Boring Legalistic Post
Since Danielle seems so frustrated and confused by some of the APM's recent rule interpretations, and since the APM apparently makes a policy of not explaining his actions, I thought it might help if this admitted outsider gave his understanding of why things happened the way they have in different situations she's mentioned. I should note that this is all strictly my interpretation from the outside and is not based on any inside information or anything like that.
The basic premise at issue here is that the Board Rules forbid self-promotion by supply-siders who haven't paid to take out ads. Once a supply-sider takes out an ad, she is free to post whatever she wants by way of self-promotional material in posts.
The problem, obviously, is telling what constitutes self-promotional material. Which leads to some close calls.
1. Magnifique. Magnifique disclosed her workplace in response to a question by another stipper -- Danielle, in fact -- after Magnifique had expressed misgivings about hustling similar to those Danielle had expressed and mentioned that such was the reason why she (Magnifique) worked at a club that did not feature private dances. It seemed to me at the time that the APM let Magnifique's answer stand because the request for information came from a fellow industry member asking out of her own industry-based interest, so that under the circumstances the information was neither requested nor given in a commercial promotional context.
I think the APM might have felt a little bitten in the ass by his decision to let that post stand, however. Because once the cat was out of the bag, Magnifique embarked on a truly impressive campaign of self-promotion (threads linking to pictures of her on her club's website, threads about how she never uses a condom when giving a blow job, etc. etc. etc.), without taking out an ad. Those posts -- indeed, entire threads -- were all deleted.
2. Danielle. Danielle has put up posts strongly suggesting where she works. Those have all been allowed to stay up. In addition, in the course of several discussions, guys have asked Danielle (usually gratuitously, by which I mean it wasn't usually called for by anything in the discussion) where she works, or said they thought they knew who she was. Posts responding to those questions or containing such information, whether by Danielle or other posters, have all been deleted (and one of the male posters who posted where she works has been banned).
Putting aside the propriety of the banning, I think the reason those posts were all deleted was that this time -- unlike in Magnifique's case -- the information was clearly being given for commerical or promotional purposes. Guys were asking where Danielle worked so they could come and see her, and that information was being given precisely to permit them to do so. It's easy to see how the APM could have construed any disclosure of Danielle's workplace in that context as constituting at least the functional equivalent of free advertising. Especially in view of what happened after Magnifique was permitted to post her workplace in response to a clearly non-commercial request.
3. billyS's X-Dreams Reviews. BillyS writes very detailed explict reviews of girls who "dance" at X-Dreams. In the course of these reviews, he obviously mentions the "dancers" by name and of course he says where they work. What billy does is obviously permissible because reviews are obviously expected to identify their subject and contain contact information, whether or not the review subject is a UG advertiser.
The big gray area in that context has been distinguishing between actual reviews (where contact info is permissible) and mere promotional posts put up by some customer on a supply-sider's behalf (since you can't circumvent the rules by having someone else do what you yourself cannot). It generally depends on the amount of detail in the post, and the critical approach it takes. Billy's posts couldn't more clearly be reviews. OTOH, if someone posted that "XXX at YYY Club rocked my world -- and she posts on UG as ZZZ", it would probably be construed as a thinly-disguised ad post and taken down.
