Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba3452
If the guys would simply follow the posted instructions, it would not be in review format and both sides would see all the content as designed.
|
Is there a problem with Staff taking out the ROS tags to that can happen?
As noted several times, a NCNS thread can be replied to because the provider can see what is written. By failing to make this a thread when the OP failed to follow Staff directions, and using the review form, she can't reply because she isn't supposed to be able to SEE what he is saying and even then I doubt she'd come on here an reply anyway but it would sure be informative to the other providers.
Summary to Bubba: Why can't the staff remove the ROS tags?
============================== ================
Quote:
Originally Posted by 69er
Chrisfun27,
LL has decided to post ROS information, the mods have been alerted, and none of the info has been removed.
|
Actually, it seems you missed the original issue that the OP decided to use the Review form to create a NC/NS type of report when in fact this is NOT a damn NC/NS. And according to the Sticky in the Indy review forum, it should be a thread where the provider can see what the poster is claiming and can therefore reply. As others have posted in this thread and also in the discussion, when a client fucks up and uses the review form, many of the participants on this board believe the entire ROS should be made 100% public since obviously there is nothing sexual in nature being described so no need to "hide" anything from the prying eyes of the public.
This non-review is a long and drawn out one sided tale of the OP's attempts to schedule an appointment with Cameron.
Did he actually ever have a confirmed time, and date, and exact location?
That "confirmed" appointment issue has been discussed at great lengths and there really has never been a solid consensus of what that means.
I think someone has already mentioned Hooter and how this reminds him of how flaky she was to the point that it became a running joke.
This appears to actually be the first NC/NS report and if it were truly what it appears to be, great because the initial reports of erratic behavior are valuable so other might not waste time or be prepared but looking at the sum total of his post, I don't think he ever had a true confirmed appointment that she blew off. The last portion is him getting denied an appointment and that is NOT a NC/NS, it is actually him failing her screening and that can happen up to and including the moment you are ready to knock on the incall door. This sucks for you but happens to people every day that they fail screening but that doesn't mean you post a REVIEW about it or even a NC/NS thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrisfun27
Guys,
1. First, sorry if I posted this in the wrong place. I could swear I had seen similar reviews about bad experiences like here..so that is why I did it, and it got posted/approved.
|
Again. The subject of whether NC/NS should be in the review forums or not was decided some time ago. If I can find some of the threads about the issue I will.
BUT the sticky about where and how to post such things was created back in July 2011 so it has been some time and that was debated in some detail so saying "you thought you had seen similar reviews" means you failed to follow the staff instructions for this sort of thing.
Obviously, whatever staff member approved the "review" fucked up.
Your credit for this "review" should be removed and this "review" removed from Cameron's profile. Mistakes happen by the volunteer staff and what i am sure is a nice pile of RTMs have made the staff well aware of the corrective actions needed regarding this issue. Heck, when doing some research, I found another NC/NS review credited and attached to another provider's account and that has been reported also.
With regard to Here's a fun read about a client who wants to see a provider but she won't see him. Summary is that pretty much, providers don't need to give a reason.
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=83899
It appears Chris was demanding that Cameron had to give a reason.
Wrong attitude.
Providers are not "required" to give a client any reason at all, some do, some make shit up and some may change their mind down the road but who knows.
I hate to say it but given the number of providers reading this thread, Chris has most likely gone on a ton of DNS lists for his actions and behavior here without even knowing it. NOT for posting a NCNS but because of his behavior leading up to the posting of this thread.
stay low pro..
