EOTM Rules

[patty]

like ensuring any fake reviews are reported and appropriately removed

reminded me of a conversation I had with a lady I meet from time to time about fake reviewers.
she would immediately have any removed from her profile to ensure sound etiquette/character and also out of respect for her colleagues. very admirable and a classy lady

What I know escorts can't delete good or bad reviews. If this escort is managing to delete her reviews, something is wrong.

Reminded me of a conversation I had with few customers got pms after they write review.

[BarryD]

What I know escorts can't delete good or bad reviews. If this escort is managing to delete her reviews, something is wrong.

Reminded me of a conversation I had with few customers got pms after they write review.

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

[patty]

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

in a perfect world this would be the best thing to do but we have no access to delete any review or proves it is in fact trues as the reviewer does not have to give us any details like who they are what date they had an appointment etc

PS I'll back later

[BarryD]

in a perfect world this would be the best thing to do but we have no access to delete any review or proves it is in fact trues as the reviewer does not have to give us any details like who they are what date they had an appointment etc

PS I'll back later

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.

[IAmLIAm]

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

Or a member trying to leverage their "good name" in order to solicit a free booking in exchange for a review.

[BarryD]

Indeed, and I laid out the standard operating procedure for resolving the confusion over how to determine unverified reviews (the rats). Identifying suspect reviews as such isn't just about the EotM. If the mods believe a review needs to receive more scrutiny, then potential clients using said reviews to inform their decision making of who to visit should also be made aware that there may be some concern over said review (hence the rat system).

You are suggesting that 3 unrelated, independent , established, well reviewed providers all received enough questionable reviews to allow a fourth, less established provider to jump them in scoring. Additionally, these tainted reviews (while suspect enough to disqualify advertisers from the competition) didn't raise to the severity of flagging them with a rat as to notify potential clients of possible concerns.

I actually didn't peg you as the type to be satisfied with a vague "trust us, we know what we're doing," answer from the backroom. You did such a good job illustrating the discrepancies in the scoring, but for this you don't want transparency in the procedure. You just except that things don't add up and without question land at In Mod we Trust? Interesting...

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).

Or a member trying to leverage their "good name" in order to solicit a free booking in exchange for a review.

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

[IAmLIAm]

...

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.

So, no rat = no dispute = review to be considered valid/counted. That's clear.

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

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.

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.

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).

(You spelt except incorrectly btw)....

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.

[StevB]

Never mind the EOTM rules.
Queensberry Rules will soon apply here...

[IAmLIAm]

Never mind the EOTM rules.
Queensberry Rules will soon apply here...

Better than the need for Code Duello I suppose...