The new rules were updated and written from the experience gleaned from reading and listening to the members that post on this forum everyday. New rules have been under discussion for many months and all are in the process of being re-written. They have been designed to be fair, to make things clearer, and to support and protect all our members.

Many of our readers actually post, (and by doing so take on the role of the moderator) saying that they will not read for someone because the seeker has just had a reading from someone else, so I do wonder why anyone is querying this point on limits when this guideline has been in place and acted upon for a very long time. The precise date that counts has never been brought up before or argued in all the time I have been moderating here. We all know that some people are addicted to readings and having this guideline in place supports and protects our readers, and offers the seekers a valid reason as to why they have not got another reading. The dates you mention; the date the request was made and the date the reading is given, rarely varies by more than a week anyway.

I wonder, E_O_T, are you saying you want to give more than one reading a month to the same person? Or that you are ok if you spend your time and energy giving a lengthy reading only for the member to request another soon after?

We all want what's best for the forum and the members, of that I am sure, but these guidelines work both ways.

When it comes to putting up restrictions for asking for Readings or the time interval between them, then we must only take into account one thing...the readers!

If it is up to MB, then they can ask how many times they want, from who they want, and in what way they want....because if they are happy....well then we are happy....the words will spread around and we get more members who again ask......but it is not MB that suffer under such a thing...it is the Readers.....it is those we have to protect....and we must do it in such a way that it don't feel as restrictions but rather as guidelines and protection.

So please Read the guidelines...and if anything is unclear or has to be changed....post it here.....now is the best time  

While I agree that you have always shown great respect and consideration for the health and happiness of your readers, I feel that we also at the same time need to work in what we feel are the member's best interests. Giving them too many readings within a particular period is not doing them any favours. IMO



No I believe that one reading a month from any of the readers is quite enough for any person, and I have no desire to see these given more frequently. I feel that this is only fair to everybody concerned including the readers who so freely give of their time and energies to help your members, and that it significantly reduces the ever present possibility that people will depend entirely on a psychic reading to completely replace having to their own decisions. To reduce the possibility of over dependency?

I am simply asking here for you to confirm that this new rule refers to any reader rather than just the same reader, and that it is the time since their previous request (rather than since their last reading) which is used to determine whether or not a month has passed. If the one reading per month ruling is to be used effectively, we must have some consistent method of applying it.

If members are allowed any number of readings in each month from a different reader each time, I feel that this could become terribly confusing to implement. It would also make the reading load very excessive and quickly unmanageable. It should simply be a matter of looking in their profile to determine when they previously requested a reading in this forum. Who actually gave the reading does not matter, as long as a reading was given?

Sorry that I seem to be making this into a much bigger issue than it really is, but I have seen the one reading per month from any reader rule work well on other sites, and it could have the added bonus of encouraging members to also contribute to some of the other non readings forums, while they are waiting for the month to go by since their last reading request.

Regards,

eye_of_tiger

Just to put my thoughts in on the matter, as I have said many times, the information comes from the same place, the only thing different is how each reader acquires the information, I would think it didn't matter which reader read last.  The guidelines are very fair, and they are pretty clear, if there is any question on clarity, we always have admin and the moderators to help us out.  There will always be exceptions and there will be concerns that we can approach at the time it comes about.  All of you have worked very hard to keep this forum fair to the readers and the members, I appreciate all of your hard work.  EOT has brought out some concerns that I would not have thought of, thanks.  Working together has been in the past has kept this forum very desirable to be a part of.

I know I am been misunderstood from time to time..and I hope I can blame it upon my lack of vocabulary.
My above post should only point out that the "rules" should not protect MB...but those who do the work...and they must be allowed to do the evaluation.

I think those "rules" that are made are very good and hopefully easy to follow.

When EoT asked about :

5) Please do not give a member more than one reading a month, some types of reading need only be given every six months or even once a lifetime.
Then I thought we saw the same problem

The  "rule" in itself is very good......but if we give it a little thought....then at least I can see some problems.

This wording gives an "requirement" to the reader to investigate and deny an request under the " law of a rule"...you are not able to use your judgement....and if someone else of the Readers gives a Reading because he/she haven't seen or read the rule, or feel that a Reading must be given, then it open up for "bad feelings" because a rule tells you not to do that.

That was why I suggested that we instead use : We recommend

5) We recommend that Readers do not give a member more than one reading a month, some types of reading need only be given every six months or even once a lifetime.

In my opinion will this give more freedom to the Readers to evaluate, and the refuse are given because of evaluation and not because of a rule.