Just a note

[BlahBlahBlah]

Well done Elle. However, stewards enquiry should be called as I think Anna is being ripped off. Honestly with all the discussions on review system, trusted badges etc somebody needs to make a decision and agree a format once and for all.

[RicFlair]

Sorry just to clear a couple of things the review of Anna by XPS is also not counted because he has a rat on his profile and therefore not trustworthy. Sorry about not stating that above.

Also I am creating Trusted Reviewer Criteria for the Mods to discuss.

It'll be strict.

[MrFussy]

[QUOTE=RicFlair;182510]
The points per review are...
+1 point for a positive review,
-1 point for negative review,
0 points for neutral reviews,

However if the reviewer has a trusted reviewer stamp then their positive reviews are marked as 4 points and negative reviews marked as -4 points with neutral reviews as 0 points.

Don't agree with this, there is too much emphasis on trusted reviewer status, particularly in light of recent reviews which were 'in the past' etc so I think same points as regular reviewer or maybe 2 points should be awarded.

5. No Escort can win consecutive months.

Why not? if she's the best she's the best

Also, congrats to RF, for the changes and work etc.

[Bernard]

Well done Elle. However, stewards enquiry should be called as I think Anna is being ripped off. Honestly with all the discussions on review system, trusted badges etc somebody needs to make a decision and agree a format once and for all.

I agree with this comment I think the rules were ammended to make sure Anna did not win this month

[google]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahBlahBlah View Post
Well done Elle. However, stewards enquiry should be called as I think Anna is being ripped off. Honestly with all the discussions on review system, trusted badges etc somebody needs to make a decision and agree a format once and for all.

I agree with this comment I think the rules were ammended to make sure Anna did not win this month

i think stewards inquiry definitely should be called, as RciFlair just making up the rules while he goes along with it at the end of day rule is rule shouldnt be change around whenever suits.

Correct me if im wrong Rules only should be changed before not after the competition is over

[RicFlair]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlahBlahBlah View Post
Well done Elle. However, stewards enquiry should be called as I think Anna is being ripped off. Honestly with all the discussions on review system, trusted badges etc somebody needs to make a decision and agree a format once and for all.






i think stewards inquiry definitely should be called, as RciFlair just making up the rules while he goes along with it at the end of day rule is rule shouldnt be change around whenever suits.

Correct me if im wrong Rules only should be changed before not after the competition is over

Just to clarify I didn't change or impose any new rules for the February competition.

I decided not to count Eoin3's review because he only has two and they're both of Anna. That suspicious. Also I didn't count XPS's review because he has a rat on one of his 4 reviews. All 4 have been ratted now. Anything suspicious shouldn't be counted and that goes without saying. This is not the first time I haven't counted suspect reviews. It occurs a lot.

The review system is taking 1,000 reviews a month. Thats a 60% increase from this time last year and a 40% increase since the summer. In December and January alone between 800-900 profiles were created posting new reviews. Its simply becoming a joke.

The reviews archives are being cleaned at the moment with the deleting of 2nd/3rd reviews as no-one is permitted to review the same girl more than once. I myself had to delete 4 of my own reviews.

Also at the end of the day this Comp is my Comp. I'm trying my best to keep it as clean and fair as possible. Everyone knows that.

Ric xxx

PS Coming soon... the new Trusted Reviewer Criteria.

[Anna23]

Fair enough Ric, I know its your comp and you doing your best for it.

Can You just tell my why there is a rat on the review of me from XPS? I believe that everyone is entitled to know the reason, why it is believed to be fake. If it is because he had a rat on his first review, can we know what was the reason for it, please?

Because I would lie if i said that I'm not fed up with getting rats on genuine reviews, when there are HUNDREDS of obviously fake reviews in the system and you know about them, which are not ratted.

And as for the Eoin3 thing, you basically applied this new rule: "So once a Reviewer posts a review of an escort thats the only point(s) that the Escort will ever recieve from that profile. So if a reviewer posts new updated reviews of their favourite Escort it won't be counted.", which wasnt yet valid for February comp...
Otherwise I dont see anything suspicious about Eoin3's 2nd review, its just as genuine as his 1st. So dont tell us, that you didnt apply any at last minute changed rules, just to make sure I dont win.
I mean c'mon Ric, its not like you paying the prize from your pocket.

[El Gordo]

First of all, Elle, I'm very sorry to post this on your congratulations thread, since I sincerely believe that you have done nothing wrong. Unfortunately this seems to be where the discussion about last month's competition is happening.

Also at the end of the day this Comp is my Comp. I'm trying my best to keep it as clean and fair as possible. Everyone knows that.

Ric xxx

Ric, I can't look into a man's soul and see its contents, especially when I only know him from an escort forum. So I don't know that you are trying your best to keep it clean and fair. It would be more accurate to say that I would like to believe that you are trying your best to keep it clean and fair. But a competition should be fair and should be seen to be fair. And last month's competition is very far from meeting that standard.

There are three rules being applied here, all of them against Anna, and none of them announced before the competition. One of those rules looks reasonable, one is debatable, and one looks very odd indeed. But all of them have made their first public appearance after the competition ended, and that violates elementary standards of fair play.

The reasonable rule is that if a reviewer posts his first two reviews on the same day then both count the same. So no distinction is made between WTAT's reviews of Anna and Elle, although Elle's is technically a first review and Anna's is a second. This sounds fine to me, except that it was never announced, and is being applied retroactively. Still, if this were the only irregularity then you wouldn't hear a word of complaint from me.

The debatable rule is that if a reviewer writes two reviews of one escort, and doesn't review any other escorts, then his reviews don't count. This is being applied to Eoin3. You have said you find this behaviour suspicious, Ric. I don't, but perhaps I am more trusting than you. The appointments were 43 days apart. Maybe he didn't see any other escorts in between, or maybe he did and didn't find them interesting enough to review. I don't know. Do you? Before discounting the review, did you make any attempt to find out? He registered in November. Since he didn't copy the text of the first review into the second I assume that he doesn't know that later reviews replace earlier ones. But I don't see anything to suggest that either review is not genuine.

This rule was announced after the competition ended.

The very odd rule is the one that if a review has a single rat on any of his reviews then none of his reviews count. This is being applied to XPS's review. His first review, in November, was ratted. We still don't know who ratted it or why. He then reviewed Zara Davies. That review was not ratted. He reviewed Emma. That review was not ratted. He reviewed Anna. That review was not ratted.

No one questioned any of those reviews, until a few days ago, when it became apparent that his review of Anna would make the difference between Anna tying or losing. Then this rule is suddenly announced. We would probably never have heard about it, Ric, if I hadn't asked you to explain why your numbers didn't seem to add up. Then, when people started to ask questions, all of Eoin's reviews suddenly get ratted. That was remarkably fast. I think we've seen more than enough examples to see that even clear fakes are not ratted so quickly.

I have another question about this rule. If this is such a good idea then why was it not applied to happyboy's review of Mature Abby for the Miss November competition? Why was it not applied to man-on-a-mission's review of Sophie for the Miss December competition? Why was it not applied to Navanman6's review of Vanessa for the Miss January competition? Why was was this "rule" applied only in this one case?

There's more. My review is up there only because I was very persistent. As you know, Ric, you were not planning on posting it. You were not even planning on telling me that you weren't posting it. If you thought there was anything dodgy about my review then you should have contacted me, rather than trying to bury it on the sly.

As you've said, Ric, this is your competition. But what do you mean by that? That you run it? That you set out the rules? Or that you pick the winner?

So, Ric, do I know that that you are trying your best to keep the competition clean and fair? No.
Do I believe that you are trying your best to keep it clean and fair? Sadly, no.
But I am not sure. I would still like to believe that you are trying your best to keep it clean and fair. But I will need some help from you on that one. Faith needs to be supported by Reason, Ric.

[ber]

El Gordos post definitely needs to be responded to and his queries dealt with
The one thing i would take real issue with is the fact that the rules of the competition
were not announced prior to the competition and that the rule changes had a
dramatic effect on the result.To any fairminded person tis deinitely shows a lack
of transparency

[Bernard]

Very good post El Gordos you could not have expressed my views better. I totally concur with Bers post that El Gordos post definitely needs to be responded to and his queries dealt with. In any fair and reasonable competition the rules are set before the competion commences and not at the conclusion. I would add one further point that none of Elle's reviews were ratted during the period of the competition - very strange with the many comments being passed about the reliability of the review system.