Reference system discussion.

[gr8owl]

40 minutes ago, Allure_man said:

No problems contacting them and they will accept TOB refs for verification.  BTW there is a number of recent reviews on ECCIE as well. 

How pray tell does this work?  The only way for anyone to see my references is if I grant a MEMBER lady access to view them.  GO is NOT a member, nor is it likely their "ladies" are either.  So how do you share references and why would TOB wish to allow them access to anything on TOB other than the fully public info? How quickly some forget about the prior threads, including locked ones, on this bunch.

[Allure_man]

16 hours ago, gr8owl said:

How pray tell does this work?  The only way for anyone to see my references is if I grant a MEMBER lady access to view them.  GO is NOT a member, nor is it likely their "ladies" are either.  So how do you share references and why would TOB wish to allow them access to anything on TOB other than the fully public info? How quickly some forget about the prior threads, including locked ones, on this bunch.

you simply share references

 

Edited January 3 by Allure_man

[gr8owl]

4 minutes ago, Allure_man said:

you simply share references

 

HOW was the question since they are NOT members of TOB.

[Allure_man]

7 minutes ago, gr8owl said:

HOW was the question since they are NOT members of TOB.

click the drop down menu on your screen name when logged and hit "share references" all the answers are there 

Edited January 3 by Allure_man

[gr8owl]

3 hours ago, gr8owl said:

HOW was the question since they are NOT members of TOB.

I see.  Another unannounced rule/policy change and a particularly foolish one.

 

[Caressa Duval]

4 hours ago, Allure_man said:

click the drop down menu on your screen name when logged and hit "share references" all the answers are there 

I absolutely do not want my references shared at the discretion of clients. I don't know if you are smart enough not to send the information to LE or a sting. I have never thought standing references were a good idea, people can change over time. That is why many ladies will not accept references over a year old, or want to be used as a reference if we haven't seen you in a year or more. 

Ladies should always clean up their standing references. That is our reputation out there too. I got rid of all my references on here, except one. I will not add anymore.

[Allure_man]

4 minutes ago, Caressa Duval said:

I absolutely do not want my references shared at the discretion of clients. I don't know if you are smart enough not to send the information to LE or a sting. I have never thought standing references were a good idea, people can change over time. That is why many ladies will not accept references over a year old, or want to be used as a reference if we haven't seen you in a year or more. 

Ladies should always clean up their standing references. That is our reputation out there too. I got rid of all my references on here, except one. I will not add anymore.

I think this may be a misdirected concern. I don’t agree with your logic, particularly in light of how TOB operates and the platform’s accessibility. It sounds more like an issue with a competing agency. Either way, you’re entitled to your approach.

[Developer]

On 1/3/2026 at 2:18 PM, gr8owl said:

I see.  Another unannounced rule/policy change and a particularly foolish one.

 

Wrong.

Reference system has been untouched since 2015 I believe,  if anything changed it was when I was absent from working on the site a couple of years, and that was 2017-2019. 
 

 Clients have always had the ability to share references externally, and add references externally for the reasons allure mentioned: accessibility. 
 

 

[Mr. Lovah-Banned]

On 1/3/2026 at 9:54 PM, Caressa Duval said:

I absolutely do not want my RWI at the discretion of providers. I don't know if you are smart enough not to send the information to LE, a sting... loved ones. I have never thought writing reviews a good idea, people suck. That is why many hobbyists don't even request or want to be used as a reference, at all. Plenty of fish in the pond. 

Hobbyists should always keep a low profile. It is your reputation out there, too.

#fixeditforya

Isn't it "funny" how this works both ways? 

[Mr. Lovah-Banned]

On 1/5/2026 at 4:03 AM, ilovewomen said:

When I posted that AMP’s are low hanging fruit for LE when discussing GO, I was generalizing.

They both traffic in Asian ladies for carnal purposes.

Trafficking. Quite the buzz, eh? Not to say you're wrong but, judging by their engagement alone, IYKYK, that the vast majority of Asian masseuses I've met have been both mature and independent means - still generalizing.

It's amazing just how much the hobby world has turned thanks to virtuosity yet, here we are, signaling away.

Edited January 6 by Mister Lovah

[gr8owl]

On 1/5/2026 at 10:19 AM, Developer said:

Wrong.

Reference system has been untouched since 2015 I believe,  if anything changed it was when I was absent from working on the site a couple of years, and that was 2017-2019. 
 

 Clients have always had the ability to share references externally, and add references externally for the reasons allure mentioned: accessibility. 
 

 

Not my recollection, but not going to argue the history.  The only way I was aware of was to click "share references" on her profile, a member profile, and the flip side "request a reference" on her member profile. The point is that members here are generally of the mind that there is a higher level of legitimacy applied to members, both client and provider, than those that advertise on scammer and sting heavy sites like the alligator, etc.  When I ask a member for a reference and when a member gives me a reference both of us think it means something due to the status of members here.  And some of us (me at least) thought it was only a higher level of status folks that would SEE those references.  So why dilute that meaning by making it possible to ask for references from random unknown, unverified providers on any old site, and why be able to dilute my references by sharing them with random, unverified providers on questionable sites?  Convenience?  Not worth it IMHO.  Do with the opinion as you will. I suspect I am not the only one unaware of this "feature."

[Developer]

 

6 hours ago, gr8owl said:

Not my recollection, but not going to argue the history.  The only way I was aware of was to click "share references" on her profile, a member profile, and the flip side "request a reference" on her member profile. The point is that members here are generally of the mind that there is a higher level of legitimacy applied to members, both client and provider, than those that advertise on scammer and sting heavy sites like the alligator, etc.  When I ask a member for a reference and when a member gives me a reference both of us think it means something due to the status of members here.  And some of us (me at least) thought it was only a higher level of status folks that would SEE those references.  So why dilute that meaning by making it possible to ask for references from random unknown, unverified providers on any old site, and why be able to dilute my references by sharing them with random, unverified providers on questionable sites?  Convenience?  Not worth it IMHO.  Do with the opinion as you will. I suspect I am not the only one unaware of this "feature."

@gr8owl -  Maybe you didn't use the external references feature, which is why you don't recall it. There are a lot of people 'unaware' of how a lot of things actually work. Either way, it has been like that since 2015, I just looked at the original code in the repository, it's not been touched. You're just getting even older oh gr8owl :P.

You're right that trust networks derive value from exclusivity and verification. If TOB membership means something, diluting that signal by mixing in unverified external sources could undermine it. I 100% agree.

Where I think the argument breaks down: external references are additive, not substitutive. The system doesn't replace TOB references with external ones - it layers them. A client with 3 TOB vouches + 5 P411 references + 2 TER reviews is more verified than a client with just 3 TOB vouches, not less. You can choose to weigh the TOB vouches more heavily or externally depending on the source (p411 has more credibility than TER for example.) - all this does is give a provider the ability to help screen someone. They can choose what to accept or not accepting anything from here. This is a platform, and we do allow people to pick and choose how they connect.
 
@Caressa Duval - Your concern is also valid, and it's probably the bigger one to take seriously. You're right that people change over time - a safe client 2 years ago may not be today. Providers should control their exposure - a vouch is a bidirectional risk... it's not just the client's asset to share freely. Standing references create a paper trail, yes that's always a legitimate safety concern.

The uncomfortable truth is that no reference system guarantees safety. Not P411, not TOB, not anything. References are a signal, not a guarantee.

P411 is the industry standard and works the same way - standing references visible to members. If that model was fundamentally broken, P411 wouldn't have survived as long as it did.

Luckly, the new version of TOB already supports what you're asking for. When you mark a vouch as private, it is NOT included when the client shares references with other providers. Private vouches are only visible to you and the client. 

In fact, this is on our demo page (unreleased, but shows we actually pay attention), I can elaborate more in-depth of these features if you want to PM me.

 

 

[Caressa Duval]

13 hours ago, Developer said:

 

@gr8owl -  Maybe you didn't use the external references feature, which is why you don't recall it. There are a lot of people 'unaware' of how a lot of things actually work. Either way, it has been like that since 2015, I just looked at the original code in the repository, it's not been touched. You're just getting even older oh gr8owl :P.

You're right that trust networks derive value from exclusivity and verification. If TOB membership means something, diluting that signal by mixing in unverified external sources could undermine it. I 100% agree.

Where I think the argument breaks down: external references are additive, not substitutive. The system doesn't replace TOB references with external ones - it layers them. A client with 3 TOB vouches + 5 P411 references + 2 TER reviews is more verified than a client with just 3 TOB vouches, not less. You can choose to weigh the TOB vouches more heavily or externally depending on the source (p411 has more credibility than TER for example.) - all this does is give a provider the ability to help screen someone. They can choose what to accept or not accepting anything from here. This is a platform, and we do allow people to pick and choose how they connect.
 
@Caressa Duval - Your concern is also valid, and it's probably the bigger one to take seriously. You're right that people change over time - a safe client 2 years ago may not be today. Providers should control their exposure - a vouch is a bidirectional risk... it's not just the client's asset to share freely. Standing references create a paper trail, yes that's always a legitimate safety concern.

The uncomfortable truth is that no reference system guarantees safety. Not P411, not TOB, not anything. References are a signal, not a guarantee.

P411 is the industry standard and works the same way - standing references visible to members. If that model was fundamentally broken, P411 wouldn't have survived as long as it did.

Luckly, the new version of TOB already supports what you're asking for. When you mark a vouch as private, it is NOT included when the client shares references with other providers. Private vouches are only visible to you and the client. 

In fact, this is on our demo page (unreleased, but shows we actually pay attention), I can elaborate more in-depth of these features if you want to PM me.

 

 

Thank you! This is a very informative post. It helps explain to me how things have been, and how they will look in the future. Too bad this post is buried in a "Girl's Office" thread. I feel it would be helpful to be in a thread of it's own titled "How References Have worked and Will Work"  or something like that... I do like the new lay out, and choices that we will have on the privacy options on references when the new version comes out.

Edited January 7 by Caressa Duval

[boink36]

On 1/3/2026 at 2:54 PM, Caressa Duval said:

I absolutely do not want my references shared at the discretion of clients. I don't know if you are smart enough not to send the information to LE or a sting. I have never thought standing references were a good idea, people can change over time. That is why many ladies will not accept references over a year old, or want to be used as a reference if we haven't seen you in a year or more. 

Ladies should always clean up their standing references. That is our reputation out there too. I got rid of all my references on here, except one. I will not add anymore.

The same can be said for our information given for screening. 

[gr8owl]

So simple question, looking for simple answer.  Is there or will there be a way for providers to assure references they give can only be shared with MEMBERS of TOB?

Oh, and second simple question. If as stated earlier in this thread, there is an option where the provider that gave the reference and the guy it was given to are the only ones that can see it, what the hell good is it?

[Developer]

21 minutes ago, gr8owl said:

So simple question, looking for simple answer.  Is there or will there be a way for providers to assure references they give can only be shared with MEMBERS of TOB?

Oh, and second simple question. If as stated earlier in this thread, there is an option where the provider that gave the reference and the guy it was given to are the only ones that can see it, what the hell good is it?

Question 1: Yes - this is controlled by the provider who gives the vouch. When you vouch for a client, you choose the visibility:

  - Private - Only you and the client know it exists
  - TOB Only - Shareable with verified TOB providers
  - Open - Can be disclosed externally (client's choice)

  The default will be private. You explicitly opt-in to make it shareable.

  Question 2: A few use cases, I will just list 2.

  A. Provider records - Track who you've seen without that info being shareable by default. But you do know who you vouched for.

  B. Trust signal without exposure - This is the bigger one. Private vouches still count toward the client's trust profile.

  Example: gr8owl has 4 vouches. When you screen him, you see:
  - Felicity (verified - she made hers shareable)
  - +3 private vouches (providers chose not to disclose)

  You can verify Felicity directly. The other 3 providers exist and vouched - you just can't see who. But the count matters. That's 4 providers who saw this client and thought highly enough to vouch. That's a trust signal, even without names attached.

 

[Allure_man]

On 1/7/2026 at 6:38 PM, boink36 said:

The same can be said for our information given for screening. 

To build on my reply to @Caressa Duval comment and the moderator’s point, there is an inherent risk in this hobby—one that no platform can completely eliminate.
 

Sharing references externally does not expose any more information about a provider than what is already publicly available on their profile. In fact, anyone can create a profile on this platform and access far more information than what is shared through references alone. The reference point system is exactly that—a reference point—intended to help both providers and hobbyists make informed decisions about whether or not to see someone.

" I don't know if you are smart enough not to send the information to LE " the risk goes both ways, hence why I do not see providers who ask for PII. 

@Developer, those are some great platform improvements! 

Edited January 9 by Allure_man