Banned agencies/indies reviews:
- Thread starter Slinky Bender
- Start date
Dude, Slinky asked a question. He answered it (with an answer that Slinky anticipated). He also gave his reason.
It's not like the guy started the thread, right?
Personally, I think reviews are mostly useless myself. And for that reason it wouldn't be a huge loss (for me) to lose them completely. So my first instinct was that reviews of banned providors should just not be allowed. After some more thought, though, I realized that it wasn't as easy as that so I decided to think it over more. I'm still pretty ambivolent about the whole thing. Probably I agree with JL and PJ, though.
It's not like the guy started the thread, right?
Personally, I think reviews are mostly useless myself. And for that reason it wouldn't be a huge loss (for me) to lose them completely. So my first instinct was that reviews of banned providors should just not be allowed. After some more thought, though, I realized that it wasn't as easy as that so I decided to think it over more. I'm still pretty ambivolent about the whole thing. Probably I agree with JL and PJ, though.
Freedom would also include the girl's right not to be reviewed. Even positive reviews. The best provider I've seen is absolutely adamate that she does NOT want to be reviewed. And she advertises in papers and on the web. So under your theory that makes her fair game. It's simply her wish and she has many legitimate reasons. So I'll honor her wish and I'd hope anyone else seeing her would also honor it. I would think her top reason is she simply does different things with different guys depending on her comfort level and relationship with these men. It opens up a hornets nest for her if one of her better customers posts that he got a great bbbj then greek. But maybe that's the only guy she does that with. Now newbies read that review and run off to her just to find out they're only getting a tug job. Now she gets blasted by them.
I'm curious how you would feel if a chef (who charged $200 for dinner) felt the same way about reviews.
Would you expect the New York Times to respect that?
Would you be happy if the chef said that his reason was that he only gave the really good cuts of meat to the clients he liked best and he didn't want his other customers feeling cheated.
I'm not certain how a woman who makes herself available publically* has the right not to be reviewed.
(* - I do think UTR's have this right, however)
Would you expect the New York Times to respect that?
Would you be happy if the chef said that his reason was that he only gave the really good cuts of meat to the clients he liked best and he didn't want his other customers feeling cheated.
I'm not certain how a woman who makes herself available publically* has the right not to be reviewed.
(* - I do think UTR's have this right, however)
She has the right to ask her customers not to review her. She doesn't have the "right" to expect that anyone wouldn't use the review process to air any dissatisfaction they had with her service. BTW, what percentage of girls complain about the good reviews they get vs. the bad one's? I say it's decidedly the bad one's. and what I really don't like is when girls want good reviews, but get them from the guys who the give better service to (usually read "more acronyms"), and then the guys write a "trust me guys, she's great" review, and then some other guys on't get those same acronyms................... (of course, that's one of the reasons I sooooo hat those "trust me guys, she's great" ....... ummmmm..... "reviews". because it's not that you can't trust the guy the he had a good time. It's that it aids in girls giving non-uniformly good service and then blaming some customer for not having a good time with her).