Banned agencies/indies reviews:

[TC123]

I'm curious as to what poeple think the current policy is.

Read the rules, will ya Bender? J/K

Since I'm the first one to use that phrase in this thread, let me chime in. I typed and erase the phrase several times before getting tired and letting it go. I was toying with using the word guidelines, standards, normal posting
whatever, but none seemed right. I guess what am trying to say is that I don't think a provider's banned status should have any effect on whether anyone can review them. I was going to leave it at that, but I wanted to add something in to reflect that I hope such reviews won't lead to a continuation or resumption of whatever got the person banned in the first place, whether it was a flame war, self-reviewing, shilling, providers making fake negative reviews on each other, or other negative statements purely for the sake of hurting their competitors, efforts to circumvent the rules, etc.

I don't know if I've stated it eloquently enough to be considered a policy, but that's what I was getting at. I believe those are normal guidelines anyway, but I thought it was worth mentioning, because if someone has been banned for some reason, reviewing them may be more likely to incite something.

I know that at least one long time poster on this board (I can't remember who) has a hatred for a provider (I can't remember who) who either posts here or used to. I don't recall who it is so I don't know if they've been banned, but if someone reviews her, I hope that it wouldn't escalate needlessly.

 

[johnpet]

Remind me again what it is that you contribute to this board.

I contribute conversation - which is what my idea of message boards are. A bunch of people with similar interests shooting the shit. There will always be guys like you with no life who apparantly take this stuff entirely too seriously. Hobbying is just that. A hobby. It's not my life. And I pity you if it's yours.

It's also a place of differing opinions. And every board has their little Hitler - like you - where if the opinion doesn't match your own then the other person must be wrong or stupid. And it's guys like you I don't want to review girls. Because you're not a level thinker. You're that "I'm 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong" person. You're the reason I'm against reviews.

 

[Slinky Bender]

I think people should go back and read the post at the top of the thread.

 

[johnpet]

Ha. We got off track? I believe the orgional question was whether or not to allow reviews of banned agencies/indies. My answer is they should not be allowed. Apparantly I'm the dissenting vote. Please everyone bear in mind that differing opinions is what makes anything interesting.

 

[pjorourke]

Bzzzzzzzzttttt.

Amazing how someone can be wrong twice with one answer.

I don't try very hard because I never win anything when I'm right.

 

[Slinky Bender]

You obviously discount being right as a reward.

 

[new guy]

anyway... back to the topic... imho, would like to see all reviews regardless of providers status ( banned / not banned )....

from reading postings (& I did read the "rules" once upon a time ), my sense is that the greatest sin that leads to banning is self-promotion...

and my sense is that once a provider starts to 'chat' it is a slippery slope to self-promo
I completely understand that self promo sucks off ad revenue.... and I'm betting self
promo via chat is more effective than adverts...

so we have a conflict between readers desire for info and Mr. Slinky's understandable need for financial assistance... I see this as Slinky's world so can't squawk whatever you decide..

On this squabble between TC123 & J-Pet... a little heated - no... clearly we all gain from others experiences ( reviews ) -- know I have... J-Pet likes to think he has special relationships. Many of us harbor this fantasy/or experience this reality. Do different providers treat different customers differently -- Sure, its only human.

 

[johnpet]

I've seen many reviews - some viscious on providers who I had a great time with. And it's sad to see them trashed. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a decent percentage of men in this hobby have serious issues. I actually have no problem with people posting reviews. I certaily hope newbies take them with a grain of salt. I don't pay any attention to them and have next to no problems hobbying. I will read rip-off reports and scams. But when I see incall girls at their homes I really don't have a worst case scenario. If they don't answer then oh well. Happens rarely. If they do answer money doesn't hit the table unless deeds are discussed and accomplished. I pay at the end. Eliminates getting ripped off. If you give a provide you've never seen before $250 w/o discussing a single thing and get ripped off, go ahead and file your complaint. And put a picture of a donkey next to your name while you're at it. Some guys will just never learn.

 

[JoeyP]

I love the excitement of a board that is mostly open for comment. It's like watching a soap opera or something and I never miss a thread in this method. I think that it would bring more people back more often. I would even pay a membership fee to have an open board!

Dr JP

 

[johnpet]

I came from a board (that others may know about) where the moderater is delaying posts for spelling and grammer errors. Anything dissening from the popular view means you get dog piled. That's not a board. That's a neo-Natzi community. It's ends up being the 4 or 5 most senior guys chatting with each other. Everyone else is a "newbie wannaba loser." How incredibally boring.

 

[pjorourke]

You obviously discount being right as a reward.

Obviously.

 

[Slinky Bender]

So what do you do for foreplay?

 

[donquixote04]

I voted "no" but I really think a lot depends on the reason the person/agency was banned.

If she/it was banned for getting into a flame war, or walking too close to the "line" of one of the rules, I think reviews are fair game and consistent with the "mission" of this board.

If she/it was banned for cheating this board, and recognizing that any publicity would help this person/agency I think no reviews should be allowed. Why. after all should this board help an entity that has cheated it?

 

[greyfox]

Most of the girls I try to see are simply booked solid and don't financially need to see unkempt men. That's what sw's are for. I have read review after review of high quality girls by men thinking they'll gonna poke her in the ass on the first session. Then they leave bitter...

You're obviously not familiar with the high quality SWs that the soignee greyfox patronizes.If your girls are so fussy,they should work the street or hotel bars so they can cull the rude,disgusting,poorly groomed,and otherwise undesirable johns quickly.

 

[TC123]

I contribute conversation - which is what my idea of message boards are. A bunch of people with similar interests shooting the shit. There will always be guys like you with no life who apparantly take this stuff entirely too seriously. Hobbying is just that. A hobby. It's not my life. And I pity you if it's yours.

It's also a place of differing opinions. And every board has their little Hitler - like you - where if the opinion doesn't match your own then the other person must be wrong or stupid. And it's guys like you I don't want to review girls. Because you're not a level thinker. You're that "I'm 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong" person. You're the reason I'm against reviews.

You contribute conversation? RLMFAO! Similar interests? Please. Your only interest is censorship, and telling everyone else what's best for them.

Sigh - here we go again. Another schizo asshole newbie Hitler wannabe who looks in the mirror in horror, and deludes himself into thinking that the reflection is someone else. Let's review the facts:

It is YOU, Comrade, not me or anyone else, who has posted that YOU should be making the decisions about whatever others should be allowed to post and read.

It is YOU, Comrade, not me or anyone else, who doesn't grasp the concept that people have different opinions. That is why you attempt to define for all of us what a scam is, and what we should be allowed to read. You are under the impression that yours is the only opinion that matters, and haven't explained why the rest of us can't decide that for ourselves.

It is YOU, Comrade, not me or anyone else, who has no answer to the question of why other people's reading habits are any business of yours, or how they could possibly impact your sad, pathetic life.

It is YOU, Comrade, not me or anyone else, who tries to tell people whether they should review girls.

It is YOU, Comrade, not me or anyone else, who has failed to grasp the concept that I have been advocating, to each his own, while you are attempting to censor anything that doesn't meet your exalted standards, which according to you, the rest of us should have to abide by.

And mostly, it is YOU, Comrade, not ME, whose life is so empty, that it could possibly be impacted by what other people read.

Once again (I'll type slow so you can hopefully understand):

Why can't each of us decide for ourselves what we want to read, why you can't simply skip over the reviews if you choose, and why other people's reading choices impact you?

Keep lashing out at me if it gets your tiny dick hard, but when you're done, be man enough to either answer the questions or admit you're clueless.

America - love it or leave it, you pinko commie bastard!!!!

 

[TC123]

On this squabble between TC123 & J-Pet... a little heated - no... clearly we all gain from others experiences ( reviews )

It's not a squabble between me and him. If you read his posts, he wants to tell ALL OF US, not just me, what we're allowed to read and write on this board, that nobody's opinion matters but his. So far, I'm the only one that's called him on his bullshit, but he wants to decide things for everyone, not just me.

Since he can't tell us why he should be the one to decide things for all of us, his response has been to pretend that his posts were really written by me, and that I'm the one attempting to deny other people's right to have an opinion.

So new guy, do you want do decide for yourself which posts you are allowed to read, or do you want J-Pet to give you his pre-screened approved reading list, since he knows what's best for you?

 

[TC123]

What do you think italics indicates?

Italics indicate whichever response each of us voted for. If we all voted differently, we'll all see a different response in italics.

 

[Mr. User Name]

If she/it was banned for cheating this board, and recognizing that any publicity would help this person/agency I think no reviews should be allowed. Why. after all should this board help an entity that has cheated it?

B-I-N-G-O !!!!!! It would be a disservice to the paying advertizers.

 

[TC123]

If she/it was banned for cheating this board, and recognizing that any publicity would help this person/agency I think no reviews should be allowed. Why. after all should this board help an entity that has cheated it?

There's an old saying that any publicity is good publicity. To the extent that's true, you have a good point. But I'm not sure that the saying is true. A good review would help the provider/agency, a bad review would not. But either a good or bad review gives UGers more information with which to make decisions. By not allowing a good review, we may be missing out on a good provider. By not allowing a bad review, we may be missing a warning about where not to go. And as all but one person on this board understands, anyone is free to skip over or ignore any review they choose without penalty.

 

[johnpet]

TC123. Next time when you post tell me how you really feel. Although I'll admit that the War and Peace response you just wrote concerning me actually is flattering. I didn't know you cared. I need a tissue, I'm getting verklempt.