Sending threats does not help your cause

Mark

I've received a few emails lobbying for a recently banned Pro. That rarely influences a decision but please know that sending threats can only ever have the potential to be counter-productive to your cause.

Sometimes (like in this recent case) we escalate a decision to be carefully reviewed by all team members to allow for a fresh perspective. Even where there has been a clear breach of rules, the team might vote on giving a second chance based on exceptional circumstances.

But if during that process we receive threats from someone on behalf of that member, it frustratingly adds friction to a potential path of leniency as doing so would be seen as encouraging that activity.

Example below. If you care about someone who is banned, try not to make what could already be a complex case more difficult for the team.

KamikaziNinja86

Wow! I can't believe someone would send that. I am friends with the banned member as well and would love to see her un-banned but that email is... yikes 😬

Jubal

Nothing like a little drama to make the day more interesting, eh?

Was half expecting to see something about 'leave the bag of small unmarked bills at this location' as I read that

12345ABCDEF

As I agree that threats never help a cause but the question is do you have "explicit bias" and are the accusations made in Section (2) true? Do you have proof that another "Pro" has been soliciting (not sure what but I can guess)? Are you treating everyone equally?

Will be interested to see how this plays out.

I assume the moron who send the threat has been banned by now.

Mark

The team certainly strive for equality and fairness and I think we do a good job in challenging our own decisions. So I don't agree there was "explicit bias".

Without going into specific cases and details, It's worth noting there are indeed a few Pros here who have broken the 'non-platonic' or 'external services' rule and yet have been given a rare second chance. These cases are usually quite nuanced and not a simple case of "this person got a second chance, so I deserve one". They also often go to a vote with each team member having equal weighting.

Sheena123

“This isn’t a threat”… saying “if you don’t do this thing I demand, I will do these things to you” is exactly a threat. He should have listened to his banned pro friend and let it go. Jeez… I would hate to have clients this obsessed about me

12345ABCDEF

@Sheena123 It does seem a little extreme for him to go that far just for a cuddler. No matter how close they are.

RoxannneFoxanne

This is not okay! Wow. But I can definitely sympathize with the unfairness and harshness of some moderators. They take a “I’m right, you’re wrong” approach. And when you reach out for further explanation or to try and defend yourself, no one responds. But I certainly do not agree with the above approach. I just wish there was a better way to deal with the violations and bans.

JohnR1972

Unreal. The author of that message must only consider it a threat if it involves waking up next to a horse head.

I believe the legal term for that letter is “coercion” (threatening reputational harm against someone unless they meet a specific demand) and it is illegal in most, if not all, states. I am genuinely sorry our mods have to endure such behavior.

12345ABCDEF

Also.....I'm giving it -400 Odds that this thread will devolve into a train wreck and be locked before "4:00 PM PST (USA Time)" even gets here.

12345ABCDEF

I find the claim that "Her privacy was hacked and personal pictures/video...." to be dubious. People watch too much TV and think "hacking" is easy. So unless she gave out her email and the person did a Phishing scam, I find is hard to believe she was hacked.

jplemmon

I'm curious how this email was created? Can CC members be sent direct emails from a DNR account?

Mark

They cannot. This person already knew my email address.

12345ABCDEF

@jplemmon It was probably send using the "https://www.cuddlecomfort.com/contact-us" link on the bottom of the page.

And just because an email says "This is an unmonitored email address. Do not reply to this email." doesn't make it true.

jplemmon

Ahh got it

12345ABCDEF

@Mark Oh wow. Your direct email? Hmmm...the intrigue intensifies. LOL

12345ABCDEF

Coming soon to Netflix: "BANNED: A Knives Out Mystery"

Mark

Yes, though it's my public direct email (mark@thiswebsite). Another Netflix show cancelled.

jplemmon

With so many clients and seemingly diehard advocates, I'm assuming this cuddler has many repeat clients and they could easily communicate with them directly. It seems like she would be ok.

lonelytauros

Wow! Talk about a loyal fan base! She must’ve been a very good cuddler! @Mark I hope this sort of thing doesn’t happen often that’s gotta be a difficult situation to be in!

12345ABCDEF

She was banned for a reason. So maybe she was a VERY good "cuddler" (wink, wink....)

@WarmDesertHugs - your comment was flagged. Your insinuation and suggestion is not warranted, not welcome, and does not add any meaning to this thread. Pros are here for platonic cuddles. CC is not a front for sex workers or prostitution. Be mindful of your words and your posts from here forward. [-Sid]

Mark

@lonelytauros one of the more difficult decisions moderators have to make is banning a genuinely well intentioned and high quality professional cuddler because of external activity and the impact that has on our image.

We have to protect the unique non-platonic purpose and perception of this website because this industry is constantly facing the misconception of being a front for other things. This isn't helped with other so called cuddle websites being exactly that.

TheFunCartel

this industry is constantly facing the misconception of being a front for other things.

I hope people notice the word industry. We are finally calling things for what they are. Maybe this will put an end to the pro threads.

lonelytauros

@Mark I hope it all works out. This website has been very beneficial to me from being able to read and post comments in threads and of course to meet a few pro cuddlers and cuddle with them!

Mark

@FunCartel I don't know your reference but I only mean to refer to the professional aspect of the website. I might call any type of profession an industry interchangeably without intention of deeper meaning.

@lonelytauros Thank you and happy it's provided you value.

PrettyLuv

I think the fact that this person felt the need to revert to threats and potential hacking of the site itself, points to an even bigger issue of who to really appeal to when things go awry.

1. Mod Abuse: if you’ve witnessed mod abuse, it makes absolutely no sense having to appeal to the same mod that just abused their power. That’s counterintuitive.

2. Banning Practices: someone could be on this site for 5 yrs strong, post a single attention seeking thread and get insta-banned for it. While I don’t agree with seeking attention thru forum posts, I don’t necessarily see how that should be the turning point in someone getting banned.

There’s clear infractions where bans are warranted and the mods do a good job of that but then there’s the cases where unilateral decision making becomes an exercise in social futility where the ban hammer begins eating away at the very fabric of the community. I’ve seen posts dating back 4 & 5 yrs ago, that I know for sure would have either been instalocked or outright banned but they weren’t, so why are they now?

3. Recourse: where’s the democratic approach in reinstating a member? It’s been said that member voices here mean nothing in light of someone being banned but why should that be so? Does one really have to storm a capital, post threats, set cars on fire, hack sites and ravage a community just to be heard? If this is a community, why should the voices of those who partake in it all these years be given absolutely no weight? I think petitions for the reinstatement of a member should be taken into account and one should have a recourse to escalate a situation deemed unfair or unjust post-ban or otherwise so theres some kind of checks & balances against very realistic and possible abuses of power that might arise. This essentially renders taking extreme measures a null & void action since there’s a very clear means of escalation.

4. Ban Time Frames - banning someone for a sexually provocative name or profile is not the same as banning someone for overstepping boundaries during a cuddling session. Similarly banning someone for making lewd comments is not the same as banning someone for sending lewd photos or making lewd requests. As such, I think bans should have a time frame for those infractions, that though violate the rules, are easily corrected. Time-outs would have been effective here if bans weren’t the popular choice. I think a timer on bans that take into consideration length of time on site, the situation the person is being banned for etc, albeit it a month, or whatever, is better than constantly issuing perma-bans and depleting the site of its potentially larger pool of cuddlers as a result. Not to mention the loss in revenue.
   I think leniency and having a real recourse in light of abuse or something unjust that goes beyond just one mod, is vital. Otherwise, it opens itself up to radical ideas that could have been completely thwarted.

This is not to say that this person was banned for an illegitimate reason but it does make me wonder if that activist emailing the site on her behalf and others vouching for her weren’t there, would there have been an escalation at all. And how many others felt they had no recourse and just “let it go” when there was a legitimate reason for their return.

Just my thoughts on that email.

Ironman294

That email and the person writing that should have no bearing on the appeal process of the banned professional. Hopefully she will be reinstated. She is a genuinely kind soul.

12345ABCDEF

@PrettyLuv I think the sense of entitlement from BOTH "Pros" and others is indicative of a more widespread societal problem.

They (whoever owns the site) don't have to give anyone a reason for anything. They could just wake up and say "hmmm.....I'm randomly banning these 20 people" and just do it. So the fact they try to give rules and transparency is already 1,000,000x more than they have to.

I think people forget that websites are NOT a public utility or public forum. They are privately owned and operated.

If someone doesn't like it they always free to leave and start up a competitor website. That is what Free Market Capitalism is.

TheFunCartel

@PrettyLuv You bring up very good points. I might add that the site is run by males and whether they care to admit it or not, this does color their thinking. I find over the years that there is a lot of black and white thinking regarding female pros while some male mods who pushed sexual boundaries (not any of the current ones) were rewarded half-measures as far as punishment. The first part regarding female pros is purely an observation, the second part pertaining male mods is a fact.

PrettyLuv

@WarmDesertHugs i think the aim is to be a better site than the competition. Of course they can wake up and just ban 20 people at large with no rhyme or reason, and lose their user base to a competitor site at the same time. But, moving to be better than that is, I think, the goal of being the go-to site for cuddling, which is why these kind of issues should be fleshed out rather than brushed under the rug under private or public scrutiny.

All I know is I needed the platonic therapeutic touch this site offered after losing faith in the massage therapy and healthcare world. Its all I knew and I dont know anything else. Utah and dopl sucks for lies, exploitation in the massage and issuing of fake licenses in the massage industry and disciplining clinically oriented therapists like myself. I needed this site for what it was designed for being at the lowest point I have ever been in life. I've seen so much misery and death beyond reason in my 20 years of healthcare. There are other sites people can go to for "other services". I hope this site can maintain what it was designed for.