Last edited by patty; 04-05-24 at 16:25.
Nope Patty Cakes, what I mean is, if an escort/profile has a fake review whether good/bad/indifferent, escort should report it as a fake
not either leave them on the profile or even worse ask for a review without an actual meet
but you wouldn't ever fall into the category, far too classy for that sort of skullduggery
Last edited by patty; 04-05-24 at 16:56.
wouldn't expect there is any advertiser with access to delete or need for proof it is true, there should be a certain level of common courtesy/good faith on handles/clients.
point is advertisers should report a review on their profile if it's a fake. mods should do the rest. investigate/contact handle to get evidence/communications of meet etc.
if it's a proven fake, remove. if not, leave it, at least then the mod can't disqualify based on the fact they checked it out and don't see it as a fake.
what would be worse is an advertiser requesting review from a client without an actual meet taking place.
Last edited by BarryD; 04-05-24 at 17:17.
Dieve (04-05-24)
Ah Jayz. little LIAmo, quiet frankly I couldn't give two f**ks what you think (or peg me as)
but I haven't noticed you in a while, you been a good little one so, I'll give you a response.
1. If you refer back to my previous posts on this thread, before you brought up the "operating procedure" re: rats/mice. I already mentioned it.
2. "unrelated" above isn't accurate, all 3 providers are related by reviews this month. there is also a possibility on top of the possibilities mentioned already that if one provider has a fake, all of their reviews are considered fake and all "related" reviews are considered fake, disqualifying all 3
3. Didn't see any "vague - trust us, we know what we're doing" answer from the backroom. My view on this is, in the interest off all parties/community (if there is fake reviews and unless otherwise advised by a mod I take that as the scenario) I would say E-I/mod would be better to keep the granular in house and/or between the lady/ladies in question because of the potential consequences it could have, they are neither under obligation to disclose that type of information to the general public. If that makes me "In Mod we Trust" so be it.(You spelt except incorrectly btw).
Not sure why you mentioned this but whatever
Now, don't forget about our deal to behave yourself and be nice
i'm off to walk the dawgs slán
Last edited by BarryD; 04-05-24 at 19:03.
Corsasport (04-05-24)
So, no rat = no dispute = review to be considered valid/counted. That's clear.
I believe there are 3 instances where 2 of the advertisers share a common reviewer (if I've missed a reviewer common to all 3 that would change things a bit).
You are suggesting that in a circumstance where one suspect review for one provider voids said review it would also void that reviewer's reviews on other profiles. But not just those by the questionable reviewer, all reviews for all the providers reviewer0 reviewed would also be tainted, thereby starting a chain reaction tainting reviews by association exponentially across the totality of the site.
That is an asinine and excessively punitive suggestion.
The lack of communication or explanation from the moderation team is tantamount to "trust us..." (I didn't think it was that hard an inference to understand, you seem to enjoy using implied intent, I thought you'd be able to follow).
Technically "except" is spelt correctly, it's just "accept" was the appropriate word (not sure what happened there, but oh well...)
Have a nice walk.
Dieve (04-05-24)
Never mind the EOTM rules.
Queensberry Rules will soon apply here...