Posting and Our Privacy Policy

[Guest lurkerspeaks]

I have read about this topic on both sites and have bitten my tongue, swearing not to say anything either way until now..I too agree with the premise being brought forth now that we, the clients should be made aware of the situation.. I do not agree with the real name being posted in public, but I would definitely want to know if the person I am about to spend time with is involved with illegal activities and/or may be being watched by law enforcement.

I attended the Palm Springs get together this year. It was a great weekend of fun.. The escort in question joined us for the pool party. While he did not come across to me as some "evil drug lord", he did not interest me at all as someone I would ever want to hire. But none the less, he was present at a hosted event where I was. Since all this has come out, it makes me think that "what if" law enforcement was watching the party.. what if they were "gathering" names.. etc, etc etc. I don't want to sound overly paranoid, but I believe you are known by the company you keep.. I chose not to be associated with drugs and the people who do them. I am realistic enough to know that I do not know everyone's personal life, but I can try to distance myself as much as possible. And with the current allegations being made, I think we, as clients deserve to have all the facts, as much as is known about them so we can make our own choices as to whether we want to take the risks involved or not..

[Guest Matrix]

If the mainstream media picked up this, that would be a different story as well. But, as long it is in the gossip rags, I do not see the need to send traffic to any of them.

Totally Oz suggests that unless the "mainstream" media picks this up and runs with this, it is not news worthy and he wants nothing to do with it.

Well, that's like watching and waiting for concrete to dry on a rainy day. When's the last time the mainstream media brought you anything that impacted your gay life, let alone your hiring activities?

The fact remains that this escort, just this past July was convicted and found guilty on three separate counts of drug offenses. One for possession and two counts for sale. Those are convictions people, meaning that there is no question about guilt.

Now with three much more serious charges before him; doesn't this make it worthy information if you were considering going to his home or vice versa?

If we rely on waiting for the mainstram press to tell us what we already know, then we should be living in caves and communicating with smoke signals.

[Guest Conway]

Totally Oz suggests that unless the "mainstream" media picks this up and runs with this, it is not news worthy and he wants nothing to do with it.

Well, that's like watching and waiting for concrete to dry on a rainy day. When's the last time the mainstream media brought you anything that impacted your gay life, let alone your hiring activities?

The fact remains that this escort, just this past July was convicted and found guilty on three separate counts of drug offenses. One for possession and two counts for sale. Those are convictions people, meaning that there is no question about guilt.

Now with three much more serious charges before him; doesn't this make it worthy information if you were considering going to his home or vice versa?

If we rely on waiting for the mainstram press to tell us what we already know, then we should be living in caves and communicating with smoke signals.

I think that's a little harsh. Both Oz and TY have a business to run here and they have to decide how to best balance their business interests with issues of public relations and relationships with members.

I'm grateful that they allow the participants of this board to share their opinions on this controversial subject in an open manner. That is far more than is allowed on the competing site.

At the end of the day, you must realize that it is their business and their decision to make. We may agree to disagree. However, this site has a history of allowing open communication on issues and that should be recognized in consideration of the grater debate taking place here.

People here are generally more open to conflicting ideas because the ownership of this site encourages it. If you want to really bitch about it, pick a more deserving target such as the site that will delete your posts and suspend you from participation in the site for even mentioning it.

[TampaYankee]

I think that's a little harsh. Both Oz and TY have a business to run here and they have to decide how to best balance their business interests with issues of public relations and relationships with members.

Conway, you are correct that this is a business issue but not in terms of profit and loss, at least short term. Rather in terms of site integrity and a covenant with site visitors, participants and all others who are showcased here -- the long term prespective.

From a profit/loss POV it probably would behoove us to boost our traffic by faning the flames of this controversy. Traffic is the primary basis of whatever income the site generates. If we wanted to attempt to maximize profit opportunity we are going in the wrong direction.

We are a community, some vocal, most silent. All participants are anonymous to one level or another and expect to remain that way. No one wants the harsh public light shone on their private life. It doesn't take but a few exceptions to this covenant of confidentiality before everyone might think "this could happen to me". Just an anonymous voice here or there that makes an egregious charge about the personal life of client or escort in support of some agenda.

It's all about the covenant which is the basis for long-term integrity of the site.

[TampaYankee]

Conway,

I appreciate your general concern and concede this is a close issue in some ways, not so much in others. We have a broad policy for the site to guide us and our particpants in what is allowed and what is expected. However, that policy must be interpreted in light of the specifics of any particular situation.

Had it been my decision to make, the fact that the arrest was a matter of public record would have contributed toward my decision to allow the information to stand here.

How would you know that was true? Based on an anonymous post about an escort with a 'work name' that was the only name you knew him by? The purported documentation presented wasn't in that name. Neither was any authortative documentation presented linking the escort to the named individual in those purported documents. Do you leave that thread up while the veracity of those charges remain in some doubt?

As the circumstance evolves into the public arena with some reliable public verification the standards for coverage evolve too. Maybe the stage name and the private name have been associated reliably. Maybe the purported documents are demonstrated to be truthful public documents. All well and good. It is critical that charges move into the public arena to begin to shed light on the legitimacy of those charges.

Is that alone enough to ruin someone's career and personal reputation with family, friends, and a life long list of potential employers, bankers, credit rating agencies etc? Is it known that he is guilty of the accusations beyond a reasonable doubt? Does this person have enemies that might have set him up for a fall? I don't know. I don't know what the evidence is. That is what pretrial hearings and trials are about.

Somewhere along the way this crosses over into the public arena where not only is his life fully exposed but a sufficient public case has been made for the charges.

Were we there last week? Not in my opinion. Are we there today? Maybe, I don't know. (I have only just awakened and haven't yet surveyed today's events.) Will we be there tomorrow? We'll see.

I think that it is an issue of credibility where the escort and the "review industry" stands. And, that is important to me. From my perspective, I would have to ask, "Would I want to leave my personal belongings in a room with a person who had been arrested for felony possession with intent to distribute?" In my own mind the answer would be a clear "No".

I share your concern, believe me. However, this is where the specifics of the instance arise. You already may have done this several times in your hiring life. Would you have known about this without some anonymous player executing a private agenda? Doubtful at this point. I likely wouldn't have known. The fact is that any number of escorts may be plying their trade while in legal limbo. More who probably should be in legal limbo. The point is we are at risk of that anytime we deal with people we don't really know. The fact that they work under assumed names doesn't add to our security. This goes with the territory every time one hires.

Getting back to the specifics of this case, no one has been at risk since this came to light. The subject has been incarcerated. He seems likely to remain so. What stain he carries forward in the future depends on the disposition of his present predicament, or it should.

Like many of you, I have met and developed relationships with many escorts whom I now consider friends. Yet, the truth of the matter is that I know little about them except what they choose to share with me.

You reinforce my point above.

By publishing the information regarding this escorts arrest, you give the client the clear opportunity to decide if he wants to take the risk associated with someone purportedly involved in serious criminal activity.

No one will be hiring him before this process plays out. If he acutally goes to trial then the cat is pretty much out of the bag. If it turns out that he has been set up by someone (I am not saying he has, just a what if.) do believe it is warranted that his arrest and private identity be trumpted on escort billboards across the cyberspace highway with all of the attendant personal damage mentioned above?

[Guest StuCotts]

Am I already late with this post?

Anyway, the offending post not only told of the escort's arrest, but also showed his real name. MER suppressed it, on the premise that it's imperative to protect the anonimity of escorts and clients alike.

Some posters above argue that for understandable reasons they want to avoid associating with or hiring escorts who have been found to be on the wrong side of the law on such matters as drug dealing.

If I'm correct that these are the two main contending positions, I agree with both of them. There must be a way of reconciling them, hence my question: If verifiable damning news about an escort reaches MER, could the escort's profile and/or reviews be annotated to that effect for the benefit of justly cautious clients, without flouting MER's ironbound rule against revealing real names?

[TampaYankee]

I completely respect the right and responsibility of Oz and TY to run this site per their standards. Had it been my decision to make, the fact that the arrest was a matter of public record would have contributed toward my decision to allow the information to stand here.

This makes perfect sense to me. The alternative only gives rise to those who are now speculating that the site owners/decision-makers who suppress information that exists in the public record are trying to protect the escort as an indirect way of protecting themselves from their own "business" dealings with the escort. Why encourage such foolishness?

There are always foolish twits that let their imagination rule their conspiratorial paranoia. The whole damn country is full of them -- birthers, deathers, census-for-concentraton-camp believers, the list goes on and on. We cannot even get an American Company to distribute a British made movie about Darwin because of fear of retribution from the anti-evolutionist head cases.

There are those who are going to believe what they want notwithstanding logic, facts, and even the truth. We should parse our lives and shade our principles to placate these nuts? You give in to these characters then you become no better.

Why not, as Conway said, ...

Please see my response to Conway that respsonds to your comment.

And do you really think yourself qualified or capable of judging between a "gossip-rag blogsite" and "legitimate news organization"?

Absolutely. No doubt in my mind.

Hell, I don't think Fox News is legitimate.

It isn't as any obejctive one-eyed observer could tell. Correction, no eyes necessary, only one passably working ear. I hold out Shep Smith as an excetpton willing to stand up to and resist much of the conservative propaganda slant that the news writers pass out at the directon of Roger Ailes.

[TampaYankee]

If verifiable damning news about an escort reaches MER, could the escort's profile and/or reviews be annotated to that effect for the benefit of justly cautious clients, without flouting MER's ironbound rule against revealing real names?

Reviews reflect the experience of the reviewer -- the good, the bad, the ugly. When verifable negative outside information comes to light that has potential to impact client/escort relationship it is added as an Admin comment. The devil is in the details.

Profiles are the domain of the escort, entirely. He lists at his own intiative and it survives as long as he desires or until it is removed for cause by admin.

[TampaYankee]

I attended the Palm Springs get together this year. It was a great weekend of fun.. The escort in question joined us for the pool party. While he did not come across to me as some "evil drug lord", he did not interest me at all as someone I would ever want to hire. But none the less, he was present at a hosted event where I was. Since all this has come out, it makes me think that "what if" law enforcement was watching the party.. what if they were "gathering" names.. etc, etc etc. I don't want to sound overly paranoid, but I believe you are known by the company you keep.. I chose not to be associated with drugs and the people who do them. I am realistic enough to know that I do not know everyone's personal life, but I can try to distance myself as much as possible.

Lurkespeaks,

Although I have NO first-hand knowledge, based on what I've been told over the years you should avoid all of the gatherings of the type you attended. I have been told that drugs are de rigueur at almost any gathering of boys in the porn and escort industries. It might be prudent to assume that reasons for all of your concers are in full bloom at these gatherings.

[Guest Matrix]

Lurkespeaks,

Although I have NO first-hand knowledge, based on what I've been told over the years you should avoid all of the gatherings of the type you attended. I have been told that drugs are de rigueur at almost any gathering of boys in the porn and escort industries. It might be prudent to assume that reasons for all of your concers are in full bloom at these gatherings.

You'll warn people away from a public event with public and private personalities attending, but you won't warn your own membership about a convicted drug dealer who is in trouble once again and more likely than not headed toward prison for a considerable amount of time?

This to me makes no sense at all.

[Guest Matrix]

I'm just curious if either Tampa Yankee or Totally Oz consider this to be a mainstream publication.

I look forward to your response.

Michael Musto

[Guest jack]

Quote by Jack

And do you really think yourself qualified or capable of judging between a "gossip-rag blogsite" and "legitimate news organization"?

Quote by TampaYankee

Absolutely. No doubt in my mind.

So have you now judged today's Village Voice website to be illegitimate? It carries the story.

Please reconsider if you are on the slippery side of this issue. Better judgment at the beginning would have been helpful, but failure to exercise good judgment now is actually damning.

Trying to help, not harm.

[Guest Conway]

TY, Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response to my concerns.

It is the way that you and Oz handle issues on which we may agree to disagree which sets your business apart from its primary competition where I would have been censored and banned for questioning the authority of the Fuhrer of that site.

As a business person myself, I believe that the foundation of your business or any other is the statement of that business' values. It is clear that you and Oz have defined yours and that you are sticking with that despite the protestations of some of us.

That shows that you have not lost your focus despite being faced with a situation that may appear to be more gray than black and white.

I accept and respect your position though we may disagree on the specific issue at hand.

[TampaYankee]

The fact is that any number of escorts may be plying their trade while in legal limbo. More who probably should be in legal limbo. The point is we are at risk of that anytime we deal with people we don't really know. The fact that they work under assumed names doesn't add to our security. This goes with the territory every time one hires.

In fairness, when I made this remark I should have also stated that the overwhelming number of escorts are honest law-abiding guys, may of those just really great persons. It is a shame that a few bad apples can occupy our attention and we forget to keep in perspective that most working guys are honest and reliable in addtion to being fun.

[TampaYankee]

Quote by Jack

And do you really think yourself qualified or capable of judging between a "gossip-rag blogsite" and "legitimate news organization"?

Quote by TampaYankee

Absolutely. No doubt in my mind.

So have you now judged today's Village Voice website to be illegitimate? It carries the story.

Please reconsider if you are on the slippery side of this issue. Better judgment at the beginning would have been helpful, but failure to exercise good judgment now is actually damning.

Trying to help, not harm.

jack,

Why do you attempt to put words in my mouth? Have I treated you that way? Please tell me where I have made any mention of the Village Voice. Certainly not in the post of mine you reference. Not anywhere else yet either. I have only just seen the new VV link offered by Matrix when I then read your post with your cheap shot. Please try to do better.

[TampaYankee]

I'm just curious if either Tampa Yankee or Totally Oz consider this to be a mainstream publication.

I look forward to your response.

Michael Musto

For a media outlet to qualify as mainstream it must be immersed in the mainstream of society, commonly found on TV or coffee tables or in newpapers or frequently referenced as authoritative by other reputable news sources.

The Village Voice is a recognized reputable news and literary media oulet found commonly on news stands. Michael Musto is a natonally recognized journalist (if a bit flakey) that appears frequently as a guest on mainstream broadcast and cable channels.

The short answer is yes.

This story has evovled from gossip to semi-authortative speculation to current events in a recognized reputable publication. Mr. Musto has put his professional reputation on the line that this story has factual legs. He is a known quantity with reputation.

Scott has become a public personality, with no reasonable expectation of privacy whether through his own actions or the actions others.

[TampaYankee]

TY, Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response to my concerns.

It is the way that you and Oz handle issues on which we may agree to disagree which sets your business apart from its primary competition where I would have been censored and banned for questioning the authority of the Fuhrer of that site.

Conway, thanks for the nice words. It is always a pleasure to have an exchange with you whether we are on the same or opposite sides of an issue. Your comments sometimes educate me and often provoke thoughtfulness about the issues. You are an example that there is no need to be disagreeable in a disagreement.

As for the the environment here, it stems from the very simple principle of mutual respect. Nothing more complicated.

Thanks again for your contributions to the site.

[MsGuy]

I have only just seen the new VV link offered by Matrix when I then read your post with your cheap shot.

So when should we expect a ruling on the VV link?

Personally I could do w/o this kind of stuff but you and Oz seemed to have talked yourselves into a logical corner (who could have guessed that the Village Voice would run a celebrity gossip piece that made a point of revealing an escort's real name? ).

Look, quit trying to work up an airtight verbal formula for this problem. We all should be able to agree that the purpose served by the rule is to protect the privacy of members. Why not just change the rule to provide that any post or link calculated to expose the real identity of a member has to be vetted by TY or Oz before posting. I for one am content to trust your good judgement on the issue of whether the information offered is important enough to the safety of members (punter or rentboy, it cuts both ways) to warrant publication here. We got an Andrew Cunanan type on our hands, yeah let me know. Most other stuff, I'm not so interested. Just a suggestion.

P.S. StuCott's idea seems workable. Put a note on the escort's reviews if warranted and give him the usual opportunity to rebutt. Certainly solves the identity problem w/o turning the board into a gossip column.

[Guest lurkerspeaks]

The "gathering" was not a porn or escort sponsored event. It was a "theater weekend" hosted by several posters from here and the other site.. It just so happened that several people brought along their "companions" for the weekend and several escorts were invited as eyecandy for the pool party. I am sorry if it sounded like I was referring to the rentboy pool party because that was far from the even that I attended..

[TampaYankee]

You'll warn people away from a public event with public and private personalities attending, but you won't warn your own membership about a convicted drug dealer who is in trouble once again and more likely than not headed toward prison for a considerable amount of time?

This to me makes no sense at all.

Please exercise a little more precision in your reading. I didn't warn Lurker... to do anyting. It was a general heads up. Lurker expressed concern about being around someone who might be associated with drugs, in this case the escort in question was the concrete example, who was with several others. I simply pointed out that it is commonly believed in cricles that drugs are likely to be associated with any gathering of porn/escort boys. Thus if he has concern about the potential of being around drugs then he should more broadly assess his comfort with any such gathering of boys.

That is not to say that all escort/porn models do drugs. Many do not. Only that when a number of them aggregate in one place, especially a party, it is not unexpected that drugs will make an appearance.

[JKane]

It would make sense for this thread to remain about the decision to post/censor and the new thread to be about the event itself, but that's already falling apart...

My desire would be to see this board err on the side of the safety of clients, because isn't avoiding hustlers/robbers/assailants a primary use of a review site?

Now, I agree that there was no danger to anybody at the point the original thread was censored. Given that he was in jail--apparently without bail--there was no urgency at that point and letting the situation firm up and become definite certainly has some merit.

However, I would suggest that the previous arrest and conviction are another matter entirely. This was apparently fairly well known by the powers that be yet kept quiet. Granted, there are a fair number of people out there that take perverse pleasure in sullying a successful escort, but once it gets to the point that there's not just arrests but *convictions* I feel it can only help the client community to know that somebody is on a self-destructive spiral and to be wary.

Even without those convictions, given the seriousness of the current charges and his 'infamy' in our community (the fact that he'd regularly insinuate himself into any gathering)... please consider this scenario:

A well-known escort is arrested on serious charges, it's known by a few but kept quiet, he gets released but is facing a major trial and tough mandatory sentencing. As usual he shows up at some get-together, but something is very different because unbeknown to (most) everybody else he's got those charges hanging over him...

-Possibility one: he is both desperate and has nothing left to loose, so he sees no downside to unsafe or criminal activities (burglary, blackmail, etc).

-Two, he's desperately trying to get a plea and is going around trying to get anybody to say anything that cops listening on the other end of the wire could use to trump up a charge--big enough and it reduces his sentence.

-Three, and not even of his doing, he's being watched and the place is raided, as Lurkerspeaks suggested... may well be that there's nothing especially criminal going on but the precious anonymity of a bunch of people gets shot to hell.

It may well be different if the escort in question didn't choose to make himself a celebrity and strive to be at (the center of) any event. But the one in question did.

My two cents anyway.

[TampaYankee]

... I would suggest that the previous arrest and conviction are another matter entirely. This was apparently fairly well known by the powers that be yet kept quiet.

When this episode began I had no knowledge of any of his legal difficulties, suspicions, arrests, or convictions. Plain and simple. The rest of your post is food for thought.

[Guest jack]

jack,

Why do you attempt to put words in my mouth? Have I treated you that way? Please tell me where I have made any mention of the Village Voice. Certainly not in the post of mine you reference. Not anywhere else yet either. I have only just seen the new VV link offered by Matrix when I then read your post with your cheap shot. Please try to do better.

Sorry you feel under the gun. I wasn't trying to be offensive, and no need for you to be defensive. You had a position and explained it. You allowed others to debate it.

No words put in your mouth, nor attempted, nor intended. You read something not written. Thanks for exercising good judgment in resolving this issue. On to better, more enlightening topics for me.

[Guest Matrix]

For a media outlet to qualify as mainstream it must be immersed in the mainstream of society, commonly found on TV or coffee tables or in newpapers or frequently referenced as authoritative by other reputable news sources.

The Village Voice is a recognized reputable news and literary media oulet found commonly on news stands. Michael Musto is a natonally recognized journalist (if a bit flakey) that appears frequently as a guest on mainstream broadcast and cable channels.

The short answer is yes.

This story has evovled from gossip to semi-authortative speculation to current events in a recognized reputable publication. Mr. Musto has put his professional reputation on the line that this story has factual legs. He is a known quantity with reputation.

Scott has become a public personality, with no reasonable expectation of privacy whether through his own actions or the actions others.

Since it was my original post that began this controversy over here, allow me to say this.

Thank you for responding to my question(s) comment(s) in the manner in which you did. It shows a thoughtful process of balancing a fluid situation with multiple interests and concerns at heart with fairness and due diligence.

Whether this is the outcome that you personally wanted or not; your conclusion reflects thoughtful and careful process and rationale that you are to be saluted and commended for; and which is obviously absent with the other site owner.

At the end of a good fight, there will generally always be only one triumphant. But it's good to know that while in the midst of the battle, the opponent of which you battled was worthy of your time and energy.

Your many thoughtful comments here, and over at the once offending blog, The Trial Of Scott Adler speak of a man at least defending a position of belief and policy, and at the end of the day, that's all we really have.

Tampa Yankee this is what sets you and your site apart from the OTHER one.

Respectfully,

Matrix

[TownsendPLocke]

For a media outlet to qualify as mainstream it must be immersed in the mainstream of society, commonly found on TV or coffee tables or in newpapers or frequently referenced as authoritative by other reputable news sources.

The Village Voice is a recognized reputable news and literary media oulet found commonly on news stands. Michael Musto is a natonally recognized journalist (if a bit flakey) that appears frequently as a guest on mainstream broadcast and cable channels.

The short answer is yes.

This story has evovled from gossip to semi-authortative speculation to current events in a recognized reputable publication. Mr. Musto has put his professional reputation on the line that this story has factual legs. He is a known quantity with reputation.

Scott has become a public personality, with no reasonable expectation of privacy whether through his own actions or the actions others.

so all gossip needs is to appear in print(in a rag no less)to move it from trash talk to legitimate news?Bullshit!

I know many of the posters here by their real names and I would NEVER think to post a story in any newspaper article which used their real name.And yes there has been more than one poster here who has run into some trouble with the law.And I think most of us would be deeply offended if an escort posted something like ths involving a John.And I would bet such a post would be removed with no hesitation.This is the worst kind of double standard.

To those who are concerned with the possibility of being put in harms way by a hooker who has run afoul of the law guess what?You are engaging in illegal activities simply by hiring someone to have sex with! What a bunch of pansy hypocrites some of you folks are.

I also happen to know "Matrix"'s real name and I am ashamed that he would post this crap.I am also suprised and disappointed that this breech of privacy has been allowed to stand by the administrators.Very poor example of a way to ensure ALL MEMBERS gets fair treatment on this board and has their privavcy protected.