Let me first start by saying that I have great respect for Eddie and the difficult balancing act that goes with trying to run a site like ESA. My remarks are intended towards addressing what might be an injustice, and clarifying as well what are some of the boundaries for advertisers.

Now this will be a long post, so grab a drink, or grab popcorn.

Many of you will remember a post by Veronica entitled Here we go again... www.esa.co.za/forum/thread.php

As a result, Matt from ESA posted that Sharon had been banned.
Some days later, Eddie posted a thread titled Comic relief - what we need to put up with at ESA admin !!
www.esa.co.za/forum/thread.php
Shortly thereafter, I noticed that Shakira's advert was off. It turns out that she has been banned by ESA, and when I spoke to her, she understood her banning as being a result of the restaurant "incident". I asked her what happened, and she gave me a version of events that she was approached by Sharon in a restaurant seeking to use Shakira's telephone and ESA account to comment on or defend her actions as highlighted by Veronica in the "Here we go again..." thread.

According to Shakira, she refused to get involved and asked Sharon to leave her alone. Sharon then called the manager of the restaurant to accuse Shakira of making threats against her. At no point was a firearm produced or pointed, and Shakira flatly states she never takes her firearm with her if she is going drinking. Subsequent to that, the e-mail to Eddie was sent by Sharon.

Now I have no way of knowing if Shakira's account is true, but it certainly sounds more plausible than the "hit squad" allegation in the e-mail to Eddie. But either way, that means there are two versions of the events that happened...

I like Shakira but can hardly be called a 'regular'. I have seen her three times since I reviewed her in January of 2016, and chatted or spoken to her a few times inbetween. I have no financial interest in her business, and my interest in commenting at all is because I genuinely like her as a person, from what I have experienced in her company.

So I wrote to ESA the following:

Good day,
I was very sad to learn that Shakira has apparently been banned from ESA. I took the time to speak to her about the alleged incident at the restaurant, and she assures me that the CCTV video of the events will back up her version that she at no time pulled her weapon or threatened the writer of the "ESA Hit Squad" letter (!)
As you rightly point out, the letter is "so ludicrous that it doesn't even deserve any response from any person with even limited intelligence." I will also point out that there are probably many cases of altercations that take place between advertisers that never make it to your office, and Shakira was not the initiator of any correspondence that I am aware of in this regard.
I will also point out that by dropping her ad, ESA is tacitly endorsing at least a portion of the letter's contents in the minds of people who follow the forum. This not only has a direct effect on her business, but an indirect one as well, insofar that it implies that she is someone prone to making threats with a firearm in public places. Obviously, that can certainly give one pause to use her services!
As well, given your history with Shakira, I can understand you perhaps wishing to ban her at the first sign of "trouble", especially where ESA's reputation is concerned. However, this might be a case where that response might be unjustified and even injurious to an innocent party.
If you have other substantive information on the events that were purported to have happened in the letter, and that is the basis on which you have banned her, I cannot argue with that: all I have is Shakira's version of events, and the generally unbelievable content of the letter. But I believe that your general policy of only acting on verified information with regard to banning advertisers is a wise one, and I just would like to be sure that this is the case in Shakira's banning.
If not, I would respectfully ask that you reinstate her; my interactions with her have always shown her in a positive light, and I believe she adds a certain value to ESA with her eccentricity, her bluntness, but also an underlying kindness.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Gary
.............................................................

I received this reply:

Good Day Mr Gary,
Your email is noted but Shakira will remain banned from ESA.
Kind Regards
Antionette
ESA Manager
...............................................................................
Now if some cogent reason for banning her in response to the points that I made were offered, I would have been far happier (and even happier if the basic courtesy of using my name correctly had been followed). However, I thought perhaps ESA would respond to a win/win approach, so I thought I might try and bring an old advertiser back into the fold. My next e-mail was:

Hi Antoinette,
Obviously you feel strongly about this issue. Let me try one more win/win construction to try and resolve the impasse:
I spoke with one of your former advertisers after a booking today, and it was interesting to hear why she didn't think that ESA represented good value for her. However, I pointed out that she was not really using the resources available to her fully, and offered to pay for her to return to ESA for a month and I would help her to make better use of the functionalities available to advertisers.
If you agree to reinstate Shakira on a trial basis, and help me to understand the basis of your banning her in the first place, I will undertake to try and moderate those issues of concern that you have. In return, the advertiser [redacted] will restart her ad, and I will encourage her to fully utilize all the advantages that ESA can offer. Hopefully, a free month provided by me will give her the start that she needs to realize the value ESA offers.
This could be a win/win for all concerned, and I hope you will favorably consider this offer. Please note that I have no financial concerns in the matter, and make this offer free of any obligations on the part of Shakira, [redacted] or yourselves, save as outlined above. Think of it as community service on my part.
Kind regards,
Gary
................................................................
(Here I must eat a little humble pie and apologize for spelling Antionette's name as Antoinette)

This is the reply I got:

Dear Grant,
It is very kind of you to endorse ESA as we do indeed offer a lot of service to the advertiser that they do not use and it could definitely help to spike up business, regarding Shakira, we are not going to be reinstate her. Shakira has been with us for many years and in those years there has been a lot conflict,racism and arguments. We have been more than fair towards her. Its not in our interest to banned any advertiser, but when it become to much it is just not worth it.
I feel I have indulged you more than I need to, you are not an advertiser and also do not know our history with Shakira. Please do not contact me any further regarding this matter
Good day.
Antionette
ESA Manager
.................................................................
Rather than feel I have been indulged, I feel these replies have been dismissive and condescending. As to not knowing Shakira's history with ESA with regards racism, I will remind Antionette that Shakira took it on the chin for doing doubles under the advert for TopDeck in the General Forum, and has generally been generous in her praise of her colleagues of all colours since her return to ESA. I will also remind Antionette of a portion of my review of Shakira:

"So first three quibbles that mattered not one bit to me, but that I should mention for those whom it might bother: first, Shakira is extremely fond of her domestic worker, [my emphasis] and you might see her at a booking. But certainly nothing more privacy-invading than encountered at the standard "house" one might visit; it's just that some might not expect it at a private flat."

Lastly, I gave Shakira a lift to a local restaurant after a booking, and on the way, she gave away R50 to a street beggar who seemed familiar with her, and unsurprised with the amount given, leading me to think this is a regular occurrence.

I think it's safe to say that whatever might be dredged up from the past, Shakira has done nothing in the past two years to justify any charge of racism. And as far as conflict and arguments, as far as I can tell from her Forum interactions, where reminded or urged by Eddie to moderate her comments, she has done so.

All of which leads me to question banning someone on the basis of a (frankly) ludicrous e-mail from someone who has been shown, if Matt's comments are to be believed, to have tried to engage in conduct to coerce or intimidate clients into giving her money.

The only other justification given has been:

"We have been more than fair towards her. Its [sic] not in our interest to banned [sic] any advertiser, but when it become to [sic] much it is just not worth it."

Since Antionette has enjoined me from contacting her privately concerning this, I am hoping that this post will serve to perhaps elicit a more cogent account of the reasons behind Shakira's banning, which might serve to not only to help me understand the loss of an advertiser that I enjoyed, but also instruct others as to what the boundaries are in their relationship with ESA management.

Eddie once commented that the key to interaction here is respect. I don't think my private inquiries were met with much respect by Antionette, and I will gently remind Eddie that his post, comic as it might have been, dragged both Shakira and Veronica into the forum's public eye with allegations that, in Shakira's case, seem to have been partially endorsed, even if unwittingly. Neither lady asked for their involvement to my knowledge, and that also seems to be a breach of respect.

I can only hope that, with good will, the status quo can be restored and Shakira allowed to advertise again. It is sad to think that the fallout of the exposure of a former advertiser who was found to have tried to exploit her clients should be the banning of someone who may be totally innocent.

Hi Gary,

Just my two cents and it is a case of use it don't use it. Eddie is a fair and tolerant individual, if he feels something has become too much then it is best left that way.

Posting on an open forum may seem to you as a last ditch attempt but sadly none of us know what he knows and has caused him to react this way. The fact is he prides himself on protecting not only his advertisers but those of us who frequent the site so sometimes we need to just accept he is doing what he feels best. Antionette correctly stated that it is not in their best interests to turn money away but sometimes they need to take the hard decision to protect the masses.

This is not a remark on any of the characters involved in this matter but rather some advice on Eddie and the responsibilities to everyone he takes seriously.

Ultimately it is his domain and he stands to lose more than anyone on here if things go south so let's trust his judgement on this one.

As for Antionette, I personally feel she is carrying out her bosses orders and with the amount of work involved in keeping the Purple machine alive for everyone, is not willing to waste time on a matter that she knows won't be going anywhere other than the ultimate result you are currently contesting.

Sorry mate but that's the way I see it, well done though on clearly giving a shit about people in general a rather rare quality in this day an age.

Just pick the battle.

Regards
Sean

Dear Gary... Thank you for standing up for Shakira... If the incident with the firearm was true, Shakira would be locked up and not being banned from a restaurant... panic buttons given out? Wat 'n pot snot! Hope someone like you will come to my rescue one day... I love Shakira just the way she is... she's got a good heart.
Just my opinion

.....

Thanks for the comment @Sean. I understand your points, and do in fact have great respect for Eddie's judgment, but even individuals with extensive knowledge and expertise can sometimes get it wrong.

And a real response here would also give other advertisers an idea where the boundaries are; as it is, no-one has really gained from this experience.

I appreciate your input; however, I don't regard this as a battle. It is an exchange of viewpoints. For there to be battle, there would have to be a winner and a loser. I certainly have no desire for anyone to lose.

@Ms. Paige, thank you for your kind words.

As Jack Nicholson said in as a good as it gets. " why can't we all get along "

@Gary... And what happened to Veronica at the end of the day.. Was she also banned ?

Gary_g,

As you said so yourself, there are different versions of whatever happened, but at the end of the day there might be more that transpired after the events that we have no knowledge of.

For one, I have been an avid follower of the forum for a couple of years as well as participating and not once have I seen a banning that wasn't for a good reason.

Surely, we might never know exactly what happened or the reason but I do find that if Eddie decided it was necessary, for you to post on an open forum trying to get whoever reinstated you are farting in the wind

@DocDee Veronica's advert is still up. She has been uncharacteristically quiet, though.

Thought I was the only one who observed that.

On 2017-07-26 11:48:15 gary_g said:
She has been uncharacteristically quiet, though.