Screening - a proposal

[AgoodMess]

Screening is important, lets not debate why. How to do it is not obvious, and neither how to check if it is done at all. I just want to state a few observations and propose a method to do it - feel free to comment.

(1) Screening boils down to how much trust and what exact information you are willing to put in the hands of a stranger to be published online, and how it helps your risk mitigation. No info = no references for screening, some info = risk of that info being published in a public forum.

(2) Many hobbyists do not have sufficient confidence in P411, and while it is an excellent tool for advertising and other member services, There is not a single ad stating "I do not see gents without P411 ID" => Ladies do see hobbyists without a P411 ID, and needs to screen them, too.

(3) ECCIE, being an anonymous board, can be infiltrated by anyone => you cannot trust fellow posters unless you have personally met them at a social and he has somehow gained your trust.

(4) If a lady sees 20gents/wk and has to provide references for upto 3mo,
she has to save 20x13=260names/characteristics in some memory, which can be (a) her brain - unreliable (b) written in a diary - unsafe (c) online - access control becomes difficult. If a lady does this, I'd feel my information is somewhere being compromised, and if she doesnt, there is no way she can provide references.

The proposal:
Ladies are authorized to put in a 1-line response to their own reviews - a straight forward OK/DNS, or "PM me for details" if she doesnt want her response to be public.

This response becomes the reference - a gent can cite a few of his past reviews as reference - the OK's are right there, if the provider cares to check. She doesnt have to call anybody or go to another website if it is happening as a series of PM's within ECCIE. She just needs to know the OK-ing person herself or through somebody she knows.

Other advantages -

(1) It encourages the hobbyist to write reviews, not just to share his experience for fellow hobbyist's benefit but for himself to get references for future encounters.

(2) Even if a phone/e-mail is compromised, the older OK's continue to serve as valid references for the hobbyist.

(3) It encourages the ladies to OK or not - not responding to reviews consistently should make her business suffer, since hobbyists will note that this lady does not provide references

(4) Reputation/credibility of the reviewer/provider builds up over time, and the anxiety over a "new name/handle on the board" is reduced.

(5) The reference process will not cost the reference provider any time, for which she is not being compensated anyway.

(6) The lady will not have to maintain a diary (paper/online) recording the names/numbers of her clientale for last 3 months - hobbyists will feel safer with such ladies.

That's the summary of my thoughts (albeit long). Thanks for reading, - aGM.

[DallasGuy21]

The problem I see with your proposal is that a provider posting a confirmation of a review to me implies that the review is factual and not fantasy.

[AgoodMess]

How does it imply that? I believe everything we write here is pure fantasy. I can pick up a lady and write whatever I feel like (it's about a stranger and may not be a real person at all) - she chooses what to write back, if any (assuming she exists and is also into this huge RPG).

[DallasGuy21]

Because if it wasn't factual it wouldn't be very use full for screening. Who would you rather see a client that writes flattering fantasies about people he hasn't met or a client who has actual real people that have seen him and can attest to his credibility? How would you know a provider wasn't giving him an OK because his fantasy was positive and good advertising even if she didn't actually see him? Who would ever write a negative review? If providers could see what reviews you write when they are screening you why would they go see someone that might write something bad about them? Not to mention eccie is a public forum so essentially your screening info would be available for everyone to see.

[Shackleton]

1. I really don't see very many providers doing this. Look at the number of providers who post anything here besides an ad. It's a small percent, maybe 1 out of 10. So, not only do few providers ever even post here much, but there's actually a disincentive to post an OK on a guy. The easier it is for him to see someone else, the less likely he'll repeat. p411 gets providers to give OKs by taking away their ad and access to free screening services if they don't respond to OK requests. To make your proposal anything other than DOA, I suspect ECCIE to punish those who didn't such as by taking away a providers ability to post ads. But that just puts more work and conflict on unpaid staff, so I doubt that will fly.

2. I suspect it would make guys much more hesitant than they currently are to post negative reviews for fear of the provider posting DNS in response. You avoid most of the drama by limiting responses to just a word or so, but that comes at the cost of making it easy to post a DNS with no need to explain yourself. As a guy who has p411 and has zero problem with screening because of it, I oppose any idea that would restrict the flow of valuable info and negative reviews are some of the most valuable info the site has.

3. I question whether other providers would even accept this as valid screening. What's to keep a guy from citing only his favorable responses, but omitting an unfavorable one? So, the provider would need to check his entire post history for reviews and check all of the posts on each review to find if there was any provider response.

In some way, you don't need any staff approval to try something like you propose. You could start a thread in the sandbox called something like "AgoodMess's Provider OKs" that is to be just a list of providers who say you are an acceptable client. Then, contact the providers you've seen and ask them to post on it. Send that link to a new lady you want to see and hope that's good enough for her. No need to get ECCIE to approve you proposal which is never gonna happen; just implement it yourself! If it really works for you, maybe others will copy it

[Theodore Cleaver]

Personally I like the idea of something along those lines. Myself I am terrified to give information to anyone especially a agency that collects info. Did however give my info to discreet screening (DFWescapes)at one time and a provider called them to check and could not verify, so in my book that was unprofessional. After a call or 2 they FOUND my info and was verified. Don't get me wrong all I have heard about P411 has been positive. Would love to see some providers on here, just dont have the nerve to give out info. Back in the day I had enough reviews to get seen, they however have been removed for good. So now I only amp which fine, but I would like to see whoever I wanted. Knowing that screenig is a valuble asset for the ladies in this different world than my parents Ward & June raised me up in. Guess I would be considered a newbie however..It is a double edged sword I guess. Do not think that I am negative about screening or P411 please..The Beav.

[AgoodMess]

I don't quite get the logic - Reviews I write (and the responses) might be fantasies, but someone else could be writing factual reviews, too. There's no way to tell. My proposal outlines that the provider should trust feedbacks only from those who she knows personally (or through someone she trusts), can contact and verify whatever she needs to. It's all a matter of trust - how it propagates from person A to person B to person C. To answer your other questions:

Originally Posted by DallasGuy21

Because if it wasn't factual it wouldn't be very use full for screening. Who would you rather see a client that writes flattering fantasies about people he hasn't met or a client who has actual real people that have seen him and can attest to his credibility?

It is upto the provider to determine whether the review is fact or fantasy.
Response to the review is the attestation (is that a word?), and the responder being known to the provider who is screening now gives the credibility.

From a provider's point of view, I'd rather steal a known and existing customer from a competetion without telling the competetion that I am doing it, as opposed to finding out by myself what the customer is like (thats MHO, cannot vouch for the ladies).

Originally Posted by DallasGuy21

How would you know a provider wasn't giving him an OK because his fantasy was positive and good advertising even if she didn't actually see him? Who would ever write a negative review? If providers could see what reviews you write when they are screening you why would they go see someone that might write something bad about them? Not to mention eccie is a public forum so essentially your screening info would be available for everyone to see.

I wouldn't, and it's none of my business to figure out why 1 person is giving another an OK, or a DNS. Negative reviews will be there for bad services, whether factual or not. Do you expect a negative review writer wanting to repeat the experience? I think he would be more concerned about retributions, which is why we use anonymous handles and hobby phones.

I think providers can already see what reviews we write if they choose to, since (a) it's an open forum and not everybody respects the "no multiple handle" rule, and (b) ladies have their friends and WK's, too. I am sure most of us have seen enough drama on the forums about this.

Lasty, not just screening info, almost anything we write here should be treated as being read by the world. This is why you need the anonymity.

Now, I am just trying to find out a feasible screening process that works for everybody (ok, most). If this one doesnt cut it, it doesnt, we keep doing whatever we do now. Tell us, how would you like a lady to save the info on 100's (if not 1000's) of hobbyists so she can OK or not when called and asked to verify one?

One possible solution is to create a separate room, with 1 thread for every hobbyist who agrees to this, and the ladies posting a good/bad/ugly against the handle, irrespective of the review. Your dilemmas will still not be solved (how would you know that the lady has actually seen the gent?), and somehow I feel this will not fly well with the hobbyists (I remember the "Can providers review hobbyists" threads). Any other ideas?

I don't think any screening scheme that can guarantee which hobbyist has seen which provider will work. The reason is that if a provider can prove it beyond doubt, so can our uncles, and I will not buy such a scheme. OK, I will step off the podium now.

[AgoodMess]

Shakleton:
Thanks for the reply, points well taken. I am sure Gina and others have already thought about the issues, and possibly P411 is the best solution. Too bad it's not for all of us.

The problem is tough, and I do not claim to have a silver bullet. We want providers to post a comment on a hobbyist that is not publicly viewable. And they have to have an incentive to do this. Lastly, the hobbyist should be able to authenticate another provider to read the comment(s), and there should not be an additional ton of workload on the mods. I need to think some more about this.

I dont think we can do anything here without ECCIE blessing/support. How would you limit a provider's response to a few words? How would you provide access control? Anyways, off now, yall have fun. Regards, - aGM.

[KRH]

The only issue I can see is the legality of them confirming that more than just "paying for the ladies time" occurred.

[RoDunn]

I think the current reference system, including P411 is working just fine.

To me, there's an obvious problem with any reference system that is tied directly to the review system. The purpose of reviews shift from providing helpful information to other guys, to trying to secure references from providers. Some reviewers have already made this shift of course, but it would become even worse in system where references are based on a provider's reaction to a review.

Many guys do not write reviews for a variety of valid reasons, and to try to force them into writing reviews to conform with a system such as this is unfair. A reference from a provider should be based on a number of factors -- was he clean, did he treat her with respect, did he leave the proper donation, etc. -- but whether or not a guy writes a review should not be one of the considerations.

Or at least that's my opinion.

[MrKlean]

I like the idea of coming up with alternatives to p411. I have only heard good things about p411, but it is difficult for many (including myself) to trust someone I have never met (Gina).
I believe the goal of all of this is to differentiate hobbyist from uncle LE.
It benefits providers to have reviews, but not necessarily the hobbyist. If a provider can vouch that the hobbyist is NOT uncle LE, I believe that everyone will be benefitted.
I don't think the vouching process should be nothing more, it doesn have to discuss anything about the hobbyist at all, just that this is a legitimate hobbyist and not LE.

Just my 2 cents... Uncle LE has everyone fearful, providers and hobbyist alike, I'm perfectly ok with seeing a provider that I know is not LE, regardless of the service I get ymmv....... And I ink providers feel the same way.
Isn't the main reason for screening uncle LE?
Screening also helps with psychos, but the majority of hobbyist are here because we can be financially and I think it would benefit both hobbyist and providers if the providers could instantly know if a guy is not LE because she knows that he has been with other providers and won't have to track down previous providers of the hobbyist, that don't really want to lose "their" hobbyist.
Sorry for the long thread, got carried away

[Lust4xxxLife]

I think you must be new around here. I felt the same way about P411 when I was new, but after observing how well it was run for a couple of years, my thinking changed. Now I look at it as a great way to avoid a lot of hassle.

Originally Posted by AgoodMess

...

(2) Many hobbyists do not have sufficient confidence in P411, and while it is an excellent tool for advertising and other member services, There is not a single ad stating "I do not see gents without P411 ID" => Ladies do see hobbyists without a P411 ID, and needs to screen them, too.

This is incorrect. I can't point to specific ads, but they're out there. It's been my observation that – generally – the hobbyists who express concerns about P411 are the newcomers and/or those with past sins.

(3) ECCIE, being an anonymous board, can be infiltrated by anyone => you cannot trust fellow posters unless you have personally met them at a social and he has somehow gained your trust.

Yes, and this is exactly why your proposal below won't work for me.

....

The proposal:
Ladies are authorized to put in a 1-line response to their own reviews - a straight forward OK/DNS, or "PM me for details" if she doesnt want her response to be public.

This response becomes the reference - a gent can cite a few of his past reviews as reference - the OK's are right there, if the provider cares to check. She doesnt have to call anybody or go to another website if it is happening as a series of PM's within ECCIE. She just needs to know the OK-ing person herself or through somebody she knows.

Since anyone can infiltrate Eccie, even old douche-bags in Fort Worth who have been banned, the review system you're proposing could easily be a scam run by pimps, LE, etc. All it would take is a little bit of patience and social engineering to reel people in.

No thanks. For now I'll stick with P411. It has built up a pretty good track record.

[Guest030911]

Reviews don't mean shit and most ladies do not read them and are not supposed to see "the rest of the story". I know plenty of guys who made up stuff in their reviews that never happened. The reviews are for the other guys. It just happens to be a byproduct that the ladies get some free publicity from them.

I know one hobbyist who maintains his own personal hobby web page where he lists references and contact info for the girls who need to verify that he is okay. He sends the URL on request and the lady has all the reference information to check him out.

Put yourself in the ladies shoes. She needs to know if the guy who wants an appointment is a good guy; that he is not LE, his credentials have not been seized by LE, and that he is not going to hurt her. As a potential client, my job is to give her just enough information to satisfy her fears before she lets some unknown man into her incall.

It is not fucking rocket science. It's only slightly more advanced than bottle rocket science.

[GinaXXX]

I'd like to remind the nervous nellies, that with two solid provider references, you need not give us any private information to become a P411 member (AND you'll get a free 6 month trial membership, no strings).

We are only concerned about verifying that you are a legitimate hobbyist.... who you are is none of our concern once we have satisfied that first question.

Always,
Gina

www.preferred411.com

[Toasted]

The above is very true and accurate. Two good references, a quick phone call, and you are there with no invasive questions. It is quick and easy and done in a professional manner. That was my experience.