Just a suspicion

Recently ASPD Dallas adopted a rule that providers had to get official “Provider status” (which required some verification that they were legit) before posting ads.  But apparently the software settings for the TS/TG Provider Ads forum were not changed, and it’s still possible to post there without having Provider status.  I suspect some newbie providers will post ads there, because they can, without realizing what TS/TG stands for.   Some “straight” providers used to post ads there occasionally by mistake, and perhaps that will happen more often now.  See, e.g., here and here.  Well, they could be TS/TG, but I suspect not.  Oops!!

Openness, again

I’ve said before, here and here and here, that I think it’s often beneficial for staff to announce why they are banning a member, particularly one who is very well-known within the community.  An announcement educates the membership about what behavior will lead to problems, and minimizes the likelihood of rumors and/or incorrect assumptions.  Further, it engenders trust if the staff show that they’re open to discussion (and possible criticism) of their actions.

This came to mind again because I just now noticed that Jarod was banned on ASPD. 

P411 and a “Not OK”

See here and here.  I think Gina said once that she didn’t provide for a “Not OK” listing but would take appropriate actions if she received reports of a serious nature.  I kind of like the idea, actually, although it might require some refinement.  A “Not OK” doesn’t distinguish between different types of “bad behavior,” some of which may not be as worrisome to the provider as others.  And it would be limited, because not everyone gives their P411 code to the provider.  Providers still have the backchannel lists, of course, or contacting other providers he’s seen.  (One provider told me she checks with providers the prospective client has written reviews about but whom he doesn’t list as references.  Smart cookie!)  I understand why Gina might not want to allow “Not OK” indicators, but maybe some day . . .

How long does it last?

Lemontrees posted an interesting question here.  In the past 5 years, I’ve seen one lady 50+ times, another four 20+ times, and another 9 times.  Others might have reached that level if they’d stayed around, but . . .  Anyway, call those six my “favorites.”  Less than the frequency of visits that sugarbear mentions on Lemontrees’ post, but I guess I was less active and/or played the field more.

Hot women in the hobby

Another silly argument on ASPD.  I think the real disagreement over defining “hot” is not about relative hot-ness, e.g., whether Jordan is “hotter” than, say, Deejah.  There isn’t 100% agreement even about that sort of thing, but probably a very strong majority.  The disagreement is about where on the relative scale you draw the dividing line — some guys who would classify 5% of the local providers as hot and some would classify 35% of the local providers as hot.

And I still think it’s silly for someone not to realize that, rely on someone else’s description of a provider as “hot” — particularly if she has pics available and he can judge for himself — and then complain that he’s been misled.

Funny

Just read another comment, after someone inquired about an EROS ad and replies said she was a scam/bait-and-switch, that it was a damn shame she was a scam because she was so hot.  That sort of comment has always struck me as funny.  Of course the scam ads are of incredibly good-looking women.  They need a high volume of new business, since they’re not going to get return clients, and they rely on uneducated consumers (e.g., not hooked into ASPD) who will take the ads at face value.  A moderately attractive woman isn’t going to draw as many calls from naive customers; the really hot babes are going to entice them to take the chance.  Which is why, as a general rule of thumb, the really hot babes on EROS are almost always scams.

More on PK/DT

Ah, the joys of expressing an opinion as a situation develops, when your perspective and opinion keep changing!

Bottom line (subject to revision if and as I get more background information): DT over-reacted a bit . . . and so did the folks who jumped his ass. If everybody had dropped it after the first 5 or so posts, it would have died away and not hurt PK’s reputation at all. Her protectors may have made things worse than if they’d ignored the thread.

Relationships

A question out on ASPD:  “If a man found out that his long term girl temporarily worked as a provider, but then quit to be with him alone, do you think he could ever commit to her?

Do you think he could see her as a human being with feelings and capable of love?”

An interesting poll

(in a restricted area) on who would be our ATF measured by the number of visits.  Well, a poll like that isn’t necessarily all that interesting, but the details are.  Among my favorites, I’ve seen one lady 50+ times, and another four 20+ times . . . and none of the five are on the list of options for the poll.  (OK, two of those five favorites are retired and another two UTR, but still.)  Of course, there are a lot of other very popular girls in Dallas who aren’t on the poll either.  That’s one of the problems with something like this — the person who created the poll may easily have some blind spots and not even consider some very popular girls who might rank well above those he listed.

It would be nice

to know the allegations based on which Passion Kitten decided not to see droptop (and who they came from), what (if any) support DT has for his assertion that PK was already having misgivings the night before, what he did to compromise “private board area security,” etc., etc.  Of course, DT can’t, PK won’t, and everybody else keeps alluding to this stuff, without spelling it out for those of us not in the little private cliques.  *sigh*  One of the perils of being an outsider, I guess.  But without answers to the questions, no, I’m not going to conclude in either party’s favor.  Regardless of how many people say “I’m convinced.”  Even if I trusted the judgment of others, without an open discussion by both sides, I don’t know whether others’ judgments were based on all the facts.  Hell, “facts” are a pretty tricky thing and I don’t even take factual assertions at face value without an opportunity to probe.  E.g., whether there was actually an “appointment” subject to cancellation, or just a possibility not yet confirmed — without knowing what was said, they might easily have interpreted the situation differently.

So a shadow of suspicion will remain over PK, for me.  I doubt if that’s a concern for her, though.