said in another post that what the escorts could put into their notices would have to be carefully defined and regulated. But anyway, how can a cybersite be raided?

 

>And people are already - see the title of another thread -

>thinking that Hoo runs an advertising agency, and for those of

>us who remember the classifieds section, the one thing that

>Hoo never let be advertised here was escorting. So, this is a

>pleasant day dream, but I don't think that it would work out.

 

Defined. Controlled. Regulated. Limited. Evaluation, not advertising.

I think it could work, Bilbo, if it were done right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest trekker

>Excellent suggestion. Rather than writing one's own review and

>hoping that the M4M police don't notice another first time

>reviewer for another first time escort review we could have the

>escort "strut his stuff" so to speak with perhaps a picture.

>Probably could be integrated into the reviews section with what

>the escort says about himself as the first listing.

 

This is an interesting idea, and I think it could be very good if set up well. It would have to be done in a carefully defined way, the kinds of things allowed would have to be rather restricted, and the length would have to be limited to a certain smallish maximum, or it would get out of hand in some cases. Not a review, but, as jc suggested, "new escorts who have yet to be reviewed can post a few lines about themselves."

 

I don't think it should be a (separate) forum in the Message Center. That sounds too much like explicit advertising or classifieds. Many escorts already manipulate this site (the reviews andthe Message Center) in order to attract attention, but that should not be facilitated any further. This site is for evaluation,not advertising. There are plenty of other sites for advertising.

 

I like the idea of integrating it into the review section. An escort could provide a "coming out" (you should pardon the expression) or "open for business" notice which would serve as the kickoff to his reviews. Only once, and it would go at the beginning of his stuff. Actually, something like that, more or less, is what HooBoy(?) has been doing in a lot of cases by posting the escort's aol(?) profile under the pic, except that the profile doesn't get there until the escort gets a review, and this suggestion would be to allow the escort to put up a profile before that. And he could submit a pic. There should be a pic with his reviews anyway.

 

An added benefit of allowing him to do that, as EWC indirectly suggests, would be that it would probably cut down some on the self-written reviews. I don't like them and don't approve of them, but I'm almost (almost) willing to tolerate them as an "open for business" notice as a first review of the escort, because I can understand that he is anxious to get into the database. But some of them abuse, or even grossly abuse, that near-tolerance by writing 2, 3, 4 or even more fake reviews. There are several known cases of that, one or two more possible ones are under current discussion, and there are several more that I suspect, but which as far as I know, haven't been brought up here.

 

We have heard from several quarters recently that presence on this site is extremely valuable to escorts in terms of both amount and quality of business. Also we have discussed the issue of whether an escort should solicit (ooooh, cut that out!) a review from a client, and we know that some escorts are hesitant to do that and some clients wouldn't like it. So the guys need to find a way to "break in", and currently some (a lot?) of them do it by writing their own reviews, which we don't like, and which undermines the purpose and the value of this site. So maybe they should be given a different, more acceptable way of doing it.

 

>This way, they could also spell out their talents (top / bottom

>/ fisting / snuggling / whatever) the kind of clients with whom

>they're comfortable (rich sugar daddy's / fatties / young buff

>guys only / whatever ethnic minority floats their boat or sinks

>it / virgins / etc) and their rates.

 

This I have to disagree with. Their "talents," OK - they need to give an idea of what they are into. But the rest, including their rates, is too much like advertising, and also some of the above would be fairly distasteful in some cases. Anyway, that's what websites are for. And all of that belongs in the person-to-person negotiations between escort and client prior to hiring.

 

>It might even be a good idea for some of the guys who have been

>reviewed already to be able to toss in a paragraph about

>themselves which would help explain why the chemistry was good

>with one client and not with another.

 

I don't agree with this either, but for a different reason - fairness. Guys who already have reviews should be invited to submit the same kind of thing that the new guys can submit, if they want to. But not something that the new guys don't get. The chemistry stuff and any other analysis of experiences or techniques can be posted in the Lounge.

 

Anyway, that's my take. What do others think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>If a poseur were attracted, the

>game would be up the

>first time someone tried to

>hire him.

 

Well, not really. The attempt to hire would first need to be reported to Hoo. Who would have to confirm it. And then have to remove the un-escort's words and pic from the site. Potential of LOTS more paperwork.

 

 

>How would letting guys "come out"

>as escorts in the review

>section or anyplace else here

>attract more people like him?

 

Would HooBoy be openly charging for such a listing? If so, there are those who would complain about the integrity of the site, and there is the possible strengthened attention from the law. If not, giggly little boys would be playing with us all the time, since if they try to do it here and then get cold feet, if they were ever serious to begin with, it is scot free and much less likely to be seen by the kind of friends who would disaprove.

 

> But

>anyway, how can a cybersite

>be raided?

 

I am not sure about the workings of such a raid, but it seems to me that I have heard of many raids which concerned child pornography. (Of which I difiniely disapprove. Of course, I also disapprove of anyone being either a client or an escort who is less than 21.)

 

>

>Defined. Controlled. Regulated.

>Limited. Evaluation, not advertising.

 

Ooh. These look like fighting words, echoing of the argument going on over moderators and censureship. But I could easily be wrong.

 

>

>I think it could work, Bilbo,

>if it were done right.

>

I would love to see it work correctly, too. You know how grandiose I get sometimes, but perhaps it could be seen as one more step towards getting escorting so accepted that it has to be made legal in some form.

 

And I also agree that this, if it were working correctly, would be preferable to fake reviews. But, knowing human nature, who is to say that a lot of these guys wouldn't do both? Just how comfortable is anyone going to be seeing their name, pic and description in a review site without there being a review attached to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there

>was no consensus about what

>else he might be doing

>- journalist? novelist? cop? voyeur?

>just getting his rocks off?

>just toying with us? ...

 

Yes, as intruiguing as the sphinx.

 

Oops, erased your comment on "then it would all be over simply" - but it wouldn't, first the would be client would have to complain to HooBoy, then HooBoy might have to listen to the would be escort saying that the guy is lying or was just not the kind of person he's willing to sell to, then, after all that, there would be the actual pulling of the thread. This could lead to more new time consuming work for HooBoy than you are realizing.

>

>How would letting guys "come out"

>as escorts in the review

>section or anyplace else here

>attract more people like him?

 

It's summer. Schools are out. Boys on holiday will be playful. Maybe if we required a picture, we could weed out a lot of this. Do the other sites charge? And, if there are the other sites, why is this necessary?

 

>

But

>anyway, how can a cybersite

>be raided?

 

I don't know how it is done, but I have often in the past read about raids on sites that were dealing with child pornography. (Which I totally disapprove of. Hell, I don't even approve of clients or escorts under 21.)

>

>Defined. Controlled. Regulated.

>Limited. Evaluation, not advertising.

 

Ooh. Those sound like fighting words right now in the middle of the complaints about moderating and censureship.

>

>I think it could work, Bilbo,

>if it were done right.

 

Done correctly, I would enjoy it. And I agree that it is a better idea than fake reviews. But, human nature being what it is, why wouldn't someone do both? It would be a bit uncomfortable having your picture, and all your info on a review site without having a review to go with them.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest trekker

>>If a poseur were attracted, the game would be up the

>>first time someone tried to hire him.

>

>Well, not really. The attempt to hire would first need to

>be reported to Hoo. Who would have to confirm it.

>And then have to remove the un-escort's words and pic

>from the site. Potential of LOTS more paperwork.

 

That's no different from what goes on now. When a review comes in on an escort who has not been reviewed before HooBoy has to verify that he is an escort.

Also, if a fake is discovered through an attempt to hire, it can be much simpler. You post something here. People do it all the time about possibly fake reviews of real escorts, so they can do it about fake escorts too.

And there will be other clues as well. Most escorts these days have a website, if not their own, then at least something hosted by a listing site like rentboy, etc. Fakes will not have that. And no sane escort would depend solely on this site or any other one site; he would be listed in several places. A fake would (probably) not be, unless it was a pretty elaborate hoax.

 

>>How would letting guys "come out" as escorts in the review

>>section or anyplace else here attract more people like him?

>

>Would HooBoy be openly charging for such a listing? If so,

>there are those who would complain about the integrity of

>the site, and there is the possible strengthened attention from

>the law.

 

That's up to him, of course, but what I envision is no. He doesn't charge for reviews or for being listed on the site now, and I see no reason to change that. Also for the reasons you mentioned.

 

>If not, giggly little boys would be playing with us all the time,

>since if they try to do it here and then get cold feet, if they

>were ever serious to begin with, it is scot free and much less

>likely to be seen by the kind of friends who would disaprove.

 

Yeah, but probably they are now anyway here in the MC. And would it be so terrible if some fake escorts managed to slip in? Someone might try to hire one, and wouldn't be able to. Big deal. Another escort who didn't answer your email to him. Real ones do it all the time. But you didn't lose anything except a few electrons. I think fake reviews are much worse than the possibility that there might be a fake escort listed, since they can cause someone to spend time and money on a hire that he wouldn't otherwise have made.

 

>> But anyway, how can a cybersite be raided?

>

>I am not sure about the workings of such a raid, but it seems

>to me that I have heard of many raids which concerned child

>pornography.

 

I think that's different. They get people for sending or receiving kiddie porn though the net. It's illegal even to possess kiddie porn in most places. It's not illegal to list or review escorts. The illegality there comes in when you sell sex for money or solicit/agree to do it.

 

>>Defined. Controlled. Regulated. Limited. Evaluation, not advertising.

>

>Ooh. These look like fighting words, echoing of the argument going

>on over moderators and censureship. But I could easily be wrong.

 

You are wrong about that.

 

First, the argument over moderators and censorship is about freedom of speech (or freedom of posting) on the board - the ability to say what you want and to express your opinions. What we are talking about here is a listing. Listings almost always have a certain format, certain requirements and certain limits.

 

Second, those words I used refer primarily to the form of the listing, not to the content. Listings would have to conform to certain guidelines, like limit on length (very brief), only 1 pic, links only to your own website, written as an information piece, not as an advertisement, etc. Otherwise some guys might go hog wild. And it has to fit into a review context, not an advertising context.

 

Third, I repeated those words from an earlier post that I made on this thread, where their meaning and application was explained. I repeated them here in response to your comment

 

>And people are already - see the title of another thread -

>thinking that Hoo runs an advertising agency, and for those of

>us who remember the classifieds section, the one thing that

>Hoo never let be advertised here was escorting. So, this is a

>pleasant day dream, but I don't think that it would work out.

 

to emphasize that what I was talking about was not advertising and not classifieds. Unfortunately, because of the way the message board works, this comment of mine (#4), which was written later and was in response to your earlier post (#2), came up above my earlier one (#3), and you may not have seen (#3) before you responded to this one (#4) (twice, it seems).

 

BTW, what is the other thread you referred to? I didn't see anything that had either a title or content like what you were referring to.

 

>>I think it could work, Bilbo, if it were done right.

>>

>I would love to see it work correctly, too. You know

>how grandiose I get sometimes,

>...

>And I also agree that this, if it were working correctly,

>would be preferable to fake reviews.

 

I still think it could work if done right, and I think it would be a helluva lot better than fake reviews, for a lot of reasons. That's my main point and reason for favoring jc's suggestion. And it seems you agree with that too.

 

>But, knowing human nature, who is to say that a lot of these guys

>wouldn't do both? Just how comfortable is anyone going to

>be seeing their name, pic and description in a review

>site without there being a review attached to them?

 

Sure. There should be no illusions that this would eliminatefake reviews, but I'm sure it would cut down on them, as I said in my post #3. And any decrease in fake reviews would only be to the good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

The name of the other thread is something like "Shouldn't HIV+ escorts be required to state their status in their advertising on this site?" I know that probably the only word I got correct is "advertising". I couldn't remember is exactly, so I let myself slaughter it on purpose.

 

Your post was, I think, the first one that has inspired me to try "respond with quote" and if I repeated myself it may have had to do with technical problems, ie I took so long that my non-aol webserver kicked me off of the web and I assumed that my first posting was lost and rewrote it.

 

Sometimes my native paranoia, without a dash of which no escort is safe, and if I'd had a bit more at a certain time .... anyway, sometimes it pushes me into acting the devil's advocate. At any rate, it may have helped you to either think through this idea a little further or explain it a little clearer. At this point, I'm going to agree with you and so probably keep my mouth shut on this particular thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest trekker

>The name of the other thread is something like "Shouldn't HIV+

>escorts be required to state their status in their advertising

>on this site?" I know that probably the only word I got correct

>is "advertising". I couldn't remember is exactly, so I let myself

>slaughter it on purpose.

 

Ah. Thanks. It's good enough to tell me which thread. I didn't make that connection because I thought you were refering to a thread about escorts advertising (vs. "advertising"/stating their HIV+ status).

 

>Your post was, I think, the first one that has inspired

>me to try "respond with quote" and if I repeated myself

>it may have had to do with technical problems, ie I took

>so long that my non-aol webserver kicked me off of the web

>and I assumed that my first posting was lost and rewrote it.

 

Onward and upward... Today talking technical and daring forays into "reply with quote", tomorrow maybe even "search"...

 

>Sometimes my native paranoia, without a dash of which no escort

>is safe, and if I'd had a bit more at a certain time .... anyway,

>sometimes it pushes me into acting the devil's advocate. At

>any rate, it may have helped you to either think through this

>idea a little further or explain it a little clearer.

 

Glad it did. I do that sometimes too. Not that I expect it to get accepted, and it wasn't even my idea anyway. But I'll support anything reasonable that will help to eliminate some of those damn(ed) fake reviews that get written just so a guy can be on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...