Seeking arrangement - Rules change

[90125]

That's not what I was saying.  The comments by Admin earlier in the thread appear to permit open, public threads about women on Seeking (and presumably on other platforms of a similar nature).  There's no strictures just a vague "don't be an ass about it" shrug.
It may well be that the established SA community are keeping things within their walled garden but there are posters here who aren't part of that club but may well check out such platforms and feel they have cause to post about their experience/frustration "indiscretely".

Talking of walled gardens, the SA Thread is part of this Forum so anyone with access there should also contribute to the wider Forum and not just hide in the secret garden all the time ......

[DeanoDeano]

Talking of walled gardens, the SA Thread is part of this Forum so anyone with access there should also contribute to the wider Forum and not just hide in the secret garden all the time ......

Can’t speak for anyone else on the SA thread, but yes I’m happy to contribute to the forum as a whole where I can. I wouldn’t want to start spamming up other threads just for the sake of it though...

 

[NightKid]

Talking of walled gardens, the SA Thread is part of this Forum so anyone with access there should also contribute to the wider Forum and not just hide in the secret garden all the time ......

I may be wrong but I don't think that's likely to happen unfortunately ... cause for a while now the thread has been becoming a bit of a circle jerk and despite the comment about willy waving from one of the admins before, it seems to have only intensified further by some on there like a response to a challenge of sorts.

Anywho, I personally won't be contributing to it much more since I find it is no longer to my taste. Furthermore, non-reviewing members of the thread who are on it all the time have no reason to go elsewhere anyway plus it's also a bit redundant posting negative reports (which form the majority of posts in there that actually has profile links as well) in a closed thread as opposed to an open one so there's my 2p worth. 

[cunnyhunt]

I had access before but it ceased when the rules of access changed,  I had regulars and didn't need it.  What I remember of it was many posters try to be 'one up' on others and claiming to have freebies and others just leaching and moaning about the cost.

I don't think a closed thread on a forum such as this is a good idea, it creates cliques and eventually undermines the main forum.

[Steve2]

The main problem previously seemed to be that SA gained access to the thread before it was locked and some of the information on there caused problems to the posters

I am happy to share the scammers and picture sellers as I have been doing but the gems I am keeping to myself for now

[scutty brown]

I'll repeat what I said earlier - its time to scrap the walled garden and move everything out into the open. Whatever anyone else claims, the girls discussed there are pay-for-sex whores, just like all the other girls mentioned here. They don't deserve special treatment. If they're not taking cash for sex then they shouldn't be discussed anyway.
The SA thread comes across as an extreme literal case of elitist willy-waving, time it got the chop

[DeanoDeano]

I'll repeat what I said earlier - its time to scrap the walled garden and move everything out into the open. Whatever anyone else claims, the girls discussed there are pay-for-sex whores, just like all the other girls mentioned here. They don't deserve special treatment. If they're not taking cash for sex then they shouldn't be discussed anyway.
The SA thread comes across as an extreme literal case of elitist willy-waving, time it got the chop

How do you know?

 

[scutty brown]

How do you know?

 

Inferred from the bollox self-justifying statements by its members on other parts of the forum, especially in this thread

[DeanoDeano]

One post in this thread could be interpreted as willy waving, and it wasn't made by someone who contributes to the SA thread. But you sound like you've made your mind up anyway...

[scutty brown]

One post in this thread could be interpreted as willy waving, and it wasn't made by someone who contributes to the SA thread. But you sound like you've made your mind up anyway...

I
That's a remarkably stupid thing to say.
Do you think I would have posted if I hadn't made my mind up?

[DeanoDeano]

I'm remarkably stupid, yet you seem to have let my point go flying above your head there...

Never mind champ...

[tynetunnel]

Talking of walled gardens, the SA Thread is part of this Forum so anyone with access there should also contribute to the wider Forum and not just hide in the secret garden all the time ......

I certainly try contribute to UKP as a whole, within the topics and areas that are relevant to me, I don’t just inhabit the SA members thread, and I reviewed my last punt.

[tynetunnel]

I'll repeat what I said earlier - its time to scrap the walled garden and move everything out into the open. Whatever anyone else claims, the girls discussed there are pay-for-sex whores, just like all the other girls mentioned here. They don't deserve special treatment. If they're not taking cash for sex then they shouldn't be discussed anyway.
The SA thread comes across as an extreme literal case of elitist willy-waving, time it got the chop

If that happens then members will be much more reluctant to share information including that regarding scammers, pic sellers, time wasters and the like.

What is it that bothers you so much about the SA thread Scutty? If you aren’t an SA member, what interest would it be to you? It’s like me saying that the SAGA website should be closed down, since I’m not able to be a member as I’m too young! The “elitist” over 55’s having all the fun! 

[Kev40ish]

If that happens then members will be much more reluctant to share information including that regarding scammers, pic sellers, time wasters and the like.

What is it that bothers you so much about the SA thread Scutty? If you aren’t an SA member, what interest would it be to you? It’s like me saying that the SAGA website should be closed down, since I’m not able to be a member as I’m too young! The “elitist” over 55’s having all the fun! 

The only problem is the warnings for scammers, pic sellers, timewasters etc. Are only shared amongst a select few with access to it, not to everyone who uses SA.

[scutty brown]

If that happens then members will be much more reluctant to share information including that regarding scammers, pic sellers, time wasters and the like.

What is it that bothers you so much about the SA thread Scutty? If you aren’t an SA member, what interest would it be to you? It’s like me saying that the SAGA website should be closed down, since I’m not able to be a member as I’m too young! The “elitist” over 55’s having all the fun! 

Yes, all that information that gets kept to a restricted few and is unavailable to lesser members who are not part of the SA elite.
The fact I'm not a member of the thread does not necessarily mean I'm not a member of SA. Same applies to others here. In fact I am a member, though I rarely look at the site - partly because of the lack of available information............

[martini2429]

The only problem is the warnings for scammers, pic sellers, timewasters etc. Are only shared amongst a select few with access to it, not to everyone who uses SA.

There is an open Seeking thread on the Scottish board where scammers etc are openly reported by members who have access to the closed thread and also those that don't

 

[tynetunnel]

The issue therefore is that SA members cannot access the SA thread. Old Admin used to verify SA membership before granting access to the thread. I imagine it must have taken a fair amount of work verifying members, which is perhaps why he stopped. A suggestion then - some members volunteer to take on the verification task - I for one would be up for that. Of course as is frequently said, UKP is not ours and we don’t make the decisions...

[90125]

There is an open Seeking thread on the Scottish board where scammers etc are openly reported by members who have access to the closed thread and also those that don't

 

Could be a sensible approach to follow for all regional boards. What’s the view? I don’t see why scammers and pic sellers shouldn’t be for all to see.

[Kev40ish]

Could be a sensible approach to follow for all regional boards. What’s the view?

I think it’s the only way to open it up to everyone, unless access is granted to the closed thread.

The only problem is members in the closed thread will just continue to use that and not necessarily share the information on the regional boards.
But if there are warnings it should be for everyone to see, obviously they will need to be sensible about what they post, as there is the chance of outing themselves, but that’s no different to reviews.

I think photos shouldn’t be attached unless they are dangerous, but the link could be shared

[tynetunnel]

Could be a sensible approach to follow for all regional boards. What’s the view? I don’t see why scammers and pic sellers shouldn’t be for all to see.

It sounds good to me 

[billybobsmith]

There's still a fine line in my opinion between outing scammers / picture sellers etc. and ending up revealing too much about various women on the site.
I definitely don't want to see reviews of "Jo XXX,20, student, from Manchester" and then find she's getting loads of additional messages wanting explicit sexual services which either puts her off completely or changes the site dynamic further still.

How many people here are actually paying £70 or whatever a month to use SA anyway?
I would prefer it to remain closed to those who are verified members rather than be open to all and sundry (unless it can be shown that the scammer is also on AW, Gumtree, Vivastreet or whatever site doing the same sort of thing).  If she's solely on SA, then it should remain on SA.
Escorts on there, and say AW, fair game.

Picture sellers on SA don't really bother me.
If she's open from the start, I'll move on knowing full well where we both stand.
If she agrees to a meet, but then comes out with "you can have 5 nudes of me for £20 before we meet", I'll move on and then I could tip off others who use SA to do the same or counter her.

[Steve2]

Yes, all that information that gets kept to a restricted few and is unavailable to lesser members who are not part of the SA elite.
The fact I'm not a member of the thread does not necessarily mean I'm not a member of SA. Same applies to others here. In fact I am a member, though I rarely look at the site - partly because of the lack of available information............

Nothing to do with SA elite but the probability that SA has a mole on the main forum

[CheeseBoard]

Nothing to do with SA elite but the probability that SA has a mole on the main forum

+1

[hungrypunt]

Nothing to do with SA elite but the probability that SA has a mole on the main forum

I remember that well Steve and how it raised its head again. I certainly altered my posting style at that time. Its just like WK ing at its best.

Maybe it is right to introduce an open SA thread, for scammers and the like. I dont see the point in moving the old one over as most the real old scammers etc are all off the site after a few weeks when the get outed or realise it doesnt work. But some of the info from the thread back in the day could reveal some info on girls that could be a problem on an open forum.

I get scuttys point about em all being sex workers of a sorts, but its really not true that they are ALLLLL selling their fannies, but yes the majority of girls get used to the reality and either stay or go, and it only takes an over zealoous or fantatsist to potentially fuck a girl up. JESUS, imagine how many girls on their are potentially related to blokes on here. Its not like WGs, there are thousands of em at UNI coming and going each week, esp when Brandon gets the tv advertising and daily mail promising wealth and happiness   

Ive mentioned before the thread has turned into a "my cocks bigger than your cock" or "willy waving" as Admin put it, but the warnings of time wasters and scammers is the best part.

I see a new thread, with rules from the Admin of what can be posted (same lines as rules of posting about WGs) and get it on the open boards.

JUST not the whole of the locked thread with the info that was previously posted.

[Spencer Fobby]

For whatever my opinion is worth, I would prefer the locked thread remains locked as there has been much more open sharing and identifiable info there than I would be comfortable with on an open thread.
I don't have a great deal to contribute to reviews of WGs anymore as my focus has been on seeking for the past 18 months as it suits my needs more, but I have contributed on other threads when the subject was right. 
I would post scammers on the open thread, but honestly I have a very high bullshit filter and there's only been a couple in the past few months that I would share.  Picture sellers aren't scammers IMO.
As for willy waving, yes - I'm probably very guilty of that, but it's not oneupmanship.  It's about sharing and I know that my comments have actually been helpful to some. I also enjoy hearing other's exploits.  Don't see what the harm is with that.

One thing I feel quite strongly is that there is most of the girls I have meet on seeking are not what I would class as sex workers.  They don't see themselves as sex workers.  And that distinction is important as it is an entirely different thing to review a working girl who advertises herself as such as opposed to sharing details of a student who has tried out seeking and had a few arrangements as a bit of fun to help with her bills. 

[hungrypunt]

Picture sellers aren't scammers IMO.

I agree, some folk are into that, so hey ho, their choice. And its useful to others so they can avoid online or pics.
Theres a girl quite local to me who I talk to via WA who flogs pics, and Ive been trying to get her to meet for ages now, with messages like, "Deanna, why dont you stop messing around with pics and come see me for far more XXX£" but shes not ready, so I dont push (or Im Fugly) . She says she does ok flogging pics and videos,( dunno what Ok means $$)  mail shots loads of guys in one go.

Some guys do actually just pay girls for dinner too, company. Iv etold the story of an old reg of mine who used to go see a guy and all he wanted to do was brush her hair, she said he was weird so stopped seeing him after a few times, from memory I think it was 100 per time FFS.

She Went back to my old cock and fantasies 

[billybobsmith]

As I said earlier, you could argue though that picture sellers who lead you on with the promise of "getting to know you first" are scamming in some shape or form.

For the most part though with SA, it's the same as with AW.  Don't give them anything up front even if you trust them or may have done so previously - nothing there to say she's not going to do a runner at the first opportunity during a subsequent meet when the cash is in her hand.  Lure the man into a false sense of security first and then strike.
Call her bluff if she requires a small amount in advance for a cab, train, nails, outfit for the meet.  Reduce the chance of being scammed by assuming she's on the take.

Ok, not all women are like that, but precautions help and not taking anything for granted works well in all walks of life.

[90125]

I'll repeat what I said earlier - its time to scrap the walled garden and move everything out into the open. Whatever anyone else claims, the girls discussed there are pay-for-sex whores, just like all the other girls mentioned here. They don't deserve special treatment. If they're not taking cash for sex then they shouldn't be discussed anyway.
The SA thread comes across as an extreme literal case of elitist willy-waving, time it got the chop

The SA thread will stay but anyone caught Willy Waving will have their access revoked.

[darkdeep]

Well I wasn't Willy Waving and you've suddenly revoked access - despite being a consistent contributor for more than 3 years?
Is this arbitrary?

[90125]

Well I wasn't Willy Waving and you've suddenly revoked access - despite being a consistent contributor for more than 3 years?
Is this arbitrary?

That wasn't intentional 

[datwabbit]

The public SA threads are about comparing with aw and this one on the rules. There's no thread on SA scammers so you have to ask why nobody has started one if theyre keen to know about them.

[tynetunnel]

The public SA threads are about comparing with aw and this one on the rules. There's no thread on SA scammers so you have to ask why nobody has started one if theyre keen to know about them.

A very valid point

[martini2429]

I "seek" in three areas, London, Leeds & Manchester, if its ok I am more than happy to start threads in those 3 areas

 

[90125]

I "seek" in three areas, London, Leeds & Manchester, if its ok I am more than happy to start threads in those 3 areas

 

Go for it.

[martini2429]

Go for it.

Can we use this sort of things that HP said as sort of rules:

Warning Posts for scammers/dangerous or vulnerable girls allowed (similar to what the seeking the seeking wiki was External Link/Members Only)
Inform of girls wanting online or platonic only (some guys do get this)
Time wasters
Good info on particular places to buy toys/hotel deals/nice restaurants...etc
Whales turn up that look like models on there pic etc,

 

[LLPunting]

Can we use this sort of things that HP said as sort of rules:

Warning Posts for scammers/dangerous or vulnerable girls allowed (similar to what the seeking the seeking wiki was External Link/Members Only)
Inform of girls wanting online or platonic only (some guys do get this)
Time wasters
Good info on particular places to buy toys/hotel deals/nice restaurants...etc
Whales turn up that look like models on there pic etc,

 

HOLD ON!  THIS SITE IS FOR DISCUSSING ACTUAL PROSTITUTES NOT ANY GIRL SOME BLOKE BRANDS AS ONE.
If a girl isn't offering in person sex services for money she isn't any concern of this site.  Publishing her details opens us up to slander.
The only girls to be revealed in public on this site are confirmed prostitutes, as evidenced by adverts on other sites where she is unambiguously offering such services for money
Punters who are willing to post screenshots of their chats where sex for money is agreed are welcome to out themselves as proof for any others they wish to discuss, otherwise any posts claiming a girl sells herself is purely hearsay and therefore potentially libellous.
I can't see any point in outing scammers or pic sellers because 1) no one here should be so stupid to fall for it, 2) if she's not a prostitute then she doesn't belong on here, 3) there's a mechanism on Seeking to report all such girls to boot them.

Jeez guys, thinks with your brains not your knobs!  Willy wavers can have their private play pen.
Isn't there already a discussion site for Seeking or a Reddit?

[Spencer Fobby]

HOLD ON!  THIS SITE IS FOR DISCUSSING ACTUAL PROSTITUTES NOT ANY GIRL SOME BLOKE BRANDS AS ONE.
If a girl isn't offering in person sex services for money she isn't any concern of this site.  Publishing her details opens us up to slander.
The only girls to be revealed in public on this site are confirmed prostitutes, as evidenced by adverts on other sites where she is unambiguously offering such services for money
Punters who are willing to post screenshots of their chats where sex for money is agreed are welcome to out themselves as proof for any others they wish to discuss, otherwise any posts claiming a girl sells herself is purely hearsay and therefore potentially libellous.
I can't see any point in outing scammers or pic sellers because 1) no one here should be so stupid to fall for it, 2) if she's not a prostitute then she doesn't belong on here, 3) there's a mechanism on Seeking to report all such girls to boot them.

Jeez guys, thinks with your brains not your knobs!  Willy wavers can have their private play pen.
Isn't there already a discussion site for Seeking or a Reddit?

+1
Well said.
I think there is an important distinction here - whether we think she is a sex you pride is irrelevant. Even if she accepts money for sex it is irrelevant. If she is a self-declared sex worker, then she is a sex worked Its an important distinction i feel, because the girls I have met on seeking would be mortified and possibly traumatised to know they were being discussed in this context.

[GingerNuts]

I think there is an important distinction here - whether we think she is a sex you pride is irrelevant. Even if she accepts money for sex it is irrelevant. If she is a self-declared sex worker, then she is a sex worked Its an important distinction i feel, because the girls I have met on seeking would be mortified and possibly traumatised to know they were being discussed in this context.

Whether or not they label themselves a sex worker if they're accepting money for sex aren't they all in the same boat? Those you say might be mortified or traumatised at being discussed on a punting forum would be so because the reality is, you pay and they open their legs.

[LLPunting]

Whether or not they label themselves a sex worker if they're accepting money for sex aren't they all in the same boat? Those you say might be mortified or traumatised at being discussed on a punting forum would be so because the reality is, you pay and they open their legs.

You have to prove it.  If she challenges you in court about what you accuse her of here are you going to provide proof in court?

[GingerNuts]

You have to prove it.  If she challenges you in court about what you accuse her of here are you going to provide proof in court?

Presumably if someone here is going to post about X offering sexual services they'll have the messages etc. to prove it if necessary.

The same proof could be required if whatever is posted in the private thread was leaked.

[LLPunting]

Presumably if someone here is going to post about X offering sexual services they'll have the messages etc. to prove it if necessary.

The same proof could be required if whatever is posted in the private thread was leaked.

Go on then, tell your nearest and dearest or the common law wife why you're (missing work and) going to court.
Go to a job interview where any previous court appearances may need to be mentioned.
Try running UKP when rights groups start campaigning or targetting you/your ISP.

[GingerNuts]

Go on then, tell your nearest and dearest or the common law wife why you're (missing work and) going to court.
Go to a job interview where any previous court appearances may need to be mentioned.
Try running UKP when rights groups start campaigning or targetting you/your ISP.

I'm not privy to the private thread but I assume if the sort of stuff posted there was exposed, either en masse or to a particular woman, the consequences would be the same.

[Spencer Fobby]

Whether or not they label themselves a sex worker if they're accepting money for sex aren't they all in the same boat? Those you say might be mortified or traumatised at being discussed on a punting forum would be so because the reality is, you pay and they open their legs.

No. They are not in the same boat.
Escorts advertise themselves as escorts knowingly and aware of the possible consequences.
Girls (and Seeking has targeted itself at uni students) are enticed to join Seeking for many reasons but not explicitly to open their legs for cash. These girls (for the most part) do not expect to be treated as escorts. And treating them as such will result in port experiences for both parties - if you get as far as a meeting.

.

[datwabbit]

HOLD ON!  THIS SITE IS FOR DISCUSSING ACTUAL PROSTITUTES NOT ANY GIRL SOME BLOKE BRANDS AS ONE.
If a girl isn't offering in person sex services for money she isn't any concern of this site.  Publishing her details opens us up to slander.
The only girls to be revealed in public on this site are confirmed prostitutes, as evidenced by adverts on other sites where she is unambiguously offering such services for money
Punters who are willing to post screenshots of their chats where sex for money is agreed are welcome to out themselves as proof for any others they wish to discuss, otherwise any posts claiming a girl sells herself is purely hearsay and therefore potentially libellous.
I can't see any point in outing scammers or pic sellers because 1) no one here should be so stupid to fall for it, 2) if she's not a prostitute then she doesn't belong on here, 3) there's a mechanism on Seeking to report all such girls to boot them.

Jeez guys, thinks with your brains not your knobs!  Willy wavers can have their private play pen.
Isn't there already a discussion site for Seeking or a Reddit?

The scope is for warnings not arrangement amounts - at least I am.

If someone asks for money before meeting them, we're just passing on that information. I don't think photos should be shared. You need to be a member of the site to see them anyway.

[GingerNuts]

No. They are not in the same boat.
Escorts advertise themselves as escorts knowingly and aware of the possible consequences.
Girls (and Seeking has targeted itself at uni students) are enticed to join Seeking for many reasons but not explicitly to open their legs for cash. These girls (for the most part) do not expect to be treated as escorts. And treating them as such will result in port experiences for both parties - if you get as far as a meeting.

And uni students aren't aware of the consequences if they're found out as accepting payment for sex even if it's via a site holding itself out as as not condoning that?

If they aren't they should be.

[scutty brown]

Either these girls are getting paid for sex, in which case they're whores and ripe for discussion in open forum.
Or they're not, in which case they're not valid for discussion either in open forum or the walled garden
Whether they think they're whores is irrelevant - if they're taking money for sex then they are sex workers. Probably do some of them good to face the reality and stop kidding themselves.
However it sounds to me from whats been said that the SA thread contains discussions of girls who are not sex workers - and that seems out of order. If they're not shagging for cash surely they should be off-topic?

[Spencer Fobby]

And uni students aren't aware of the consequences if they're found out as accepting payment for sex even if it's via a site holding itself out as as not condoning that?

If they aren't they should be.

No, they probably aren't.  And whether they should be or not is beside the point. These girls have not decided to become escorts - whether you class them as such is beside the point.  They have decided to become sugar babies.  Maybe they hope to find one guy who will treat them to nice presents and evenings out and give them some spending money. Maybe they like the idea of an older guy... maybe all sorts of reasons motivated them. Sure - It's a stepping stone to transactional sex.  But they didn't sign up to be escorts.  Us arguing semantics about what constitutes escorting doesn't change the fact they they don't think that's what they are.  Doesn't matter whether you are technically right or wrong, it's completely different in their minds and I can say for certain that many of them would be horrified to find themselves being discussed here.  Whereas escorts invite reviews and most know about this site.  Massive difference.

[Kev40ish]

No, they probably aren't.  And whether they should be or not is beside the point. These girls have not decided to become escorts - whether you class them as such is beside the point.  They have decided to become sugar babies.  Maybe they hope to find one guy who will treat them to nice presents and evenings out and give them some spending money. Maybe they like the idea of an older guy... maybe all sorts of reasons motivated them. Sure - It's a stepping stone to transactional sex.  But they didn't sign up to be escorts.  Us arguing semantics about what constitutes escorting doesn't change the fact they they don't think that's what they are.  Doesn't matter whether you are technically right or wrong, it's completely different in their minds and I can say for certain that many of them would be horrified to find themselves being discussed here.  Whereas escorts invite reviews and most know about this site.  Massive difference.

So the only answer is to let new members of SA into the closed thread..

[Spencer Fobby]

Either these girls are getting paid for sex, in which case they're whores and ripe for discussion in open forum.
Or they're not, in which case they're not valid for discussion either in open forum or the walled garden

A brutal line of reasoning.  Human beings are more complex that your binary logic allows for.   

[Spencer Fobby]

So the only answer is to let new members of SA into the closed thread..

I've advocated this.  I found being a member of the thread hugely instructive and helpful.  But it's a lot of work for admin to manage.