EOTM Rules

[oddball]

Just confusing enough to make any result credible, I think they need to add in electoral colleges and voting machines just to spice things up.

Transfer voting too, and anonymous phone in votes!

[BarryD]

I started this as a new thread, because I really don't want to seem like I am taking away from a new provider's sucess... But have the rules of EOTM changed? Because the score stated seems incorrect according to the rules listed

(couldn't care less if get red laser)

Personally, I don't think it's a great look / really fair and pleasant on the winner to start these type of threads day/week it's announced.
would at least like to see everyone with well wishes on this thread transfer/reciprocate on the winner thread.

don't either see your point on the score, is it just the 11 score for Juliette or the score for other potential candidates
seems relatively easy to calculate. 6 reviews in scope - all top marks, given the score announced was 11 must be 1.83 points per review.
doesn't take oldfool to calculate that

there could be/is an element of discretion on the part of mod/E-I re: fake reviews

[IAmLIAm]

(couldn't care less if get red laser)

Personally, I don't think it's a great look / really fair and pleasant on the winner to start these type of threads day/week it's announced.
would at least like to see everyone with well wishes on this thread transfer/reciprocate on the winner thread.

don't either see your point on the score, is it just the 11 score for Juliette or the score for other potential candidates
seems relatively easy to calculate. 6 reviews in scope - all top marks, given the score announced was 11 must be 1.83 points per review.
doesn't take oldfool to calculate that

there could be/is an element of discretion on the part of mod/E-I re: fake reviews

I believe if a provider turns off reviews or retires then the reviewers review count is diminished. So it wouldn't be completely out of the question for clients with (8) or (9) to actually be qualified (since they may have crossed the threshold to qualify previously; it would be unfair to exclude them by the actions of an other).

The tabulation on this looks to simply be 11 non-return reviews = 11 points full stop

Obviously a regular with weekly visits would skew the results, but I do like Michelle's idea of a repeat client being able to count again after some time.

[FredBiscuits]

The tabulation on this looks to simply be 11 non-return reviews = 11 points full stop.

Even on that front, if it was the case that all the high single digits had previously passed the required threshold (seems unlikely that all of them have, but let's go with it), one of them is a repeat reviewer from last month, so it should be 10.

Either the rules have changed, or the counting has been messed up a bit.

I did a basic skim of some of the other top reviewed folk last month, and I think a few of them should have scored higher than the eventual winner, if the scoring was done by the rules that are linked in my initial post here, and linked under this month's announcement.

Again, it might seem like I am trying to take away from Juliette's win, and I'm really not, but is seems unfair to change the rules, unannounced (assuming it wasn't announced of the Escort's side of the forum), when I know a lot of providers to whom EOTM matters, go other of their way to maximise their chances of winning.

[Irelandbeautyyy]

Iam sure Roger or someone will explain that tommorow morning.

I was surprised by Dora this month! It’s very difficult to win if we are around already some time… she was great!

[volvicwater]

3 words . DEI

[Silvergrey25]

Iam sure Roger or someone will explain that tommorow morning.

I was surprised by Dora this month! It’s very difficult to win if we are around already some time… she was great!

----------------------------
I agree Dora was cooking , superb , I thought she might have taken the crown but Jeez phenomenal regardless.

[BarryD]

Even on that front, if it was the case that all the high single digits had previously passed the required threshold (seems unlikely that all of them have, but let's go with it), one of them is a repeat reviewer from last month, so it should be 10.

Either the rules have changed, or the counting has been messed up a bit.

I did a basic skim of some of the other top reviewed folk last month, and I think a few of them should have scored higher than the eventual winner, if the scoring was done by the rules that are linked in my initial post here, and linked under this month's announcement.

Again, it might seem like I am trying to take away from Juliette's win, and I'm really not, but is seems unfair to change the rules, unannounced (assuming it wasn't announced of the Escort's side of the forum), when I know a lot of providers to whom EOTM matters, go other of their way to maximise their chances of winning.

correction on Juliette based on previous review bigballs42 not in scope, 5 reviews by 11 2.2 per review

I am sure Roger or someone will explain that tomorrow morning.
I was surprised by Dora this month! It’s very difficult to win if we are around already some time… she was great!

seen as "other top reviewed folk last month" and Dora are mentioned as example. 8 reviews in scope. all 5 star.
what that tells us based on the rules of the competition...
bit that don't add up is, if there are fake reviews then it would be only fair/appropriate/transparent to fit the mouse icon both escort and client profile, unless it's been decided to do away with it again, but legacy mice remain. and yeah agree some providers ( and at times clients ) will go out of their way to maximize their chances of winning
over and out Roger ... ...

[IAmLIAm]

Even on that front, if it was the case that all the high single digits had previously passed the required threshold (seems unlikely that all of them have, but let's go with it), one of them is a repeat reviewer from last month, so it should be 10.

Either the rules have changed, or the counting has been messed up a bit.

I did a basic skim of some of the other top reviewed folk last month, and I think a few of them should have scored higher than the eventual winner, if the scoring was done by the rules that are linked in my initial post here, and linked under this month's announcement.

Again, it might seem like I am trying to take away from Juliette's win, and I'm really not, but is seems unfair to change the rules, unannounced (assuming it wasn't announced of the Escort's side of the forum), when I know a lot of providers to whom EOTM matters, go other of their way to maximise their chances of winning.

Ah, well... Guess I failed my research project. It just seems really odd to me to have multiple reviews and end up with a prime number score....

It is a bit weird to "remind" everyone of the scoring convention and then not have the scoring align with said convention... If the scoring had changed then why not post the new metric?

I do also agree that one can point out the flaws in a system without it diminishing someone's achievement. I have a great amount of respect for anyone who can make a living (or supplement their living) in this profession. The mental, physical and emotional fortitude required must be immense and deserving of adulation.

[WeeJimmy]

Yous dont think some ladies are handing big fat brown envelopes to E-I to gain an edge, surely not