M4M Message Forums and Daddy's Reviews de-Linked

[Larstrup]

[MikeBiDude]

Yeah- it also says "We will always strive to treat each person with dignity and respect and without favoritism" and I believe many guys here would have an opinion on how well you guys are doing on that front.

Give to get

[+ freecahill1965]

THE RULES

In my early posting days, I was banned for a week for posting what was perceived to be a review. My posting was a warning about some guys in NYC that were fakers. One of them I had seen. I was just trying to warn others. I was then banned for another month because a friend of mine opened an account on my computer while I was banned. Daddy just assumed it was me making another profile. Daddy can track all our ip addresses and therefore our location. Despite, this fact I still donated this year. Why???

 

The rules are for a reason. We may not comprehend the implications of the content in our posts. In order to post our content, there are legal rules that must be followed along with common sense ones. Violation of those rules have consequences. Daddy is the one who must face the consequences of the violations and deal with the ones that should be common sense related. I am confident that his rules are set up to prevent the legal and common sense violations. In order to make managing the forum doable, he enforces some rules strictly because some may have higher consequences if violated. I do not think he is in a position of time to allow for appeals and I do not think he can catch every violation. I am confident that he does the best that is possible with time alotted him. He is offering this service for free or by donation. Therefore , we are not in a position to criticize nor does he have to explain the logic of his actions. This service is free and you get what you pay for.

Edited April 14, 2018 by freecahill1965

[bostonman]

All in all, I think this site is run very fairly. And if Daddy needs to seem a bit harsh at times, well, so be it.

 

Let’s also remember that tone does not always come through very well in typed messsages. So maybe sometimes the harshness is more perception than intention.

[+ freecahill1965]

I don't bookmark. I just type in M4M Forums and it comes right up. After the 1st time M4M autocompletes to get me here.

There is an alternative. I have never book marked them. I always go to Google in my incognito window and type m4m forum. I use that link to access.

[+ freecahill1965]

It’s pretty simple. Reviews are not allowed here and never have been. End of story.

I am sure there is a reason why. People need to understand accept it or move on.

[+ quoththeraven]

Yeah- it also says "We will always strive to treat each person with dignity and respect and without favoritism" and I believe many guys here would have an opinion on how well you guys are doing on that front.

Sometimes there are things not being said or where it is necessary to read between the lines for reasons of discretion and risk management.

 

Perhaps thinking about what's going on in the industry recently and the reasons behind the actions referred to in the title of this thread would help.

 

Btw, I periodically get scolded because I think more transparency about time outs and members' statuses would serve the forum better. But in this case there are good reasons for the response that to you seems less than helpful.

[Guy Fawkes]

Why haven’t you read the terms and rules?

 

So if the two are not linked- why do people get scolded and told to write a review on the other site if they post too much about their experience in the forum? #askin

[+ PapaTony]

So if the two are not linked- why do people get scolded and told to write a review on the other site if they post too much about their experience in the forum? #askingforafriend

I won’t bite you.

 

I think the answer you seek is: by “linked” in this instance we’re not talking about a relationship between the two sites, rather a legal Co-mingling of businesses.

 

By L”linked” in this context reference is made to the tab that used to exist at the top of each page named”reviews” that would automatically take you to Daddy’s review site.

 

By removing that tab and becoming more disciplined about keeping reviews off THIS site I assume Daddy is taking a step to shield one from the other.

 

Then again I may be totally off base.

Edited April 15, 2018 by PapaTony

[+ stevenkesslar]

By removing that tab and becoming more disciplined about keeping reviews of THIS site I assume Daddy is taking a step to shield one from the other.

 

Then again I may be totally off base.

 

Mr. SCHUMER. Finally, I want to note that I have heard concerns that this legislation could be misused or abused to penalize websites that promote important health and safety information to survivors of sex trafficking, including about HIV prevention and treatment, and provide access to community and peer support services. This information is particularly critical to the victims of sex trafficking and others who face high rates of violence and exploitation, like people who use drugs, people of color, and LGBTQ people. I believe the use of this legislation to create any liability for this important work would be an impermissible misreading of the statutory language and legislative intent.

 

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2018/03/21/CREC-2018-03-21-pt1-PgS1849-8.pdf

 

The problem is not figuring out what any moderator of this website has in mind. Or what any participant has in mind. The problem is figuring what the hell the 100 members of the US Senate had in mind, starting with the Senate Minority leader quoted above. He was the only one speaking that said anything about LGBTQ or anything that sounds remotely related to anything I've been involved in for the last two decades of my life.

 

So you have 24 pages of floor speeches railing against predatory sex trafficking of children and women. Great. The word "trafficking" is used on every page, again and again and again.

 

But somehow the word "prostitution" gets slipped into the bill - even though if you read all 24 pages, almost nobody actually uses the word "prostitution." I read all 24 pages. The one significant exception where the word "prostitution" is actually used is Sen. Heitkamp, who talked about how there was a lot of prostitution in North Dakota as a result of all these men coming in for the fracking boom. But even she pretty much equates prostitution with abuse of women and nonconsensual trafficking.

 

Here's Heitkamp's take on "prostitution":

 

"Ms. HEITKAMP. When I began my journey to the U.S. Senate, I engaged and started visiting with my old friends in North Dakota law enforcement. As I have said many times, I am a former attorney general from the great State of North Dakota and have great friends in law enforcement. Their message was simple. They were seeing a lot more drugs. Obviously, North Dakota was experiencing an oil boom, and that was creating some social upheaval, additional crime, additional concern about crime. They then told me something I didn’t expect: We are seeing this incredible rate and increase in prostitution. I thought about that. I thought, well, what does that mean, and how do we investigate it?

 

So many people would argue that this is a victimless crime and not a priority, and we started looking behind this. My colleagues in law enforcement in North Dakota started doing stings. They did something that peace officers all across the country do: They sat down with the women they were arresting, and they started listening to their stories. The stories were heartbreaking—stories of being preyed on as young girls, either in their home or as they were running away, the stories of how they got in the life. Many of my colleagues in law enforcement began to say: These women are not criminals; they are victims."

 

So nobody knows what the fuck this law actually means, other than that it seems to be designed to go after predators of women and children. And it is not supposed to go after Gay men, or Gay escorts, or people on websites who talk about things like surviving HIV. Or people like me who want to be part of a community with other escorts, who are my peers.

 

So I don't know what the fuck this law means, or why they passed it, or how it is supposed to be enforced. I'm not a woman or child. I'm not a trafficking victim.

 

So I don't blame anybody for being confused by this poorly written law.

 

I have that citation of Schumer's bookmarked and one thing I will do is keep repeating ad nauseum that whatever this law was supposed to do - IT WAS NOT MEANT TO GO AFTER ME, AND US!

Edited April 15, 2018 by stevenkesslar

[bostonman]

I also feel somewhat reassured by the fact that nothing huge has happened to any sites that I know of since the law was signed. Everything that has happened so far happened before that, including the Backpage takedown, which was obviously one of the major targets.

 

This is certainly not to say that other things may not happen - but it seems so far that the ISP’s are leaving things alone, and the first amendment seems to be safe.

 

So far...

[+ saminseattle]

I have that citation of Schumer's bookmarked and one thing I will do is keep repeating ad nauseum that whatever this law was supposed to do - IT WAS NOT MEANT TO GO AFTER ME, AND US!

 

While I don't claim to have any particular expertise, my impression has always been that the actual words passed into law by Congress matter much more than what individual members of Congress say they are intending to do by passing said law. So I don’t think the fact that Senators highlight sex trafficking victims during the floor debate and don’t say much about gay people means very much. The words in the law clearly apply to everyone, including gay people, and they also clearly apply to non-sex-trafficking situations, and that’s what matters.

 

I suppose Schumer’s comments might come into play if someone were to advance a very broad theory of what “promote” means, such as trying to argue that nonprofits that have webpages and provide STD testing are indirectly “promoting” prostitution. The word "promote" might be considered ambiguous, and Schumer's statement might help in interpreting the meaning of the term in that kind of situation. But I don’t see anything here that would make RM any less liable than it otherwise might be.

[+ deej]

Sometimes there are things not being said or where it is necessary to read between the lines for reasons of discretion and risk management.

And sometimes there’s an easier answer.

 

As I said, reviews have never been allowed on the MC.

 

Some people get butt-hurt over it. We get that, but it won’t change.

[+ Charlie]

To elaborate on deej's comment that reviews have never been allowed on the MC: when Hooboy founded the site, he purposely had separate sections for reviews and for discussions, because the reviews were subjected to a much higher level of scrutiny than the forums. The review had to be about an actual meeting between client and escort, on a specific date, and had to include specified details about the escort. Hooboy (and later Daddy) tried to verify that the encounter actually happened, and to verify the identity of the reviewer. If the review was negative, Hooboy (and later Daddy) attempted to contact the escort, and gave him an opportunity to supply a written response which was added to the review. A review does not appear until it has been vetted in this way.

 

The review is like a published review of a specific performance of a play, which has been read by an editor, while the forum posts are like chatter in a bar among persons who claim to know something about the play. There is no way the monitors can examine every post in the MC to make judgments about whether its contents are really a review of a paid encounter, and unless the escort is a site member and regular reader, he won't necessarily know what claims are being made against him in the MC. (In fact, the monitors depend on site members to alert them to all kinds of problematic posts.) In fairness to the escort, the reviews need to be labelled as such, and accessible by the escort.

[BabyBoomer]

(In fact, the monitors depend on site members to alert them to all kinds of problematic posts.)

 

Well said.

 

~Boomer~

[+ quoththeraven]

I also feel somewhat reassured by the fact that nothing huge has happened to any sites that I know of since the law was signed. Everything that has happened so far happened before that, including the Backpage takedown, which was obviously one of the major targets.

 

This is certainly not to say that other things may not happen - but it seems so far that the ISP’s are leaving things alone, and the first amendment seems to be safe.

 

So far...

It's not as though anything would happen right away anyway, though. Cases need to be investigated. Lawyers and law enforcement need to familiarize themselves with the law. That takes time.

 

It may in fact not be a problem, but it's way too early to draw that conclusion because nothing's happened.

[+ quoththeraven]

And sometimes there’s an easier answer.

 

As I said, reviews have never been allowed on the MC.

 

Some people get butt-hurt over it. We get that, but it won’t change.

I'm just saying there are additional reasons for that now independent of the original one, which is that reviews need verification and process to be fair and reliable, and allowing people to write whatever they want in the forum where there is no mechanism for notifying the escort and permitting him to reply to an unfavorable review undermines that.

[Bearofdistinction]

Thanks for a fun ride, Daddy. It's been 17 months of bliss for myself, but I cannot bookmark this site for reasons of privacy (shared computer & phone), so I will say my goodbyes until the forum comes back to the daddys reviews link, if ever.

 

Thanks to all the readers, responders, and reply folks to my comments and rants and nonsense.

 

Sincerely, Smurof - smug more often

 

So why cant you just learn the address for this website?

[+ Awwshuck]

THE RULES

In my early posting days, I was banned for a week for posting what was perceived to be a review. My posting was a warning about some guys in NYC that were fakers. One of them I had seen. I was just trying to warn others. I was then banned for another month because a friend of mine opened an account on my computer while I was banned. Daddy just assumed it was me making another profile. Daddy can track all our ip addresses and therefore our location. Despite, this fact I still donated this year. Why???

 

The rules are for a reason. We may not comprehend the implications of the content in our posts. In order to post our content, there are legal rules that must be followed along with common sense ones. Violation of those rules have consequences. Daddy is the one who must face the consequences of the violations and deal with the ones that should be common sense related. I am confident that his rules are set up to prevent the legal and common sense violations. In order to make managing the forum doable, he enforces some rules strictly because some may have higher consequences if violated. I do not think he is in a position of time to allow for appeals and I do not think he can catch every violation. I am confident that he does the best that is possible with time alotted him. He is offering this service for free or by donation. Therefore , we are not in a position to criticize nor does he have to explain the logic of his actions. This service is free and you get what you pay for.

 

I made a modest donation this morning. Thanks for shaming me into doing so. I hope everyone who has not made a donation this year will do so soon.

[Bearofdistinction]

I made a modest donation this morning. Thanks for shaming me into doing so. I hope everyone who has not made a donation this year will do so soon.

 

Thanks Huckabee-Sanders - I am sure it came from your Lobbyist Supported Death to Democracy Fund

[+ WilliamM]

Thanks Huckabee-Sanders - I am sure it came from your Lobbyist Supported Death to Democracy Fund

 

I do not think anyone has ever accused Sarah Sanders of being a crook.

[rvwnsd]

Count me in with those who feel the site is run very fairly.

[+ freecahill1965]

Awwshuck, post: 1498577, member: 17229"]I made a modest donation this morning. Thanks for shaming me into doing so. I hope everyone who has not made a donation this year will do so soon.

Awwshuck

I made a modest donation this morning. Thanks for shaming me into doing so. I hope everyone who has not made a donation this year will do so soon.

AWWSHUCKS, I am glad you did it.

[Bearofdistinction]

Just Give It Time --- Where do you think the "Sanders" came from? She is the demon-love child of Colonel Sanders and Mike the DYKE Huckabee!

 

She has been snorting those 11 Herbs and Spices for Years!

[+ Awwshuck]

Just Give It Time --- Where do you think the "Sanders" came from? She is the demon-love child of Colonel Sanders and Mike the DYKE Huckabee!

 

She has been snorting those 11 Herbs and Spices for Years!

 

You callin mah daddy a lesbian???