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...
What’s this thread more exactly about?can someone make a summary?
I’m very interested since one of the escort on the website is always on latest reviews and I’m wondering how is this possible???
I’ve been advertising for so long and I never got such a huuuge number or reviews in a week= 25+
I have a bit of a doubt about this situation…. :|
Anyways well done to all that get so so many reviews… and many congratulations to the lady who win this month. Well done sugar!
---------
Essentially the result doesn't make sense based on the recognized rules that folks are aware of, people are seeking clarity and it has unfortunately become a debate muddied with speculation. Also the mods appear to be sleeping on the job , an explanation from them would clear things up one way or another.
9 pages and no resolution
Is there anything to be said..
Has anyone mentioned reviews submitted by anyone using or suspected of using a proxy server are not ratted but don't count towards escort of the month.
I just thought I'd add that for the laugh
Congratulations to Juliette, and to all the lovely girls, who all have lovely bottoms
Last edited by AngelsFan; 04-05-24 at 21:54.
IAmLIAm (04-05-24), Silvergrey25 (05-05-24)
Barney Rubble (05-05-24), BarryD (05-05-24), rockonallnite (04-05-24), Silvergrey25 (05-05-24)
If I understand what people are saying of the rules regarding suspected fake reviews (that it's not just that that review gets disqualified but that the escort is disqualified for the month) doesn't that open the door for malicious fake reviewing to get people disqualified?