Jump to content
This topic is 2776 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

  • 1 year later...
Posted (edited)

Justin Owen also did straight porn

 

Admin Note: Rules Violation. Your link reveals the individuals real name.

Edited by Cooper
Posted (edited)

Admin Note: 2nd Rules Violation. Personal information.

 

It says occupation - labor. So that's what it's called.

Edited by Cooper
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
Is @Avalon suspended because of this?

I was getting worried he might have some real life troubles of one kind or another.

I would think so. Even though posts are closely related time wise there is no real warning. It is based on the action itself. Three strikes your out. I do not remember what I said but it constituted a review and just copied it in a post three times and I was suspended.

Posted
there is no real warning.

Exactly. You don’t even get a PM to say “stop doing this or you will be suspended.

 

But I am even more annoyed by the stupidity of one of rules in the rule book, which I think was used here to suspend him. “Don’t post a link to a PUBLICLY available website that ANYONE can see, even if the porn star himself advertises it” .

Posted
Exactly. You don’t even get a PM to say “stop doing this or you will be suspended.

 

But I am even more annoyed by the stupidity of one of rules in the rule book, which I think was used here to suspend him. “Don’t post a link to a PUBLICLY available website that ANYONE can see, even if the porn star himself advertises it” .

Do you *know* what info Avalon linked that got him in trouble. Or you just don’t agree with that part of the TOS?

Posted
Do you *know* what info Avalon linked that got him in trouble. Or you just don’t agree with that part of the TOS?

I disagree with that part of the TOS, whether it was used in this particular case or not.

 

I have not seen the posts before they were edited by the admins, but the reason they give and what remains of the posts seems to indicate that is what happened.

Posted
I disagree with that part of the TOS, whether it was used in this particular case or not.

 

I have not seen the posts before they were edited by the admins, but the reason they give and what remains of the posts seems to indicate that is what happened.

So, if someone got ahold of some of your personal info, perhaps your real name, a phone number, you’d be ok with them linking that info here for all of us to see?

 

I know your argument is that perhaps the info has already been available elsewhere, maybe even posted by the revealed person themselves. But that might be an FB posting, or other social media posting made by that person that they don’t assume or know will get linked to their escort/client/forum life. Not everyone is even clear how much of their info is available if people start snooping...maybe we are helping protect our guys by honoring the TOS.

Posted
So, if someone got ahold of some of your personal info, perhaps your real name, a phone number, you’d be ok with them linking that info here for all of us to see?

 

I know your argument is that perhaps the info has already been available elsewhere, maybe even posted by the revealed person themselves. But that might be an FB posting, or other social media posting made by that person that they don’t assume or know will get linked to their escort/client/forum life. Not everyone is even clear how much of their info is available if people start snooping...maybe we are helping protect our guys by honoring the TOS.

You are being facetious. You know very well that is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about publicly available information about a porn star that he advertises himself because it is beneficial to his business, not a private Facebook page.

For example I had a strike in this exact post:

https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/411-justin_teen-nyc.122339/page-6#post-1353852

because I put the link to an onlyfans.com page, that the escort has himself put in his rentmen ad.

That was the most ridiculous application of the rules that I have seen. Basically I was told "You cannot repeat what the escort says publicly on his rentmen page".

Pfff.

Posted
You are being facetious. You know very well that is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about publicly available information about a porn star that he advertises himself because it is beneficial to his business, not a private Facebook page.

For example I had a strike in this exact post:

https://www.companyofmen.org/threads/411-justin_teen-nyc.122339/page-6#post-1353852

because I put the link to an onlyfans.com page, that the escort has himself put in his rentmen ad.

That was the most ridiculous application of the rules that I have seen. Basically I was told "You cannot repeat what the escort says publicly on his rentmen page".

Pfff.

All good...! :)

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...