Moralists Won - Voyeurs Nil

[iloner]

RLC must act within the law and take care of the girls in its charge.   

This responsibility is theirs, but many have raised objections and concerns at the way out of their heads behaviour has driven entertainment.

The result is a (hopefully temporary) lull in action at the Barcas.

There are other ways of driving more explicit action - better selection of tenants for example.

We are voyeurs - should we watch passively, or should we interfere?

 

 

[CowArt]

The great voyeur dilemma: Does one stay hidden in the bushes peeking in the windows when you see things go to shit or, does one act?

The voyeur in me always wants to keep watching, but there's a human being hidden inside me somewhere that feels the need to step in. I am not alone in that. I was on the chatbox the last time Lev got physical with Zoya, and the time when Mario had his breakdown. A lot of chatters were concerned for the safety of the people on the cameras and sent RLC an email with those concerns.

Same with the events at the Barca-apts, some people just felt it wasn't right what was going on the night with the CokeBoys. Translations suggests that some of the girls had serious regrets about the things they did on the previous nights their judgement was clouded. There maybe wasn't any eminent physical danger, but is a black eye really that much worse than the hurting from the knowledge you did things, everybody saw it, and you can't undo it anymore? And it seems that without the powdery or liquid encouragement these girls aren't very entertaining at all. That's up tor RLC to fix, find girls that are fun no matter what.

The observation that the moralist won isn't really fair. Sure, some sent emails that this is not what they wanted to see, but are there subscribers out there with the opposite view that sent an email to RLC requesting them to bring in a bunch of CokeBoys every fortnight? Or is that one step to far? Happy to see it happen, anonymously on a web forum asking for it is okay too, but actually step up and just ask RLC for it is where the line is drawn? Suppose RLC is just judging on the emails they receive, the choice is easy. Dozens of emails saying this is not good, versus none saying this is what we want.

[iloner]

4 hours ago, CowArt said:

 

The observation that the moralist won isn't really fair. Sure, some sent emails that this is not what they wanted to see, but are there subscribers out there with the opposite view that sent an email to RLC requesting them to bring in a bunch of CokeBoys every fortnight? Or is that one step to far? Happy to see it happen, anonymously on a web forum asking for it is okay too, but actually step up and just ask RLC for it is where the line is drawn? Suppose RLC is just judging on the emails they receive, the choice is easy. Dozens of emails saying this is not good, versus none saying this is what we want.

Hi CowArt,

I do have a view as to the problem and the solution - but for now I wanted to comment that the choice you suggest is a false one (only my thoughts and please disagree - I don't want to be argumentative)

I doubt RLC is just judging on the emails they receive.   

RLC would have had a small number of emails saying this is not good against the very large number who made no comment.

And set against a backdrop of many thousands of comments over the years saying that what we want is more action.

Alleging possible harm is a concern no  commercial organisation can ignore.  

So the 'dozens' elevated their concerns over the tens of thousands.

RLC had to act, but my guess is they continue to hold the same views that led them to support whatever it is that went on by whoever it was that initiated it.

And in that lies hope for those of us who do want more action. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[delta10]

Iloner,

I have taken time to collect my thoughts before replying.

The key is if I am uncomfortable with what I am seeing and / or reading in the chat room and forum posts. While of course we watch for entertainment the boundary is if anybody looks to be at risk in some way. I can split this into

- a chain of events the obvious one being alcohol consumption

If a large amount is drunk, so long as not very quickly, and the end result is severe drunkenness including making calls on the big white telephone followed by a day of recovery so long as a one off the long term risk is minimal. However a significant amount consumed on several sequential days or over a week has long term risks. A long period of continual drinking even if not heavily again has long term risks.

- an single event or chain in a very short time frame

The obvious one here is drugs. To me one of the issues is unlike alcohol, assuming from a reputable source, where the strength and quality is known both are unknown. A wrap may be described as a certain type or strength and purity but ultimately only on trust. Furthermore someone can tell another it is a certain strength knowing actually much stronger and the person who then takes only finds out too late. While we don't know the details the example here is when Carolina had taken drink and drugs but was described to be still okay then was passed a pill and a few minutes later a wreck. First health risk from this. Second she was helped to dress as incapable then went out with Milena and two guys. She returned later alone but what was the risk of physically falling or be assaulted? Similarly when Lima left B2 alone early morning and took far longer than usual to walk back to B1. Differently one day Lola and Carolina were awake for 36 hours, maybe more. Did they achieve this with a stimulant of some type? If so what were the risks short and longer term?

 

- someone encouraged to something out of character when not in state to make a rational decision.

- someone seeming depressed for a long time

- one person causing significant distress to another e.g. the Adele - Aida ' issue ' or totally dominating the apartment making the lives of all others difficult or very restricted.

While these are the boundaries / triggers for me while those for other of course will probably be different.

[iloner]

Should the girls be drugged to entertain us better?    NO.

Are the girls used to a milieu where taking recreational drugs is common?   I understand they are.

They are in that world by choice and we have to assume they know the risks of that world.    Like young people everywhere they trade risk for pleasure.   

We know RLC monitors the site and acts when things go wrong.    Too much is at stake for them not to obey all local laws.

We can't nanny anyone.    We do not know the truth of anything.   We thought Becca left because she was upset - but she's back.    We are in the dark, so shining a torch on one thing - drugs - prevents us seeing the whole picture.

So let us restate the problem: how does RLC improve viewer satisfaction?

Lola's answer was to create artificial situations and provide stimulants such as alcohol.    We had some memorable moments, but lots went wrong.   Ultimately her entertainments were unsatisfying because they were artificial and we want real experience, real emotion.  

You can't force it.    But you can create the conditions in which it may happen.

Perhaps the row about stimulants will focus RLC on another solution - harder to implement and not as quick acting - better management.

 - better casting - ask questions: do you have a Bf who would object to your appearing naked?

 - set objectives - I bet Leora's on a bonus plan of some kind

 - monitor viewer approval; we know they read this forum and CC

I bet they do all this, and still things go badly wrong.   We mustn't underestimate how hard their job is.   If a girl fails to please - send her home.

So yes, I take the view voyeurs should not interfere.

But we don't run the site.   Those who do, need to interfere more, by encouraging and rewarding viewer approved behaviours.  

Stimulus is needed.   Stimulants should be up to the girls.