Do WG's read UKP -& - The things WG's say to punters. (Identity of UKP' ers)

[finn5555]

Personally I think pro$$ies shouldn’t be on here as more often than not they have nothing tangible to contribute to the forum, and who’s not to say they don’t share information gleaned with other pro$$ies 

However they are here and providing they don’t tout for business I guess the boss is happy with that 

[funfungoodguy]

Again that seems to have prompted a lot of comment;

1- i didn't mean linking UKP and AW as we all know we keep those identities separate obviously not to reveal one identity in the other forum
2- 'Incomplete' is clearly an incomplete use of careful reading, and obviously a typo and the word ought to have been 'completely' (they consider it completely normal, and so on)
3- Sorry if i didn't know the rules and wasn't meaning publishing links, just something like feedback in AW after a punt saying "Was a great meet, glad she lived up to the reviews on UKP". and suchlike. this was prompted by comments i have read in here from people who have referred to bad punts they had before they found UKP, and also by similar comments in here enquiring how may punters there are that don't know about UKP and who therefore continue to provide trade for crap or deteriorating WG service providers. The idea was that AW feedback is an opportunity to publish the existence of UKP. Clearly from the comments made, this was not a good idea.

That's all.

[daviemac]

Again that seems to have prompted a lot of comment;

1- i didn't mean linking UKP and AW as we all know we keep those identities separate obviously not to reveal one identity in the other forum
2- 'Incomplete' is clearly an incomplete use of careful reading, and obviously a typo and the word ought to have been 'completely' (they consider it completely normal, and so on)
3- Sorry if i didn't know the rules and wasn't meaning publishing links, just something like feedback in AW after a punt saying "Was a great meet, glad she lived up to the reviews on UKP". and suchlike. this was prompted by comments i have read in here from people who have referred to bad punts they had before they found UKP, and also by similar comments in here enquiring how may punters there are that don't know about UKP and who therefore continue to provide trade for crap or deteriorating WG service providers. The idea was that AW feedback is an opportunity to publish the existence of UKP. Clearly from the comments made, this was not a good idea.

That's all.

As has already been mentioned, links to other sites get picked up on AW and are removed or deleted, plus AW feedback is mostly made up false positives.

It doesn't answer the question, discounting the advertising on an escorts behalf, why you think UKP needs to advertise it's existence, we now have 60,560 members, up from the 60,519 I mentioned at 8 o'clock this morning, plus the 2,031 guests that are showing at the minute. 

[funfungoodguy]

i have acknowledged it wasn't a good idea

[Marmalade]

First rule: don’t mention Ukp to prossies
Second rule: don’t reveal your UKP identity to prossies, directly or inadvertently.
Third rule: if you have an AW profile keep it separate.

Prossies are on UKP historically as it would be impossible to ban them. I understand they are tolerated (and sometimes amusing and even ‘sensible’) but they are not your mates. This is no disrespect to them: you need to protect your independence.

[MissWolf]

Did you mean AW in your first sentence.
Yes links in messages are picked up, a regular messaging me had his messages deleted by the AW system after including a website link in a message he sent.

Yes I did I meant will get you booted from AW for mentioning ukp