Respect for escorts

[Danny2011]

Both ladies are obviously excellent escorts and each had a great month, only sensible solution is to give both eotm.

[Petros]

Both ladies are obviously excellent escorts and each had a great month, only sensible solution is to give both eotm.

May I ask how is that sensible?

If you played the game to the rules provided at the time of the game and you won the game based on those rules how would you feel it they then changed the rules after the game was completed and handed the win to your opponent? Just curious to know how you would feel in such a situation.

[Naughtynatalie]

May I ask how is that sensible?

If you played the game to the rules provided at the time of the game and you won the game based on those rules how would you feel it they then changed the rules after the game was completed and handed the win to your opponent? Just curious to know how you would feel in such a situation.

You expect sensible on an escort forum, really?
The fact I dont play the game, dont know the rules & wouldnt know even if I had won, I still do get where you are coming from.

But, I also see where Danny is coming from. Neither lady is at fault here & due to the momentous fuck up I think that a joint escort of the month would appease the masses & be fair for both ladies.

[Danny2011]

May I ask how is that sensible?

If you played the game to the rules provided at the time of the game and you won the game based on those rules how would you feel it they then changed the rules after the game was completed and handed the win to your opponent? Just curious to know how you would feel in such a situation.

It is sensible to run the entire competition in the fairest way possible, changing the rules at the end is not fair but neither would announcing a winner and then reversing that decision be fair, hence fairest solution is to have 2 eotm.


What exactly do you think is the substantive change in the rules that would have made someone change to any degree of significance how they work?

[Petros]

It is sensible to run the entire competition in the fairest way possible, changing the rules at the end is not fair but neither would announcing a winner and then reversing that decision be fair, hence fairest solution is to have 2 eotm.


What exactly do you think is the substantive change in the rules that would have made someone change to any degree of significance how they work?

First off —*the winner has not officially been announced yet! That is Folk's job as SmileySarah told me to day she knew nothing about the competition!

Secondly, the change in the dropping of the rule "Reviews will only count when a) the reviewer has held a message boards account for six months and b) their reviews will only be counted from their tenth review." would make a significant change to the outcome of the competition, not to mention turning it into a total fiasco form here on as anyone will be able to submit a review and it will be extremely difficult for the mods to keep track of all the reviews as work out which are fake and which are genuine!

[Danny2011]

First off —*the winner has not officially been announced yet! That is Folk's job as SmileySarah told me to day she knew nothing about the competition!

Secondly, the change in the dropping of the rule "Reviews will only count when a) the reviewer has held a message boards account for six months and b) their reviews will only be counted from their tenth review." would make a significant change to the outcome of the competition, not to mention turning it into a total fiasco form here on as anyone will be able to submit a review and it will be extremely difficult for the mods to keep track of all the reviews as work out which are fake and which are genuine!

Whether she should have announced it or not the fact is she did, so now to reverse that would be unfair.


Your second point doesn't say anything as to how the change in the rules would be likely to affect how someone worked.

[Petros]

Whether she should have announced it or not the fact is she did, so now to reverse that would be unfair.

So, just because someone who earlier admitted knew nothing about the process makes an unofficial statement it should stand because it might not be fair to someone? But is it not also unfair on the person who played by the official rules to have someone come along who earlier admitted knew nothing about the process and make a statement which removed the rightful winner from the competition?

Your second point doesn't say anything as to how the change in the rules would be likely to affect how someone worked.

The change in the rules may not change how people people work — but it will change how the award is seen buy people and also how it is attained.

[Danny2011]

So, just because someone who earlier admitted knew nothing about the process makes an unofficial statement it should stand because it might not be fair to someone? But is it not also unfair on the person who played by the official rules to have someone come along who earlier admitted knew nothing about the process and make a statement which removed the rightful winner from the competition?

The change in the rules may not change how people people work — but it will change how the award is seen buy people and also how it is attained.

Both would be unfair which is why my very first post said both should be awarded eotm and avoid any element of unfairness to either.

If it doesn't change how someone would work then your team playing under one set of rules analogy doesn't make sense as the team would play the same way regardless of the rules.