Some People Sure Are Amazing Story Tellers...But Is It Always A Good Thing???

[cheatercheater]

Knees jerking a bit, perhaps?

Perhaps... And perhaps not....ROS rebuttal would be permissible in private tags or the men's private area. Not to say that the review was questioned or not but lack of visible reading material does not exclude the possibility that it exists.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by cheatercheater

ROS rebuttal would be permissible in private tags or the men's private area. Not to say that the review was questioned or not but lack of visible reading material does not exclude the possibility that it exists.

I have no idea if it was questioned, but those are two different things. "Questioning" of a review by someone who wasn't there is significantly less effective than a statement by someone who was there and is speaking from first hand knowledge. If Joe writes a review of Mary and Ed says "I doubt if that happens," his statement is speculation and less informative and useful for readers than for Mary to say "that didn't happen." Again, under a hypothetical that in fact the review was false in stating that X took place.

Of course, many readers are more likely to believe a review is accurate the more outrageous and outlandish the activities portrayed. And many readers are more interested in a "good read" than in accurate reviews. But not all.

[cheatercheater]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

I have no idea if it was questioned, but those are two different things. "Questioning" of a review by someone who wasn't there is significantly less effective than a statement by someone who was there and is speaking from first hand knowledge. If Joe writes a review of Mary and Ed says "I doubt if that happens," his statement is speculation and less informative and useful for readers than for Mary to say "that didn't happen." Again, under a hypothetical that in fact the review was false in stating that X took place.

Of course, many readers are more likely to believe a review is accurate the more outrageous and outlandish the activities portrayed. And many readers are more interested in a "good read" than in accurate reviews. But not all.

I now understand the point you are making and will agree to a point. If a provider were given access to her review including ROS but not subsequent posts, she could then be able to contest it if she wanted. A pattern of contested reviews would detract from her business. It could deter gents from outlandish embellishments as well. Though on the other hand it could make most reviews candy coated and therefore useless in the quest for an exchange of truthful information.

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by cheatercheater

Though on the other hand it could make most reviews candy coated and therefore useless in the quest for an exchange of truthful information.

Of course, many reviewers already assume the ladies can access the information. In a sense, the prohibition effectively is to protect us from certain reactions; punishment is imposed most often because the ladies access the ROS and harass the reviewer about it. If she doesn't do that last part, the mods probably won't know that she's read or received that information, will they? (And many guys wouldn't be deterred by the potential for a nasty PM anyway. Seriously, who cares?)

So one potential compromise would be to not (officially) allow the ladies access, but if she does find out and acts on it, treat that on a case-by-case basis. If she's bitching about the reviewer saying she's unattractive or not any good at a BJ, she'll be sanctioned because that kind of response is counter-productive for truthful information. If she's bringing forward information disputing objective and material facts about the review, take that into account in determining whether or not to punish her (or the guys who leaked the info to her). Judgment call, just like a lot of other areas of moderation. Because any black-and-white absolute rule may give worse results than the exercise of judgment with a flexible standard.

*shrug* I don't expect to convince many people.

[cheatercheater]

Originally Posted by Chevalier

*shrug* I don't expect to convince many people.

You don't have to convince me. I agree. I am just looking at all of the things that can and will go wrong no matter how one chooses to play the game.

[Guest022315]

CHevalier you seem to have a good hobby friend in Lazurus long. Lacy why are you so quiet on this.

[novacain]

Here's a some what simple solution to it. If you claim that an activity happened in the ROS, that activity MUST be listed in the activities area of the review that all can see or else it simply did not happen. This allows the ladies to dispute only the activities said to have happened to save her reputation from possible slander. It also makes the reviewer responsible for an honest (which we all claim to want) review. This will also provide more info for us, as we will be able to see which reviewers or ladies have disputes over activities offered or claimed.

This will allow the ROS portion of the review to be more secure as ladies will NOT be allowed to dispute the detailed parts of the review about her, looks, attitude, hygine, if she's mechanical and such as these things are less likely to be discussed or asked about when setting something up. If a lady does then the mods will know she saw the ROS somehow and can deal with that more effectivly. She gets a vacation and that vacation remains until the person or persons supplying her that info are given up. This will make the white knights think long and hard about giving out that info to the ladies, think she won't give them right up if she's banned until she names them?

[argus256]

Originally Posted by Thatdude

CHevalier you seem to have a good hobby friend in Lazurus long. Lacy why are you so quiet on this.

[LazurusLong]

Chevalier devoted many many hours to being a Moderator during 2 stints on ASPD. If ASPD were still around, he'd have more than earned BCD there. In fact, I'm pretty sure he paid for his lifetime BCD before even becoming a staff member.

Donating a fraction of my earned PA credit here is just a small way to say thanks for that time when so many seem to forget about the good even handed mods who worked for free over there.

Hell, I have more than enough reviews to post in the next few days to more than make up for my PA donation.

[bigdog0311]

Originally Posted by novacain

Here's a some what simple solution to it. If you claim that an activity happened in the ROS, that activity MUST be listed in the activities area of the review that all can see or else it simply did not happen. This allows the ladies to dispute only the activities said to have happened to save her reputation from possible slander. It also makes the reviewer responsible for an honest (which we all claim to want) review. This will also provide more info for us, as we will be able to see which reviewers or ladies have disputes over activities offered or claimed.

This will allow the ROS portion of the review to be more secure as ladies will NOT be allowed to dispute the detailed parts of the review about her, looks, attitude, hygine, if she's mechanical and such as these things are less likely to be discussed or asked about when setting something up. If a lady does then the mods will know she saw the ROS somehow and can deal with that more effectivly. She gets a vacation and that vacation remains until the person or persons supplying her that info are given up. This will make the white knights think long and hard about giving out that info to the ladies, think she won't give them right up if she's banned until she names them?

that is good, but....

[Int3rested]

there's a lota good stories...

[Chevalier]

Originally Posted by LazurusLong

In fact, I'm pretty sure he paid for his lifetime BCD before even becoming a staff member.

Yep. My timing sucks. In other P4P aspects as well . . .

I appreciate the gesture, although I'm not sure how much benefit I would derive from PA these days. I've cut back recently and at the moment am just seeing a couple of ladies. When you're not seeking new ladies to see, there's not much cause to read reviews. But I do appreciate the offer.

[novacain]

Originally Posted by bigdog0311

that is good, but....

Might wanna take this in mind

As of right now several are saying the provider in question should be gone after by the mods due to her supposedly having seen or being told what is in the ROS, which I believe is a smoke screen to take the heat off those that said things she claims untrue but don't have the balls to stand behind saying it in the open. Wonder why they won't openly back the claim they made? If 50 guys call her up to see her and ask if she provides a certain service, the first 5 or 10 she'll chalk up to being azzholes. When it becomes a constant question she's no doubt going to start asking why guys think she offers this, someone's going to tell her well I saw it in so and so's review of you. What she has said and the time line with which it has played out seems lend it's self to be the case. If she was going looking for the ROS info on her reviews she'd have known weeks ago and made a deal of it then. Not now when it's something everyone seems to asking about and it's affecting her business. This provider is only disputing a specific service said to have happened in a review, that she was informed of by others, yet she's the one that should be gone after?

She never named the reviewer nore has she stated what exactly was untrue in the review. In the model I laid out if you say she offered a service in the ROS, you better have the balls to put in the listed services area that all can see. Or else what you claim in the ROS will be looked upon as bullshit and your rep as a reviewer will suffer. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out since you can pretty much say anything you wish about someone here without ever really having to prove it. As it sit's it's a he said/she said and left up to us who we believe.

[piquant2009]

+1

[bigdog0311]

Originally Posted by novacain

Might wanna take this in mind

As of right now several are saying the provider in question should be gone after by the mods due to her supposedly having seen or being told what is in the ROS, which I believe is a smoke screen to take the heat off those that said things she claims untrue but don't have the balls to stand behind saying it in the open. Wonder why they won't openly back the claim they made? If 50 guys call her up to see her and ask if she provides a certain service, the first 5 or 10 she'll chalk up to being azzholes. When it becomes a constant question she's no doubt going to start asking why guys think she offers this, someone's going to tell her well I saw it in so and so's review of you. What she has said and the time line with which it has played out seems lend it's self to be the case. If she was going looking for the ROS info on her reviews she'd have known weeks ago and made a deal of it then. Not now when it's something everyone seems to asking about and it's affecting her business. This provider is only disputing a specific service said to have happened in a review, that she was informed of by others, yet she's the one that should be gone after?

She never named the reviewer nore has she stated what exactly was untrue in the review. In the model I laid out if you say she offered a service in the ROS, you better have the balls to put in the listed services area that all can see. Or else what you claim in the ROS will be looked upon as bullshit and your rep as a reviewer will suffer. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out since you can pretty much say anything you wish about someone here without ever really having to prove it. As it sit's it's a he said/she said and left up to us who we believe.

I am glad you said that........