Forum Rules

[Kev40ish]

Sounds a bit strange how a review can be made after such a period.

I think some people have had a common sense bypass.

Do they really need you to tell them everything in the rules, how do they manage to get through life without someone making a decision for them 

[scutty brown]

Sorry about being a wally. You can post previous meets in the past, however, is there a maximum time, ie 5 years, you can put up reviews. Apologies If I have misread.
 

the historic limits were
positive 12 months
negative unlimited

there may not be a limit now, but it may make sense to regard those a good guidelines

[Cuntminion]

Rules all seem sound

Whats the remit for not being a leech?

I'm unlikely to post a "new" review for the foreseeable as I'm quite content with a reg

I don't see the point reviewing a green twice unless a green reviewed sp figuratively or literally shits the bed then she will get a red

[fastnet]

Seems to me to me to be a pretty good set of rules

[bhudda]

Rules all seem sound

Whats the remit for not being a leech?

I'm unlikely to post a "new" review for the foreseeable as I'm quite content with a reg

I don't see the point reviewing a green twice unless a green reviewed sp figuratively or literally shits the bed then she will get a red

Shitting the bed shouldnt be an automatic red!

Many years ago a lass and i had shared a bottle of wine or two and then spent a pleasant half hour with her sucking my knob while i pumped her bum with her thick glass dildo. I say pumped because i clearly forced some air up there which eventually had to come out again ... accompanied by a fair amount of unpleasantness. I have to take 50% of the blame so a red would be harsh.

Suffice to say it convinced me that hard sports is not one of my enjoys.

[Cuntminion]

Shitting the bed shouldnt be an automatic red!

Many years ago a lass and i had shared a bottle of wine or two and then spent a pleasant half hour with her sucking my knob while i pumped her bum with her thick glass dildo. I say pumped because i clearly forced some air up there which eventually had to come out again ... accompanied by a fair amount of unpleasantness. I have to take 50% of the blame so a red would be harsh.

Suffice to say it convinced me that hard sports is not one of my enjoys.

That's activity associated shitting if it was casual, say having a cuddle and she suddenly shit I'd be off

[winkywanky]

22 Privacy of service providers

Phone numbers may be posted in full 

Previously the rule was only if the number was advertised. I only have a private number which I'd issue privately to clients for their ease of convenience. E.g. if it's a few minutes before the booking start time and they can't find me it's quicker for them to phone me than send a message on adult work, wait for me to see it and reply. Do I need to stop doing this until I can sort out a work phone?

You should definitely have a 'gig' phone, just like guys have a punting phone - for an extra layer of separation from private life.

As for WG's numbers being posted up in full whether the girl has put it in the public domain or not, there are occasions where this is entirely justifiable from UKP's point of view, like where scamming/fraud/blackmail etc has gone on. Even if it were banned, it's gonna happen that a number would be posted up unknowingly or by a newbie, so ultimately it's your responsibility to keep your privacy secured.

[bhudda]

That's activity associated shitting if it was casual, say having a cuddle and she suddenly shit I'd be off

Thats fair enough

[matoombaDan]

I think the rules are fair and well balanced.

I'll probably fall foul of the inactivity one at some point as I haven't had a punt in months due to personal circumstances / lack of quality providers (see any east of england thread on the same).

It's nice to see the repeat review restriction relaxed because if a miracle does happen it would be useful to relay to other members that I keep going back to a good one

[whoya.kiddin]

Could Admin clarify what is in-bound and out-of-bounds in publishing photographs?

E.G. Any "ever published on AW or related websites including verification pictures" are inbound, but "social media or private communication (?)" are out-of-bounds (what then of photos in the press?).

[Happyjose]

Could Admin clarify what is in-bound and out-of-bounds in publishing photographs?

E.G. Any "ever published on AW or related websites including verification pictures" are inbound, but "social media or private communication (?)" are out-of-bounds (what then of photos in the press?).

The general rule of thumb has been that social media stuff not connected to an SP's work (i.e. private civvie stuff) is not to be posted normally (cases of thieves and scammers etc are generally different). Modelling, porn and media related work is the exception.

The guiding principal to date (in my view) has been that outing a WG in normal circumstances (e.g. stalking a WG on social media and posting those details ) is considered akin to a WG outing a punter. Anything that a WG uses, or has used in the past, to promote themselves or their business is fair game

If you have a specific concern, why not just ask a direct question - eg "A WG has sent me a face pic that she hasn't published elsewhere, can I post it on here?"

22 Privacy of service providers
It is generally not allowed to post personal info of service providers, such as real names and personal social networking profiles. Phone numbers may be posted in full(If the number is anywhere online on an advert,personal numbers not allowed) . Hotels may be named. General description of in-call locations is acceptable, but not specific house numbers and street names. Modeling, porn, and media-related work are acceptable to be posted, even if it includes their real names as they actively sought publicity / higher-profile. Any news items may be posted. All aforementioned restrictions do not apply to thieves and those with criminal convictions. Past name changes are never censored, regardless of reasons.

.

[winkywanky]

I think the rules are fair and well balanced.

I'll probably fall foul of the inactivity one at some point as I haven't had a punt in months due to personal circumstances / lack of quality providers (see any east of england thread on the same).

I think this is very much at the management's discretion: if you're an established member, not a troublemaker, have reviewed previous punts despite no recent ones, but continued to play an active and constructive role on the site since, then I don't think you'd be for the chop. It wouldn't be fair and it would be counter-productive for UKP.

If on the other hand you joined over a year ago, have submitted no reviews, made few posts, yet have a cocky and/or antagonistic manner, then expect short shrift.

[CoolTiger]

Posting of links to ISG site or any foreign punting/agency sites is allowed in "Punting Abroad" section.

[Horizontal pleasures]

17 Dogging / Swinging / Webcamming / Phone Chat
Not Allowed.

so what about porn? Looks like off-topic to me?

[Beamer]

Seems to me to me to be a pretty good set of rules

Agreed, especially.........
1 Site ethos / mission
This Forum puts the interests of Punters first through the sharing of Reviews.

27 Lurking / Dormant Accounts
Members that do not contribute Reviews or where their accounts become dormant may have their membership revoked.

[daviemac]

Discussion of general porn is deemed off topic and therefore not allowed. Rules have been amended accordingly.

[Working Wendy]

You should definitely have a 'gig' phone, just like guys have a punting phone - for an extra layer of separation from private life.

As for WG's numbers being posted up in full whether the girl has put it in the public domain or not, there are occasions where this is entirely justifiable from UKP's point of view, like where scamming/fraud/blackmail etc has gone on. Even if it were banned, it's gonna happen that a number would be posted up unknowingly or by a newbie, so ultimately it's your responsibility to keep your privacy secured.

I rushed out to get one first thing on Saturday morning before the rule was reversed

If it does get published in error, anybody who calls it will be outing themselves as a UKP member as it won't be published anywhere else (and I know you don't like to do that)

Bravo Boss btw

[winkywanky]

I rushed out to get one first thing on Saturday morning before the rule was reversed

If it does get published in error, anybody who calls it will be outing themselves as a UKP member as it won't be published anywhere else (and I know you don't like to do that)

Bravo Boss btw

Well I imagine not necessarily because you'll probably give it out to guys who have booked with you through AW, and you wouldn't mind seeing again/becoming a regular?

Anyway, nothing to be ashamed of being in UKP, obviously the case seeing as you're a member  .

[Working Wendy]

Well I imagine not necessarily because you'll probably give it out to guys who have booked with you through AW, and you wouldn't mind seeing again/becoming a regular?

Anyway, nothing to be ashamed of being in UKP, obviously the case seeing as you're a member  .

Yes, but I know who I've given my number out to and seen before. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, but you'd lose the element of surprise 

[winkywanky]

Oh I dunno, someone could always put on a Man From Milk Tray outfit and shin up your drainpipe (ooer, missus).

[matoombaDan]

I'm less Man from Milk Tray and more Michelin Man these days

[winkywanky]

Sadly, that makes you Mr. Bibendum 

[themaserman]

Seems like I have been barred from posting new reviews  as I tried to do one
this evening but I am now off limits in this department...Gutted.

[Doc Holliday]

Seems like I have been barred from posting new reviews  as I tried to do one
this evening but I am now off limits in this department...Gutted.

Keep up man    https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=253324.0

[themaserman]

Thanks a million Doc  I must have missed that thread, all good now, cheers!

[SO595]

22 Privacy of service providers
...General description of in-call locations is acceptable, but not specific house numbers and street names...

Can I ask for clarification on the wording of this one?  Is a Street name without a number OK?

Clearly "123 High Street" would be in breach of that rule, but is "High Street" by itself OK?  Custom and practice seems to be that the latter is OK, but I think it could be read either way.

Thanks

[Beamer]

Can I ask for clarification on the wording of this one?  Is a Street name without a number OK?

Clearly "123 High Street" would be in breach of that rule, but is "High Street" by itself OK?  Custom and practice seems to be that the latter is OK, but I think it could be read either way.

Thanks

Rules state..... not specific house numbers and street names......what is not clear about that?

[houseboot]

Can I ask for clarification on the wording of this one?  Is a Street name without a number OK?

Clearly "123 High Street" would be in breach of that rule, but is "High Street" by itself OK?  Custom and practice seems to be that the latter is OK, but I think it could be read either way.

Thanks

Why do you need to put the actual street?

You can give a general indication by stating something like, e.g.

2 min walk from the station/Tesco/whatever

or

just off the High Street if it's one of the roads leading off it

There's no need to name the actual street.

[Beamer]

Why do you need to put the actual street?

You can give a general indication by stating something like, e.g.

2 min walk from the station/Tesco/whatever

or

just off the High Street if it's one of the roads leading off it

There's no need to name the actual street.

+1
Good advice.

[Marmalade]

I prefer not giving the street name anyway as it saves helping plod when they have decided to do a purge.

[SO595]

Rules state..... not specific house numbers and street names......what is not clear about that?

The wording.  What's not clear about my question?  I even gave an example.

It could be read as "not specific house numbers and also not specific street names" or "not specific house numbers and street names in combination"  In the first case "High Street" wouldn't be allowed, in the second it would.

Why do you need to put the actual street?

I don't and I don't agree with doing it, but others do.  I have criticized it previously (under the old management) and been shot down by others who believe that there are enough properties in the typical street for it to be acceptable.

I only ask because I see people doing it, and I want to be sure what the rule is before I call them out on it.

[houseboot]

The wording.  What's not clear about my question?  I even gave an example.

It could be read as "not specific house numbers and also not specific street names" or "not specific house numbers and street names in combination"  In the first case "High Street" wouldn't be allowed, in the second it would.

I don't and I don't agree with doing it, but others do.  I have criticized it previously (under the old management) and been shot down by others who believe that there are enough properties in the typical street for it to be acceptable.

I only ask because I see people doing it, and I want to be sure what the rule is before I call them out on it.

If you "Report to Moderator" the offending description is usually removed within minutes.

Shot down by whom? Possibly in the old days when "Reports" we're viewable by anyone but that changed months ago. Only Mods & Admin can see "Reports".

[SO595]

If you "Report to Moderator" the offending description is usually removed within minutes.

I did report the post at the time, but old Admin (this was before the mods were appointed) obviously didn't feel it needed censoring.

Shot down by whom?

A couple of people: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=155655.msg1756956

The wording as I quoted it at the time was actually clearer:

General description of incall locations is acceptable, but not specific house numbers or street names or postcodes

I appreciate that there's a difference between a large road in an urban area and a cul de sac in a small village, and maybe common sense should apply, but if that's the approach to be taken then the rules probably ought to reflect that so everyone knows what's acceptable.

Just my opinion of course in the context of this thread inviting comment on the rules

[daviemac]

I did report the post at the time, but old Admin (this was before the mods were appointed) obviously didn't feel it needed censoring.

A couple of people: https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=155655.msg1756956

The wording as I quoted it at the time was actually clearer:

I appreciate that there's a difference between a large road in an urban area and a cul de sac in a small village, and maybe common sense should apply, but if that's the approach to be taken then the rules probably ought to reflect that so everyone knows what's acceptable.

Just my opinion of course in the context of this thread inviting comment on the rules

This is the third post you've made on here trying to get someone to say it's OK to post street names, several experienced punters have given the advice that it isn't wise to post street names. I don't know why you're making such a big issue of it.

The rules state 'house numbers and street names' not 'house numbers with street names'.  You obviously have doubts about whether or not it's allowed, if you aren't sure err on the side of caution and you can't go wrong.

[SO595]

This is the third post you've made on here trying to get someone to say it's OK to post street names, several experienced punters have given the advice that it isn't wise to post street names. I don't know why you're making such a big issue of it.

The rules state 'house numbers and street names' not 'house numbers with street names'.  You obviously have doubts about whether or not it's allowed, if you aren't sure err on the side of caution and you can't go wrong.

Have you actually read my posts? I'm trying to get the rules clarified to say that it isn't allowed to post a street name.

[houseboot]

Have you actually read my posts? I'm trying to get the rules clarified to say that it isn't allowed to post a street name.

Let it go mate.

You'll get yourself banned.

[Kev40ish]

Have you actually read my posts? I'm trying to get the rules clarified to say that it isn't allowed to post a street name.

You were told last time you brought it up to just use your common sense.
It’s only you that has had an issue with it before.

[daviemac]

Have you actually read my posts? I'm trying to get the rules clarified to say that it isn't allowed to post a street name.

Yes, but you should've taken notice of mine and the others.

[James999]

before I call them out on it.

Sounds like a wannabe moderator 

[SeekingtheTruth]

Well that seems to be an odd and over the top banning. He actually agreed with what people were saying about not posting street names. Then gets the boot because he wants it clarified a bit clearer in the rules.

Fair enough if that's how the mods and new admin team want to run it but my only concern is that it will put people off questioning and challenging something that does seem quite right going forward.

[Happyjose]

Well that seems to be an odd and over the top banning. He actually agreed with what people were saying about not posting street names. Then gets the boot because he wants it clarified a bit clearer in the rules.

Fair enough if that's how the mods and new admin team want to run it but my only concern is that it will put people off questioning and challenging something that does seem quite right going forward.

Doesn't look that way to me

Being a cheeky bugger to a mod and labouring the point when it seemed clear to everyone else, what do you expect?

[SeekingtheTruth]

Doesn't look that way to me

Being a cheeky bugger to a mod and labouring the point when it seemed clear to everyone else, what do you expect?

Don't get me wrong, the rule is pretty clear to me but I can see where a little clarification might help.

[daviemac]

Well that seems to be an odd and over the top banning. He actually agreed with what people were saying about not posting street names. Then gets the boot because he wants it clarified a bit clearer in the rules.

Fair enough if that's how the mods and new admin team want to run it but my only concern is that it will put people off questioning and challenging something that does seem quite right going forward.

He even answered his own question when he posted this -

I appreciate that there's a difference between a large road in an urban area and a cul de sac in a small village, and maybe common sense should apply, but if that's the approach to be taken then the rules probably ought to reflect that so everyone knows what's acceptable.

How would you suggest the rules are worded? How can you give a definitive answer when there's so many variations, full addresses in adverts are allowed, if it's a long road that covers more than one postcode should be OK. Common sense and the word "specific" in the rules gives a good indication of what is acceptable.

In any case does "if you aren't sure err on the side of caution and you can't go wrong." not cover it.

The dictionary entry for specific is - clearly defined or identified.

[SeekingtheTruth]

He even answered his own question when he posted this -
How would you suggest the rules are worded? How can you give a definitive answer when there's so many variations, full addresses in adverts are allowed, if it's a long road that covers more than one postcode should be OK. Common sense and the word "specific" in the rules gives a good indication of what is acceptable.

In any case does "if you aren't sure err on the side of caution and you can't go wrong." not cover it.

The dictionary entry for specific is - clearly defined or identified.

Personally I would just change "and" to "or". Like I said it seems pretty clear to me but to play devils advocate it could be interpreted that you could put either the house number or the street name. The "and" being the word that could cause the confusion.

22 Privacy of service providers
It is generally not allowed to post personal info of service providers, such as real names and personal social networking profiles. Phone numbers may be posted in full(If the number is anywhere online on an advert,personal numbers not allowed) . Hotels may be named. General description of in-call locations is acceptable, but not specific house numbers and street names. Modeling, porn, and media-related work are acceptable to be posted, even if it includes their real names as they actively sought publicity / higher-profile. Any news items may be posted. All aforementioned restrictions do not apply to thieves and those with criminal convictions. Past name changes are never censored, regardless of reasons.

But yes I agree that err on the side of caution should cover it.

[daviemac]

Personally I would just change "and" to "or". Like I said it seems pretty clear to me but to play devils advocate it could be interpreted that you could put either the house number or the street name. The "and" being the word that could cause the confusion.

But yes I agree that err on the side of caution should cover it.

There was only one person who had a problem with it and yes I did actually read his posts.

[Waterhouse]

If you ask me it's not rocket science - boils down to discretion and common sense... in that order.

Personally I'd never give out an address even if it was posted on the SP's profile or advert, just rough idea with an obvious landmark - i.e. the town/district and nearest tube for example.

[Rochelle]

Personally I would just change "and" to "or". Like I said it seems pretty clear to me but to play devils advocate it could be interpreted that you could put either the house number or the street name. The "and" being the word that could cause the confusion.

22 Privacy of service providers
It is generally not allowed to post personal info of service providers, such as real names and personal social networking profiles. Phone numbers may be posted in full(If the number is anywhere online on an advert,personal numbers not allowed) . Hotels may be named. General description of in-call locations is acceptable, but not specific house numbers and street names. Modeling, porn, and media-related work are acceptable to be posted, even if it includes their real names as they actively sought publicity / higher-profile. Any news items may be posted. All aforementioned restrictions do not apply to thieves and those with criminal convictions. Past name changes are never censored, regardless of reasons.

But yes I agree that err on the side of caution should cover it.

The rules are worded perfectly fine, and he should have had a little bit of common sense. They're not exactly hard to understand. He was also told, if unsure, be cautious. Not sure what he had to keep going on about.

[houseboot]

The rules are worded perfectly fine, and he should have had a little bit of common sense. They're not exactly hard to understand. He was also told, if unsure, be cautious. Not sure what he had to keep going on about.

He wasn't going to post addresses.

He wanted clarity (in his mind) so that he could challenge those that did post addresses.

His intentions were admirable but that's wasn't his job.

All he had to do was "Report" anything that concerned him and let "Mods & Admin" deal with it.

Unfortunately he couldn't let go and paid the price.

[Marmalade]

Could be fun. What will the next fannypad-for-brains ask I wonder?

How about, if it’s not a house guv, just a squat in a tenement flat and there was no number on the door but if you follow the discarded johnny-wrappers trail to what used to be 32c on the 13th floor opposite the junkyard they’re thinking of turning into a poundstretcher it’s the one directly above the burnt out Fort Cortina in what once was a garden opposite what used to be 32c and I won’t mention the street name but just think of the opposite of “Low” and and “Street” afterwards and remember it’s just a workin’ flat, she’s a really high class. 

I love it when some cunt thinks this is yellow pages or some sort of ‘democracy’. 

[Marmalade]

He wasn't going to post addresses.

He wanted clarity (in his mind) so that he could challenge those that did post addresses.

His intentions were admirable but that's wasn't his job.

All he had to do was "Report" anything that concerned him and let "Mods & Admin" deal with it.

Unfortunately he couldn't let go and paid the price.

People could argue about rules all day. Members are kind of meant to use a bit of common sense when ‘interpreting’ or ‘questioning’ the rules, or getting ammo to ‘challenge’ people. Nuf said shoorly?