Well since we have accepted my points as fair, valid and worthy of the esteemed members attention to re-evaluate the narrative above, I am not an escort which should be pretty obvious, and, as your own rules state, I have no quota to fulfil.
I have not white knighted anyone, there is no basis for that at all. There is nothing in my post specific to Isabella. I expressed no views on her whatsoever, I simply confirmed she was who she was and then I pointed out the context of the situation and the misunderstandings and intentional minor but absolutely critical fallacy in this person's story which led to his own bad experience, from which he should learn, not reinforce basic errors so many people make.
Had I thought about rather than accepted it as factual, I'd have known it immediately. I would suggest that would be of much more value to the community as a part of the role of the moderators, to remove obviously false or in fact slanderous and based on no reality posts, than to deplatform the people who challenge the echo chamber, I mean I'm sure you all know everything as do your new members and nothing needs to be challenged. Yes my tone was irate and maybe you've never had a conversation with any of these women as to the impact these thins have on them, I have, a number of them, and sure there are elements of truth in everything, but this thread is so wildly vicious because the OP mishandled the situation and then changed one basic fact and missing, obvious context from every part of the other side of the story. The part I found the most absurdly triggering was the assertion that the lower and mid range party crowd are some sort of blackmailing criminal masterminds. Most of them don't even care about what day of the week it is let alone blackmailing people with no information and cleaning the money after. It's just vicious, no base in reality, just said probably out of ignorance of this segment and then reinforced. But it sits with the people who consume this information and it's not helpful to the punters because it doesn't reflect reality of the situation and escalates their paranoia and damages their experience.
And lastly, "lurker accounts" are a matter relevance due to storage and potential security issues over inactive accounts being hacked, this being superficially pointed out in your rules. As my account is clearly not dormant and I am using it to read posts and look at images and links restricted outside of login, banning it would simply be deplatforming of somebody who said some uncomfortable things, tread on a few eggshells and upset you because you reacted without sufficient reflection on the situation. I lose nothing by losing the account. I gain by telling you rather than trying to throw rules and subrules at me to silence me, you should go to the start of the thread, reread it, assess the information and context in it and then work out whether or not the initial comments by several posters were logical, likely and proportional or fair with zero context by me, then whether my context was relevant and then to what degree you need to actually moderate the things your contributors do vs to what degree you wish to do better for anyone reading this and anyone buying services or commissioning services. That is your choice, not whether you spend more time inventing ways to silence me. For that, you simply press the ban button.
