So your a bb troll from that other scummy forum, if your going to post links on this thread please post pics otherwise its pointless 
I don't agree with you.
Most of the 'ladies' he linked have had very similar photos on them for a long time - they don't seem to be fly-by-night or swapping and in that case the id is quite stable. And the pics are less so - similar but not the same and often obscured.
Eva *has* changed profile - she used to have one with visible negs where a punter complained of getting an STI. But she came right back with one that was almost identical, with the same services. Maybe she got a new Sergei who wasn't so thick.
I think this thread is a good idea in principle, but we know that:
- prossies don't do services they advertise (and is BB any different from OWO/CIM/Fisting/Anal for that?)
- prossies do offer unadvertised extras
In principle, having someone say that:
- I had BB with the girl
- she offered it to me
this is valuable: IMO more valuable than seeing it checked (or not checked) on the likes. If the text backs it up (and it does for plenty of Roms in East England) then I'd believe it, especially if reviewed as such by the unmentionable £40p&d person on the site that can't be named or one of our colleagues here.
Anyway - to my mind we should encourage people who Like That Sort Of Thing to post here and share here - and not on other sites. Then we can use the admirable search engine to see whether we want to exclude (or, heck, include) them. I'm uncomfortable that the OP is banned, because certainly Mariewantsyou has been on my milf HL and I was unaware of her past. I think he has given a reasonable contribution. Whether he should be technically banned for multiple accounts is another thing. But I don't like the 'Previously banned bareback troll' tag. We need the barebackers to be here, and to share who they're seeing. I'm also somewhat interested to see who they neg because BB was advertised and not offered.
Anyone with half a brain can exclude advertising barebackers. However, I believe there is a lot of value in recording who has actually done it, even if they don't advertise. But a focus on who *has advertised it* seems wrong, because we know that the adverts are often BS, and they get passed on, and they change. Its reasonable to say that for safety sake one should exclude any who have advertised *or* been 'outed' as offering or actually providing. In that case the advertising capture is worthwhile - but its only part of the puzzle.
I'm not sure that having the pictures is so helpful *unless* someone notices that a new profile is using the old pictures *and* we know that the old pictures and new pictures are of the girl. In other circumstances, having a 'BB alert' tagged to the AW id is probably enough - and having someone 'out' the unadvertised offers (and validating advertised offers) is the mother load as far as real information is concerned.
Short form,IMO:
- encourage people to out BB where it is actually practiced (implication: do not be judgemental)
- don't moan about lack of picture links
- don't ban information providers
