Navigation
![]( "A member of ESA for less than a year")
![]( "A member of ESA between a year and five years")
![]( "A member of ESA for more than five years, but less than 10 years")
![]( "A member of ESA for more than 10 years")
![]( "Gold Member")
![]( "ESA staff met this punter in person")
![]( "A respected member of the community, with consistent helpful posts")
![]( "One of our Wicked Wendesday Winners")
![]( "Directly helps ESA in the recruitement of new advertisers")
![]( "Donated to Charity")
![]( "Is the owner/manager of a venue advertising on ESA")
![]( "Part of the ESA Photography Team")
![]( "Received the Punter Of the Year Award")
Hover mouse over icons for description
-
Re: What does it take for ESA to deal with scammers?
Posted: 2024-11-21 06:57:44
Easy answer.
Think of it as a "court of law". Would your "evidence" stand up in front of a judge.
I presume that's the level of evidence needed for a ban.
Hearsay, or your say-so is not enough. Circumstantial evidence is not enough. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) would likely be enough.
It is what it is.
In the meantime, the info you give, gives other punters a heads-up.
/T
On 2024-11-12 08:12:24 DickRich2 said:
My question to ESA, you have intervened in the past and banned ladies who were outed for scamming. Why is this one the exception? Where do you draw the line?
Easy answer.
Think of it as a "court of law". Would your "evidence" stand up in front of a judge.
I presume that's the level of evidence needed for a ban.
Hearsay, or your say-so is not enough. Circumstantial evidence is not enough. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) would likely be enough.
It is what it is.
In the meantime, the info you give, gives other punters a heads-up.
/T
Reply
Legend
Hover mouse over icons for description
For the best browsing experience, rotate your tablet horizontal.