eccie moderators and staff, fair and balanced

[ncc72032]

I always like to offer humor where possible and the title is the humor for today. For the actual title should be " Moderators and Staff, ECCIE's version of corrupted politicians"

Last year I was in Texas and had communication with a former Texas eccie moderator online. I asked them about no call no show reviews and that moderator told me that a number of moderators get rewarded from providers for now allowing NCNS reviews to taint the provider's reputation. This particular moderator got freebies from providers for protecting them.

I can only wonder if the same thing might be true in all communities? NCNS reviews are removed from the review section, never to be allowed to show up on the review list for a provider. How the fuck can this forum be consider a true accurate showing of what providers do, when they are protected by the "higher ups"? I have zero issues with premium credit not being issued for a NCNS, but to have the review suppressed is biased. When someone looks up a provider's reviews, they have no way of knowing if someone like Jasmine or Coco has a 50% NCNS rate.

I, along with other users here, have requested numerous time that if the politicians/staff here are going to continue to censor what can and can't be placed in a provider's rep, then an official No Call, No Show sub category needs to be created. This subcat needs to be linked so it shows on the provider's listing, so when someone looks up Jane Doe and sees that they have 6 NCNS reviews out of the 10 reviews posted, the user can be better informed and can consider if they really want to take that chance. Lets make this forum truly fair and balanced, instead of selective and biased

[Guest121614]

Do a review of when you actually saw the provider with full detail and add the nc/ns info in the ros

[Guest121614]

This happens way to often from certain providers with no regard or respect to the hobby

[theotherguy1]

Correct me if I am wrong but the reason NCNS aren't kept in the review section is that the provider cannot respond to it. I don't remember which section you are to put it in but I think it is required to be put there so the provider can give her side of the story.

[ncc72032]

I have always been an advocate for providers to see the rest of the story anyways. It does involve them as it is. Takes two to tango

[bladtinzu]

Originally Posted by theotherguy1

Correct me if I am wrong but the reason NCNS aren't kept in the review section is that the provider cannot respond to it. I don't remember which section you are to put it in but I think it is required to be put there so the provider can give her side of the story.

True. Yet there are ways around that where you can do all of the NCNS reviews you like and they can never comment on them nor see them yet certain members of the board can.

Always a way around something isn't there? lol

[BeardFist McFistBeard]

Originally Posted by ncc72032

I always like to offer humor where possible and the title is the humor for today. For the actual title should be " Moderators and Staff, ECCIE's version of corrupted politicians"

Last year I was in Texas and had communication with a former Texas eccie moderator online. I asked them about no call no show reviews and that moderator told me that a number of moderators get rewarded from providers for now allowing NCNS reviews to taint the provider's reputation. This particular moderator got freebies from providers for protecting them.

I can only wonder if the same thing might be true in all communities? NCNS reviews are removed from the review section, never to be allowed to show up on the review list for a provider. How the fuck can this forum be consider a true accurate showing of what providers do, when they are protected by the "higher ups"? I have zero issues with premium credit not being issued for a NCNS, but to have the review suppressed is biased. When someone looks up a provider's reviews, they have no way of knowing if someone like Jasmine or Coco has a 50% NCNS rate.

I, along with other users here, have requested numerous time that if the politicians/staff here are going to continue to censor what can and can't be placed in a provider's rep, then an official No Call, No Show sub category needs to be created. This subcat needs to be linked so it shows on the provider's listing, so when someone looks up Jane Doe and sees that they have 6 NCNS reviews out of the 10 reviews posted, the user can be better informed and can consider if they really want to take that chance. Lets make this forum truly fair and balanced, instead of selective and biased

I'm pretty sure it happens here as well. You hear things... not naming any names

[offshoredrilling]

Originally Posted by theotherguy1

Correct me if I am wrong but the reason NCNS aren't kept in the review section is that the provider cannot respond to it. I don't remember which section you are to put it in but I think it is required to be put there so the provider can give her side of the story.

but if she wants to reply to a review, she can always start a thread(or is that threAD) in coed

[urhuckleberry]

Originally Posted by BeardFist McFistBeard

I'm pretty sure it happens here as well. You hear things... not naming any names

I wish NCC would identify the "former Texas mod" he communicated with online. If the "mod" was telling the truth, I suspect we can guess why he is a former mod. I will tell you that the owners of this board will absolutely NOT tolerate this type of behavior from anyone on staff. Period.

Now to the issue of NCNS "reviews" being moved to Coed Discussions. There are nearly twice as many views to Coed Discussions as Provider Ads. Not exactly hiding anything by moving a NCNS to Coed. Anybody can comment in the Coed thread, including the accused provider. In addition, if the provider's name is spelled correctly in the thread title, a simple search will reveal ALL comments, about the accused provider..

The bottom line - if the meeting never took place, there cannot be a review. We welcome threads reporting NCNS to the community.

Huck

[offshoredrilling]

But by moving NCNS by provider to coed you are asking her to reply if on eccie?
where if she wanted to reply, she can start a coed thread. just askin

[ncc72032]

Originally Posted by urhuckleberry

I wish NCC would identify the "former Texas mod" he communicated with online. If the "mod" was telling the truth, I suspect we can guess why he is a former mod. I will tell you that the owners of this board will absolutely NOT tolerate this type of behavior from anyone on staff. Period.


Huck

Journalism 101 Never reveal your sources.

Since this former moderator is still a active current member of the ECCIE community, I do not feel it right to reveal their username. BTW, They claimed (and I have no way to verify this) that they resigned their moderatorship due to personal issues at home.

[ramblinman69]

There should be an NCNS category all to it's own. Plain and simple

[bladtinzu]

Originally Posted by offshoredrilling

but if she wants to reply to a review, she can always start a thread(or is that threAD) in coed

That would be a threAD she expects her little bitch boy white knights to come running to..

[urhuckleberry]

Originally Posted by ncc72032

Journalism 101 Never reveal your sources.

Since this former moderator is still a active current member of the ECCIE community, I do not feel it right to reveal their username. BTW, They claimed (and I have no way to verify this) that they resigned their moderatorship due to personal issues at home.

Complain about the board's policies, but protect the worst violator of trust. That makes perfect sense.

Why do you refer to HIM as THEY? Didn't learn that in JM101.

Huck.

[bladtinzu]

Originally Posted by urhuckleberry

Complain about the board's policies, but protect the worst violator of trust. That makes perfect sense.
Huck.

You would be shocked what actually gets out of modville.. This is traitor light considering..