Fun4uco

Only good reviews going through???

93 posts in this topic

24 minutes ago, BadBoy said:

 Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, PFunk, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

You beat me to it, BadBoy 😏

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2017 at 4:53 PM, boink36 said:

I have found this to be true more often than not.

Some of the rebuttals are cruel. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Yorick said:

LOL...I wouldn't see anyone who eats worms, either.

Seriously, I get real heartburn when a guy has list of adult activities that includes MSOG and then gives a bad or so so review because the lady had spinach in her teeth.  If you go through with a session, you are consenting to whatever deal is offerred there, including bad hygeine, old photos, 3G service.  I don't care what she's like ...if you cum, you can't say you have been ill-used.  If you don't like what is being offerred, grow a pair and leave.  If you get no refund, then you can definitely write a ripoff review with a clean conscience.

But this is the flipside. If the lady has multiple reviews listing certain activities, I am going to have certain expectations about activities that are considered taboo to discuss.  I understand the "NO."  I truly understand and respect that I do not own the providers body.  However, I am likely to hear your "NO" and interpret it as "You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting."  Different guys will react differently to this message.  I am likely to just be sad and leave.  Others will seek revenge via a bad review. The worst of us may become violent.

Ultimately, this conundrum can only be addressed by two things:

1) Mutual respect.  It has become obvious to me that both sides of this "business deal" tend to hold each other in contempt. This is most often revealed on the boards by the providers reminding the guys that they are so pathetic they have to pay for sex, and by the guys suggesting that if the ladies are not happy, they should return to the food service or retail industries.  These kinds of comments only act to widen the divide.  If you simply treat your provider or client with the respect that they are due as a member of the human race, you will be succesful.  There are some who cannot do this.  As providers, they earn bad reviews. As clients, they get blacklisted.

2)Communication.  Ladies, if you have reviews, even good ones, that are inaccurate as regards activities, please mention this in your profile or ads. Also, please look at my P411 profile.  I have a list of specific activities there that I enjoy.  If you cant or won't engage in them, PLEASE let me know ahead of time. Guys, if the session is starting to go a long way from what you expected, please communicate this politely  to the lady. Being assertive is not the same thing as being rude.

For the record, in 6 years, I have had only one session where I was disappointed...I expected a GFE and got 3G.  I gave a good review, but noted the difference.  Communication and Mutual respect is a formula that cannot fail.

'I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.'   Maya Angelou

So. I think my rant had more to do with the idea ( which your skepticism addresses) that there can also be inaccuracy in good reviews--which is less likely to be adjusted or contended.  If I may go a step further...is the positive or the "yes"  to let members know the service was provided as expected?  I actually did not realize this for a minute and tell me if this is not the case.  I don't know the exact words used in the review "guidelines," but I kid, I kid when I say...what happens when that provider exceeds expectations?...is that also a "No" in terms of service not being what was expected?  I don't want to be too trivial on the subject--just obnoxiously feminist.

I simply wanted to take something potentially--but temporarily upsetting--to any affected provider grappling with an unfavorable review, denoting the absurdity of the review relying entirely on a "yes."  It is a nice boost to receive a "yes," but I'd like to at least point out, it can also be the details in the review that can feel too personal though likely unintended (benefit of the doubt).  Honesty is definitely appreciated and as much as it would be nice to receive superfluous praise, it isn't always realistic.  I believe there are several awesome providers whose reviews are inspired by their client's genuine satisfaction.  We can't all be rock stars but I admire those who are.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, subtlysexy89 said:

So. I think my rant had more to do with the idea ( which your skepticism addresses) that there can also be inaccuracy in good reviews--which is less likely to be adjusted or contended.  If I may go a step further...is the positive or the "yes"  to let members know the service was provided as expected?  I actually did not realize this for a minute and tell me if this is not the case.  I don't know the exact words used in the review "guidelines," but I kid, I kid when I say...what happens when that provider exceeds expectations?...is that also a "No" in terms of service not being what was expected?  I don't want to be too trivial on the subject--just obnoxiously feminist.

I simply wanted to take something potentially--but temporarily upsetting--to any affected provider grappling with an unfavorable review, denoting the absurdity of the review relying entirely on a "yes."  It is a nice boost to receive a "yes," but I'd like to at least point out, it can also be the details in the review that can feel too personal though likely unintended (benefit of the doubt).  Honesty is definitely appreciated and as much as it would be nice to receive superfluous praise, it isn't always realistic.  I believe there are several awesome providers whose reviews are inspired by their client's genuine satisfaction.  We can't all be rock stars but I admire those who are.  

Well if not Rock how about Country? :D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, subtlysexy89 said:

The NO should really mean,  so she said NO...that is terrible. She was rude? Is that because you suggested she go to charm school after you forgot the megalomaniac's guide to repelling women by subjecting them to your antiquated patriarchal supremacy?

Call it..." an oportunity for a man to have nothing to report about what isn't his."

Give me a NO W and I guarantee the lack of attraction from what is more likely than not his ruse to get something for nothing, is MUTUAL. 

Just a thought. 

I get it. There are vast exceptions to my rant. I'm fueled by the nerve of some inquiries. When it concerns safety, I will be rude and eventually learn to not apologize for it.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure if there is innuendo with this comment. I suspect there is more to it than the cards on table. That being said, allow me to respond.

While I'm confident the moderators have sound reasons for delaying the negative reviews, they can and do actualize collateral consequences to clients. I know from personal experience. 

Regarding one of my no show reviews, there was a lady who'd earned for herself a negative review by a client seeing her before me. This review was not made publicly available until AFTER my review was posted. It had been held in limbo for 4 1/2 months. When I asked them about it, the reply was that the earlier review was submitted by a new client and my later review, being a know reviewer, confirmed the legitimacy of the previous one. I can understand their reasoning, but that was kind of a shitty situation, that I happened to luck out of. Meaning I'm just glad a NS was all I got because it could have gone worse.

Then you have a provider who advertises here with more than 1 recent ripoff review. There are idiots to this day, clambering over each other to see her. Search for yourself and count how many have piled up behind the rip offs. This tells me one of two things. Many people don't read reviews. Many people read reviews but don't care.

Maybe that's why some of us have stopped writing negative reviews. Tired of the drama, threats and bullshit. Tired of being the fall guy for folks who cannot exorcise common cognizance.

Good luck.

Edited by Vassago
Typos
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was not pointed toward reviewers with good intentions.  I am saying that sometimes reviewers aren't as discrete and it's kind of a shame thing that women are socialized with... and my other issue has been when dudes don't even mention that they are members. I think it's douchie that they know more about us than we them.  Then surprise, they had an issue with my pink taffeta ball gown BUT the can of Unicorn meat on their night stand was completely normal.   I was worried that might happen...grain of salt.  Honestly, I just think about how many times I have been outraged by men's behavior via messaging or otherwise.  I read other reviews and I sometimes read into them and sometimes I think that they are meant to be understood only among men.  The point is...stand by.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2017 at 10:34 PM, tide32 said:

Totally. Not writing an honest review defeats the purpose of this and all sites. Not to mention hurting providers that go above and beyond.

You make victims of us all and you sure aren't doing that provider any fovors in the end.

Can solve that by splitting up names/sections. I used 2 different names on the old version of this site. Helped avoid blacklists/retaliation for posting a negative review. Now they have comments/reviews/references all tied to one name. Gotta tread lightly. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jj254 said:

Can solve that by splitting up names/sections. I used 2 different names on the old version of this site. Helped avoid blacklists/retaliation for posting a negative review. Now they have comments/reviews/references all tied to one name. Gotta tread lightly. 

Yes, that works, until someone connects the two names. I also felt that it was slightly dishonest 😕 I try to stand behind my words, or keep my mouth shut. There can be consequences for discussion posts, too.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jj254 said:

Can solve that by splitting up names/sections. I used 2 different names on the old version of this site. Helped avoid blacklists/retaliation for posting a negative review. Now they have comments/reviews/references all tied to one name. Gotta tread lightly. 

 

47 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

Yes, that works, until someone connects the two names. I also felt that it was slightly dishonest 😕 I try to stand behind my words, or keep my mouth shut. There can be consequences for discussion posts, too.

I agree with jj. How someone conducts themselves in a bedroom behind closed doors and what they write on a forum are two completely different things. I fall victim to it myself. There are several ladies I will never reach out to simply by what they have written here. I'm certain the feeling is mutual. They're probably excellent providers. I'll never know.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very informative thread. I would like to add one data point:

If you are like me your TOB site tour at some point involves a click on the reviews section. You read reviews until you get back to the ones that were present last time you were on the site. Assume that you are now caught up on new business.

There are three dates that matter in a TOB review. Date of session. Date review is submitted to TOB. Date review is published by TOB mods.

Difference between submission date and publish date allows site owners to review/verify/edit the info. TOB staff have been transparent in this thread that it takes up to eight days to authenticate a review.

At that point a new review is published at the top of the reviews section, right? That is not what happened in my experience with this recent review https://theotherboard.com/users/117012.

Review submitted on 6/30. Review posted to TOB on +/- 7/6. But publish date was back dated to 6/30. The back dated publishing prevented the review from appearing with the other "new" reviews; it appeared on page 5 of the chronology. So reading all the "new" reviews since my last visit did not include this one.

It is TOB's prerogative to publish as they see fit. I found this to be a subtle example of OPs observation that "only good reviews going through."  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've learned so much about this site from spending a couple hours to read through this entire thread. It's a very different feeling than other forum based boards, it feels more grassroots than the others do and possibly more authentic. 

All I can do is be myself and be genuine and hope that leaves comfortability for there to be constructive criticism in the session as well as in the review. No one does everything perfectly and I don't expect all reviews to be shining examples of all my sessions. I expect there to be things that we will disagree on or a cue I possibly missed, those things help me be more aware, more present. I like to take notes post-session to hold myself accountable, what happened, how it happened, what I could do better and specific details.   

I also agree that rebuttals are likely very telling of the experience, but just like someone mentioned above even 5-star restaurants have bad days. I would just hope in a rebuttal situation it's being written with good intentions of a true experience instead of trying to 1-up the poor review.  

We are all human though, I can understand passion in regard to money spent or emotional labor exhausted. New meetups are like blind dates, we never really know how it will go until we experience it for ourselves. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2017 at 7:18 AM, Kinkster said:

A very informative thread. I would like to add one data point:

If you are like me your TOB site tour at some point involves a click on the reviews section. You read reviews until you get back to the ones that were present last time you were on the site. Assume that you are now caught up on new business.

There are three dates that matter in a TOB review. Date of session. Date review is submitted to TOB. Date review is published by TOB mods.

Difference between submission date and publish date allows site owners to review/verify/edit the info. TOB staff have been transparent in this thread that it takes up to eight days to authenticate a review.

At that point a new review is published at the top of the reviews section, right? That is not what happened in my experience with this recent review https://theotherboard.com/users/117012.

Review submitted on 6/30. Review posted to TOB on +/- 7/6. But publish date was back dated to 6/30. The back dated publishing prevented the review from appearing with the other "new" reviews; it appeared on page 5 of the chronology. So reading all the "new" reviews since my last visit did not include this one.

It is TOB's prerogative to publish as they see fit. I found this to be a subtle example of OPs observation that "only good reviews going through."  

I was just reading the link to the review and couldn't help but comment.  I can completely understand your point of view.  It would be a very uncomfortable and off putting experience. I also read the provider's rebuttal.  Just because somebody is independent, doesn't necessarily mean that they are out there all on their own leaving the meeting of strangers to chance.  In terms of safety, it is very important that somebody knows where anyone is at all times.  I realize this can somewhat defeat the hope of privacy...but if the information is given to a trusted friend, relative or boyfriend, it makes for a more relaxed and "safer" experience.  I believe perhaps that it should go both ways if necessary.  The point is...there is a time when it is time to go.  Isn't that the whole motivation for finding a provider in the first place?  It's a guaranteed parting of ways.  People are protective sometimes and perhaps the approach may have been hostile...but it is understandable that if someone cares, they might make their point in order to prevent the issue of taking advantage.  I believe certain clients will finagle what they can...I've heard bad stories from both sides.  Nevertheless, as long as the provider explains that they are not alone (which they shouldn't be entirely) then it should be ok, for even an independent woman to have some back up if need be.  That back up of course, being of her choosing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, subtlysexy89 said:

I was just reading the link to the review and couldn't help but comment.  I can completely understand your point of view.  It would be a very uncomfortable and off putting experience. I also read the provider's rebuttal.  Just because somebody is independent, doesn't necessarily mean that they are out there all on their own leaving the meeting of strangers to chance.  In terms of safety, it is very important that somebody knows where anyone is at all times.  I realize this can somewhat defeat the hope of privacy...but if the information is given to a trusted friend, relative or boyfriend, it makes for a more relaxed and "safer" experience.  I believe perhaps that it should go both ways if necessary.  The point is...there is a time when it is time to go.  Isn't that the whole motivation for finding a provider in the first place?  It's a guaranteed parting of ways.  People are protective sometimes and perhaps the approach may have been hostile...but it is understandable that if someone cares, they might make their point in order to prevent the issue of taking advantage.  I believe certain clients will finagle what they can...I've heard bad stories from both sides.  Nevertheless, as long as the provider explains that they are not alone (which they shouldn't be entirely) then it should be ok, for even an independent woman to have some back up if need be.  That back up of course, being of her choosing.

Of course. Had I been taking advantage I too would be sympathetic. But I hardly see the act of re-tying my shoes as "taking advantage" nor justification for the threat of physical violence at the six minute mark. The rebuttal was not over the top in tone but it exaggerates in its timeline.

And under emphasizes the level of violence threatened. IMHO, someone is going to get hurt if this situation repeats itself. A hobbyist is going to get roughed up; or provider, pimp, and/or "Ron" will be harmed when a hobbyist with a concealed carry license feels cornered and acts in self defense.

It was a very hostile interaction. And that is no exaggeration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kinkster said:

Of course. Had I been taking advantage I too would be sympathetic. But I hardly see the act of re-tying my shoes as "taking advantage" nor justification for the threat of physical violence at the six minute mark. The rebuttal was not over the top in tone but it exaggerates in its timeline.

And under emphasizes the level of violence threatened. IMHO, someone is going to get hurt if this situation repeats itself. A hobbyist is going to get roughed up; or provider, pimp, and/or "Ron" will be harmed when a hobbyist with a concealed carry license feels cornered and acts in self defense.

It was a very hostile interaction. And that is no exaggeration.

This a he said she said, but if you have the actual text messages why not post it? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kinkster said:

Of course. Had I been taking advantage I too would be sympathetic. But I hardly see the act of re-tying my shoes as "taking advantage" nor justification for the threat of physical violence at the six minute mark. The rebuttal was not over the top in tone but it exaggerates in its timeline.

And under emphasizes the level of violence threatened. IMHO, someone is going to get hurt if this situation repeats itself. A hobbyist is going to get roughed up; or provider, pimp, and/or "Ron" will be harmed when a hobbyist with a concealed carry license feels cornered and acts in self defense.

It was a very hostile interaction. And that is no exaggeration.

Yes. Cause we gun toting idiots around these parts.  I don't know what you mean by "exaggerates in its timeline."  I realize how stupid this MAY seem, but regardless of how legitimate the review or the rebuttal, I believe in some very fundamental rules.  We keep ourselves safe, we keep our friends safe and we keep our things safe.  The violence, no good.  The escalation of such calls for some regular dosage of Eskalith (brand name for Lithium). But truly, jealous fiance, over protective sister, passive boyfriend, or truly just self sufficient and hyper vigilant, we are all afraid of serial killers. If you walk into a room and can't spot the serial killer...you ARE the serial killer.  Just a saying I learned about poker.   But may I make a suggestion without you getting upset? Maybe consider wearing velcro shoes to your next visit. Or fuck it, just leave those suckers on. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, subtlysexy89 said:

If you walk into a room and can't spot the serial killer...you ARE the serial killer.  Just a saying I learned about poker. 

Nice analogy....it's too bad that while ALMOST every poker game has a sucker (yeah, we've all seen the movie) very few rooms contain serial killers.

Try again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Keyser said:

Nice analogy....it's too bad that while ALMOST every poker game has a sucker (yeah, we've all seen the movie) very few rooms contain serial killers.

Try again.

.Ok. If you can't walk into a room and tell who the cop is, you are the cop.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, subtlysexy89 said:

.Ok. If you can't walk into a room and tell who the cop is, you are the cop.

It's meant to be absurd.

Just now, subtlysexy89 said:

.Ok. If you can't walk into a room and tell who the cop is, you are the cop.

We've all seen Rounders. Because it's such an interesting movie to watch all the way through.  If I go on a forum and somebody insults me by saying we've all seen the movie because I parodied the first line from it, they likely only saw that part of the movie. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, subtlysexy89 said:

.Ok. If you can't walk into a room and tell who the cop is, you are the cop.

One in 20 people are sociopaths. You're more likely to be a sociopath than a sucker. I believe that only 19 out of 20 people are suckers. So, you do the statistics because I know I have no idea was goin on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who in the room has the winning lotto numbers?  That's the real question 🤔

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Laci French said:

Who in the room has the winning lotto numbers?  That's the real question 🤔

Nobody.  He left in a hurry half an hour ago.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, subtlysexy89 said:

One in 20 people are sociopaths. You're more likely to be a sociopath than a sucker. I believe that only 19 out of 20 people are suckers. So, you do the statistics because I know I have no idea was goin on.

So 1 in 20 is higher odds than 19 in 20???  And most importantly - what kind of sucker? B)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gr8owl said:

Nobody.  He left in a hurry half an hour ago.

I'll check back next week:(

and a pimp/bf/giraffe or chicken should NEVER walk in on an appt and threaten.  Just WOW on how blown my mind is on that!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Laci French said:

 

and a pimp/bf/giraffe or chicken should NEVER walk in on an appt and threaten.  Just WOW on how blown my mind is on that!

Yes, that is out there.  

My mind is a bit blown at being totally finished in 6 minutes flat, getting through door to end!  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, gr8owl said:

Yes, that is out there.  

My mind is a bit blown at being totally finished in 6 minutes flat, getting through door to end!  

I'm actually pretty impressed. Think of all the time and money I'd save if that could be me. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vassago said:

I'm actually pretty impressed. Think of all the time and money I'd save if that could be me. 

You could schedule 2 15mins a day!  🎉🎉 or  splurge and schedule the full hour in 15min  increments all week.

the possibilities are endless my friend...

Edited by Laci French
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Laci French said:

You could schedule 2 15mins a day!  🎉🎉 or  splurge and schedule the full hour in 15min  increments all week.

the possibilities are endless my friend...

Lol. Only if it's msog. Just whatever I do I had better not try for round three. I think we all know what happens when you're 3 mins. over on a QV. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beat down time after 3mins😱

That's my standard protocol

Edited by Laci French
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gr8owl said:

So 1 in 20 is higher odds than 19 in 20???  And most importantly - what kind of sucker? B)

Lies, damn lies and statistics. But anyway, it was just a "whatever" thing to say, if one out of 20 ppl are sociopaths then 19/20 are not.  So in this dog eat dog world, you're either a sucker or a sociopath.  If there is a place where all the thirsty people could go drink, then they would all go.  But maybe only 1 in 50 people are thirsty.  The probability that you meet the person with the seemingly lower odd at the water fountain is actually exponentially greater.  So it is more likely for someone to meet a sociopath in a place where they can wear sheep's clothing and still maintain their true nature. I was literally talking nonsense, It certainly doesn't take one to know one. But apparently it is more prevalent for someone to chronically do what is wrong for their own gain, even though they are aware that it is, in fact, not right than it is to meet someone who might frighten some people like a person who has schizophrenia, but if unprovoked and left alone is not dangerous at all.  But a serial killer is one in a million.  It doesn't mean they aren't a freakish reality and a concerning one.  I have never seen a mountain lion but i am not exactly an enthusiast of being stalked and then becoming its lunch. And sucker is really only something a sociopath or con artist or perpetrator might think of a human being.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, subtlysexy89 said:

Lies, damn lies and statistics. But anyway, it was just a "whatever" thing to say, if one out of 20 ppl are sociopaths then 19/20 are not.  So in this dog eat dog world, you're either a sucker or a sociopath.  If there is a place where all the thirsty people could go drink, then they would all go.  But maybe only 1 in 50 people are thirsty.  The probability that you meet the person with the seemingly lower odd at the water fountain is actually exponentially greater.  So it is more likely for someone to meet a sociopath in a place where they can wear sheep's clothing and still maintain their true nature. I was literally talking nonsense, It certainly doesn't take one to know one. But apparently it is more prevalent for someone to chronically do what is wrong for their own gain, even though they are aware that it is, in fact, not right than it is to meet someone who might frighten some people like a person who has schizophrenia, but if unprovoked and left alone is not dangerous at all.  But a serial killer is one in a million.  It doesn't mean they aren't a freakish reality and a concerning one.  I have never seen a mountain lion but i am not exactly an enthusiast of being stalked and then becoming its lunch. And sucker is really only something a sociopath or con artist or perpetrator might think of a human being.

I have no idea what I am talking about. I was highlighting the absurd notion that you have to be one or the other.  Obviously we all have be on guard as to not become prey. that makes us neither suckers nor sociopaths. Assuming there is any validity to what was just said.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now