EOTM Rules

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Barney Rubble]

Maybe maths wasn't rogers strongest subject when he was going to school. Maybe there should be a recount?

He'll probably be shaken, not stirred, tomorrow by all this...

[Silvergrey25]

Mebbe Roger needs a Rogerin

[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 ... ...

[StevB]

Roger, on arriving at work