Review Censorship Policy

[Pete]

Over the last few months, I have seen what is acceptable and not acceptable as far as reviews on this board. In general, reviews that mention illegal acts in MPs or derogatory racial comments and other similar objectionable language are deleted or edited. However, valid reviews of all MPs, whether negative or not, have been permitted.

Recently, another review board that covers the Toronto massage parlour business, has instituted a policy of deleting all reviews for two MPs, one of which is owned by the moderator. IMO this practice diminishes the legitimacy of that review board as an objective forum of opinion. However, any postings disagreeing with that policy on that board are quickly deleted.

I have not seen a written policy on what is acceptable on this board. However, I would hope that any existing or future policies would be applied to all MPs or SPs equally, and not specify any businesses for special treatment. Such policies would allow massageplanet.net to continue to be a truly impartial review forum.

 

[bonlove Coleman]

Brian:
I did not remove the post but assuming that it has been removed I am sure that Kayla can speak for herself.

All others:

Generally speaking we will listen to all reasonable requests for deletions whether they are coming from SP or MP. Exceptions are when an SP or MP requests a deletion to hide from a bad service.

I have always maintained that the best policy is for MPs to ask their customers not to review at the time when they visit the Spa.

I have seen messages posted inside the rooms in Spas asking clients not to ask for sexual services I am sure something could also be posted clarifying the Spa' s reviews policy. Most clients would have no problem complying unless they felt they had been mistreated during their visit.

Moderators cannot be on hand to watch the posts 24hrs a day.l

 

[Meep Zorp]

I can see HFH and IT's point: they're trying to protect their businesses. Besides, both spas have been reviewed to death, not that I mean that as a criticism, but regular massageplanet.net users by now should have an idea of what to expect at either place. They're trying to keep their licenses, which is a good thing in that it protects the consumer; less (slim? non-existent) likelihood of some type of police raid. I know it seems hypocritical for Kayla to but a ban, so to speak, on reviewing her spa on her board, but keep in mind, she's never backed off criticism and has always welcomed constructive criticism, so I don't see the harm in taking a break from reviewing IT or HFH.

 

[Pompal 09.]

No one who works here at massageplanet.net knows about the post you are referring to. You should leave things alone:if Kayla's post went missing as you are alleging she can speak for herself.

LE read the boards all year round, there is not much point in allowing reviews only during certain months.

 

[mit Pricund]

I have never deleted any posts on ERmail.org that disagrees with the policy.. and .. not posting reviews on HFH and IT is not a policy.. it is a temporary request. I have asked the girls to ask their clients to do us the favor at this time of not posting reviews.

I hardly moderate ER. There are posts on ER that even Fred himself said he was not interested in having posted here on massageplanet.net. I have never selectively removed, edited or deleted posts on ER. There is however a request titled 'be careful what you post' in the massage section.. and still.. when posters review that policy is somewhat neglected. Even then I don't edit the posts... I ask the poster to edit it himself.

 

[diamonds24]

Ventilatore, I think you stretched your extension cord a little to far on this one. Everything you said made sense until that "lovely Kayla" statement crept in - personality I'm sure, but I don't think that's what you meant.

Now I'll have to read all your reviews with a beer goggle translator!

Someone plug the Ventilatore back in!

 

[natesando]

Yes, I am.

But in all fairness MoneySpender your review was not deleted. Just a couple of exchanges between you and Pagan that were getting out of hand. I see no reason why you 2 would not go offboard.

 

[Joris D]

Moneyspender, lets agree to disagree here. There is no point in letting this bother you. Fred's decisions are his decisions and although him and I have disagreed in the past we still get along.

 

[emilly]

Moneyspender, I understand where you are coming from. Trust me on this one...

You are getting yourself more and more worked up over this. Just forget about it and move on. If Fred decides that a post should be removed, whats the big deal? Post it on ermail as well. The more energy you spent bitching about this the less time you are happy. So go out, spend some money and have some fun and let us know how it went.

 

[MF. Lif]

I did not say who had removed the post from that board. When I first read that thread on the afternoon of Nov. 11th, there was a very strongly worded criticism of the policy shown as the fifth reply. The post also contained the phrase that he would 'like to thank Kayla for kicking him off the board'. When I returned to the thread about an hour later, there were only four replies, all neutral or positive, and the fifth one had been erased. The member could have erased the posting himself.

Now that I review the thread in question on that board, I see that posts criticizing the policy have been added after I started this thread. Although I did not actually say that Kayla removed the post, I can see where this may have been implied. I apologize for any such implications, and stand corrected.

 

[Cord]

Actually, I would have no problem with Fred verifying that my E-mail address is with a major financial institution. This of course is consistent with my being a stockbroker and not an employee of Embodyment.

Pagan

 

[Yung Dirt]

That's correct. I exchanged several emails with Pagan via his workplace email address at a brokerage house when he was having some problems registering for this site.