'Beamerpushin' is writing fake reviews

[Pistolero]

Originally Posted by Out_of_Bounds

Well she posted an ad in Dallas On Eccie indicating she was in that city the day the reviewer claims she saw him here in Houston.
http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1209877&highlight=
And his most recent review is of a provider based out of Alabama but she has not posted any ads in Austin On Eccie where he claims he saw her.
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1225486
Same thing here with this provider who has not posted ads anywhere else but Dallas On Eccie but claims to have seen her in San Antonio.
http://eccie.net/providers.php?do=view&id=191218
And his review of Angel eyes lacy on the 11th could potentially put her anywhere but Houston since all her ad posts ON Eccie are Dallas, Oklahoma city and Austin.
I think I see a trend here.....
http://eccie.net/member.php?u=123272

I see a trend here too. You are making the assumption all of their ads are on Eccie. I do not know if that is the case or not. So, we do not take action until we check facts, not assumptions. It helps if providers who have problems with reviews do a RTM with the facts as they know them also.

DG is talking shit about mods above. But here is everyone wanting us to get rid of the review. Can not be both ways.

[Out_of_Bounds]

That may be, but all the ads I searched for were eccie ads. Just did a simple post search from each provider. And yes they are assumptions. I realize whether you want to follow up is completely up to you.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Pistolero

DG is talking shit about mods above. But here is everyone wanting us to get rid of the review. Can not be both ways.

Please cite were I posted that the review in question should be removed. Though if you want to go there, it is known that the moderators have no qualm in making post, even whole threads, disappear.

#22 - ECCIE Staff will go to great lengths to avoid editing, deleting, or censoring our members posts or threads...unless absolutely necessary. Forbidden topics such as underage sex, illicit drugs, bestiality, revealing personal info, medical speculation, or images not in compliance will be removed from public view. Controversial, troublesome, or objectionable posts may draw staff attention or in some cases disciplinary action, but the offending post will not be removed from the view of our membership in any but the most extreme cases. Often times you will find directions, footnotes, or other guidance from staff edited INTO posts which draw our attention. These are for the purpose of educating the readers of what is and what is not acceptable as well as informing others about how these issues have been dealt with. Members are encouraged to RTM posts which include rule infractions or objectionable material if it appears that staff has not already becomed involved with the thread or post in particular.
Note: Staff will consider a request from the original poster to remove a thread/post they have made provided it was recently posted and not replied to. As a general rule, staff will not consider such requests once a thread or post has been visible for at least 4 hours or received 2 or more replies. In these cases, a request from the OP to lock the thread is more appropriate and will receive consideration.

According to the guidelines laid out at best the moderators could put a footnote on the questionable review. What the footnote says is dependent upon what the moderators believe is most likely accurate to the events.

Honestly I think the review is a poor piece of fiction, & a direct link to this thread should be embedded in the the original review. Once above the date, & also after the recommendation

[Tetas]

Anybody bother to check if the dumbass just linked the wrong girl?

[Lexieinhouston]

Thanks for posting this, many ladies would just look at the 7 reviews and assume he is good to go. Always good to verify the reviews here.


~

[Victoria of Houston]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray

According to the guidelines laid out at best the moderators could put a footnote on the questionable review. What the footnote says is dependent upon what the moderators believe to what is most likely accurate to the events.

Honestly I think the review is a poor piece of fiction, & a direct link to this thread should be embedded in the the original review. Once above the date, & also after the recommendation

I like this idea. Spice said they don't want to just start taking down content without verifiable proof....but what if that said content poses a safety risk (in terms of LE or just a plain psycho posing as something/one they are not)?

I think if there are any disputes and it is pretty obvious it is a fake review then this footnote/link to the dispute idea should be implemented from here on out.

[Camille Fox]

Originally Posted by Victoria of Houston

I like this idea. Spice said they don't want to just start taking down content without verifiable proof....but what if that said content poses a safety risk (in terms of LE or just a plain psycho posing as something/one they are not)?

I think if there are any disputes and it is pretty obvious it is a fake review then this footnote/link to the dispute idea should be implemented from here on out.

Hence the need for both providers and hobbyists alike to look for more than just a single review when making decisions. I'm pretty sure a lot of reviews do not contain "verifiable proof", though most do not lead you into a dangerous situation.

A single review says nothing about a provider and, on my book, reviews are not a good way of screening a client.




Camille

[Victoria of Houston]

I agree 100%.

I know I do my screening, I am sure you do as well. Unfortunately, many people do not, on both sides.

Yes, it is their own fault and they should know better, etc, and ultimately it is their problem if they run into trouble bc they didn't do their homework....I just think if a provider is disputing a review, and it is even so obvious that other gents are calling him out for it, the board should take some actions at least.

The idea is this: As a provider on this board, I cannot gain "verified provider" status unless I meet certain criteria according to this board's mods.

Therefore, anyone posting a review claiming that something definitely happened, therefore, establishing themselves as a "verified gent" should also have to meet certain criteria, as far as that sort of thing can be verified.

That at least, can even the playing field a bit and help everyone out there to stay safer.

[Pistolero]

Originally Posted by riday

Anybody bother to check if the dumbass just linked the wrong girl?

And that is one thing being looked at.

And, as said above, if a provider feels that a review is fake, they are welcome to RTM it.
With the info they have to verify it is fake.

[sweet.treat69]

Originally Posted by Pistolero

And that is one thing being looked at.

And, as said above, if a provider feels that a review is fake, they are welcome to RTM it.
With the info they have to verify it is fake.

I will be returning to Dallas tomorrow and I will have time then to sit down, sift through dozens of messages, emails, etc or whatever else you may need. But how exactly am I supposed to prove its fake? What, in your opinion, would be verifiable enough to prove it's fake?? I can't really include screen shots or a scanned copy of my check in time in a RTM message so what should I do? Email everything to one of the mods?

[rockerrick]

I could write you a fake review in Dallas, SA, or Austin on that day, you couldn't possibly be in two places.

[Guest061814]

At least he only wrote a bogus review instead of coming to see you, then rushing out to "get the money from his car," and never return with the excuse of getting jumped by some nefarious Negro in the stairway...ijs

[sweet.treat69]

Originally Posted by Pistolero

And that is one thing being looked at.

And, as said above, if a provider feels that a review is fake, they are welcome to RTM it.
With the info they have to verify it is fake.

Originally Posted by rockerrick

I could write you a fake review in Dallas, SA, or Austin on that day, you couldn't possibly be in two places.

Ha!!! Then it'd really be a puzzler!!! Where WAS I November 1st?? Dallas? Houston? SA? The possibilities are endless!

[rockerrick]

That mean you want all 3? lol

[BigLouie]

Originally Posted by Slitlikr

Fake reviews along with fake profiles = LE?

On the old ASPD that is exactly what happened. LE put up a bunch of fake reviews in order to get invite to the Christmas party