Is this available for sale?

[Duncan Edwards]

I’m not aware of any major problems. Probably because of the very high standards that Fred maintains. Gave the rest of us something to follow.

[Fred588]

Have there actually been any issues with producers doing anything that could remotely be considered problematic? I understand that the line has been drawn to avoid conflict of interest. But the producers pretty much know each other and have remained the same - with some recent changes - for years. No one's been actively promoting their products on the public forums since...forever. It's just so strange to have producers basically have to sit in a dark room, have their voice changed and then apply for a witness protection program just to answer a basic a question.

Pragmatically, I don't see what's hard about "This scene was produced by me. PM me for details" instead of leaving breadcrumbs. Instead of having a friendly discussion together in a single thread, it feels like Fred is being locked in his own room and is talking to himself.

It seems to me you are trying to make a mountain from a molehill. If you will look at my very first reply in this thread, I DID say the pictures were from one of my videos. What I avoided was the details of what scene it was. I avoided saying "look here for the details" because the last time I did that I got a complaint about it,.... from you.

[Fred588]

This is to address the policy itself:
I believe it is true, mostly at least, that the policy against producers posting in the public forums addresses a problem that has not been a problem. That does not mean, however, that the policy is not needed. It just means the policy has been effective.

I do not believe it would be a good idea to abandon the policy. If that were done, even if the current, main producers continued to post details of available scenes only in their producer forums, all it would take is for one producer, perhaps someone new, to start making use of the public forums and the others would pretty much be forced to do the same. Aside from a producer doing this directly there are indirect techniques that someone might try. One is the use of a sock puppet. The puppet asks a question about a scene and then the producer replies. That is, of course, a violation of another policy but can be very hard to detect. And then there is the use of what is commonly referred to as a shill, some real member who posts a question just to allow a reply. There is nothing at all wrong with a member posing a legitimate question, as I believe was what occurred here, but I believe it would be wrong if the producer were to somehow reward the member for doing so because then the member has really become a sock puppet.

I do not who to credit for it but I think the following is good advice: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[dlodoski]

....I believe it is true, mostly at least, that the policy against producers posting in the public forums addresses a problem that has not been a problem. That does not mean, however, that the policy is not needed. It just means the policy has been effective.

I do not believe it would be a good idea to abandon the policy. If that were done, even if the current, main producers continued to post details of available scenes only in their producer forums, all it would take is for one producer, perhaps someone new, to start making use of the public forums ....

I wasn't going to post to this topic again, but I wanted to point out that these sentiments are spot on.

The rule in question was always (and still is) a preemptive, zero tolerance measure.

[Viridian]

I believe it is true, mostly at least, that the policy against producers posting in the public forums addresses a problem that has not been a problem. That does not mean, however, that the policy is not needed. It just means the policy has been effective.

I don't understand the logic. If it wasn't a problem to begin with, how can the policy be considered effective? Effective in doing what? I'd understand if there was a rampant problem with producers spamming their commercial property and the policy addressed the complaints. But it was a non-issue.

Have producers in the past created sock puppets to answer themselves in the General forum? Have there been shills that producers have exploited? Given that producers already have the means to post openly about their work on the Producer sub-forums, why would they need to spruik their work in the General forum?

I know we've had some...interesting...characters in the past, but they've had their own issues.

Given that the policy was introduced and agreed by the producers, it almost feels like you fear that you yourself will succumb to the temptation to create sock puppets and hire shills. Otherwise it seems that you're suggesting that Jumpoff Joe will turn into an uncontrollable sock puppet master if the policy wasn't around. Not complaining here; just a humourous observation.

In the end, there's no impetus for change - the producers are fine with it and there's no reason for a regular user to complain. To me, it's just a bizarre quirk in the way we do things here.

[Fred588]

I believe it is true, mostly at least, that the policy against producers posting in the public forums addresses a problem that has not been a problem. That does not mean, however, that the policy is not needed. It just means the policy has been effective.

I don't understand the logic. If it wasn't a problem to begin with, how can the policy be considered effective? Effective in doing what? I'd understand if there was a rampant problem with producers spamming their commercial property and the policy addressed the complaints. But it was a non-issue.

Have producers in the past created sock puppets to answer themselves in the General forum? Have there been shills that producers have exploited? Given that producers already have the means to post openly about their work on the Producer sub-forums, why would they need to spruik their work in the General forum?

I know we've had some...interesting...characters in the past, but they've had their own issues.

Given that the policy was introduced and agreed by the producers, it almost feels like you fear that you yourself will succumb to the temptation to create sock puppets and hire shills. Otherwise it seems that you're suggesting that Jumpoff Joe will turn into an uncontrollable sock puppet master if the policy wasn't around. Not complaining here; just a humourous observation.

In the end, there's no impetus for change - the producers are fine with it and there's no reason for a regular user to complain. To me, it's just a bizarre quirk in the way we do things here.

I suspect I am flogging a dead horse here but to answer your first question, it can be considered as effective BECAUSE it has not been a problem.

[dlodoski]

...I don't understand the logic. If it wasn't a problem to begin with, how can the policy be considered effective?

This isn't the first message board we have had. (Hint/Reminder)

Quicksandfans is structured the way it is so that the Community can hang out and do it's thing without necessarily being reminded that there are goodies for sale as well. The rule reinforces the structure.

Before, a claim could be reasonably made that the Community was dominated by the producers. Here, it can't.

[Jumpoff_Joe]

...I don't understand the logic. If it wasn't a problem to begin with, how can the policy be considered effective?

This isn't the first message board we have had. (Hint/Reminder)

Quicksandfans is structured the way it is so that the Community can hang out and do it's thing without necessarily being reminded that there are goodies for sale as well. The rule reinforces the structure.

Before, a claim could be reasonably made that the Community was dominated by the producers. Here, it can't.

Here, here. I agree with and support the policy as Dave stated. And as for being a sock puppet master, whatever happens between my puppets and I stays in the privacy of my home and not on this board.

[Herzeleid]

I think viridian is getting worked up over nothing. If you think a scene might be available from Fred then all you need do is go to the website and enter the model's name in the search window and it will list all their scenes. You can then spend a not unpleasant time looking through their photos. . . Let's face it, the way things are at the moment it's not as if you have no time for such things !
I'd also like to say I've never found Fred anything other than courteous and friendly in my ordering scenes from him.

[Musekal]

https://www.deviantart.com/kenham1/art/Hannah-at-Night-184710641

Was wondering if this scene was ever recorded on video and available for digital purchase somewhere

That is a still taken during filming of one of my videos. Kenham (Ken Hamilton) was a member of my crew. He had permission to post the stills he did, although with certain guidelines which he failed to observe. One of those was the inclusion of my copyright, which if he had included would have made your inquiry unnecessary.

How hard would it have been to say "Yes" and provide a link to your section of the forum with the relevant info?

Here you have a potential customer and you're doing seemingly everything you can to push them away.