REVIEW REBUTAL

[argus256]

And what if there are substantiating claims?

[HoustonMilfDebbie]

Originally Posted by txcwby6

If someone posts false information about a Provider (BBFS for instance) I see nothing wrong with another Hobbyist alerting her re what's being said in the ROS portion of a review. This is about someone's livelihood and if she's being slandered in ROS I applaud whomever gave her a heads up.

Thanks! I totally agree. A provider should have a right to know what is being said and also to defend herself, especially if the accusations are out of line and even completely false.

[trynagetlaid]

The guy who privately alluded to BBFS has 19 reviews but none of the OP. I'd be curious if the OP has ever seen him.

[Just4Hobby]

Originally Posted by argus256

And what if there are substantiating claims?

How is that possible? It is he said she said and all fictional or with disclaimer. I am sure that people claim to have done things that did not happen and for ego boosting only. However, some claims hurt more than others. If provider provided service not normally available and told the hobbyist not to tell and the hobbyist not only told but includes the not to tell part. What can a provider do? even if it is all made up, what can a provider do?

[anhellica]

trynagetlaid
Premium Access
Join Date: Sep 9, 2010
The guy who privately alluded to BBFS has 19 reviews but none of the OP. I'd be curious if the OP has ever seen him

thechocolatebanana
Premium access
Date: Mar 24, 2012
This all could have been nipped in the bud right from the beginning. No where in the review does it say 'uncovered' and as a matter of fact it clearly says 'suited up'. Hope that's not a ROS violation. Two odd comments blew the whole review to Shitsville...


ANHELLICA
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR SUPPORT... I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON TWO ABOVE STATEMENTS STATEMENT...ONE FROM THE CHOCOLATE BANANNA... YOUARE RIGHT IT CLEARLY SAYS "SUITED UP"

AND THE COMMENT FROM TRYNAGETLAID... YOU ARE ALSO CORRECT, I AM HAVE NOT EVEN SEEN THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS ENTIRE THING AND HE EVEN ADMITTED HE LIKES ATTENTION AND SO HE DECIDED TO POST A TOXIC COMMENT...

I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY WE CANT WEE THE ROS TO DEFEND OURSELVES...THIS MAKES NO SENSE

[TPJR]

I've seen Anhellica many times since about February and I can vouch that she absolutely does not offer BBFS. She has a ton of positive reviews and it would be a travesty for this allegation to ruin her reputation.

[sinep1]

On the provider seeing her ROS, I agree and disagree. I can't imagine the amount of rebuttals we would have to read for even a minor disagreement in an otherwise glowing review. I think most providers would take small criticisms in stride, remember some here thrive on drama, both providers and clients. Maybe provider ROS access for NO's only.

[johnnylongcaulking]

Originally Posted by sinep1

I can't imagine the amount of rebuttals we would have to read for even a minor disagreement in an otherwise glowing review. I think most providers would take small criticisms in stride, remember some here thrive on drama, both providers and clients.

Maybe the answer to that part would be to implement an "ignore" functionality where you could filter out all posts by JLC or ProviderDramaLlamaX.

[Missy Mariposa]

I can't imagine the amount of rebuttals we would have to read for even a minor disagreement in an otherwise glowing review. I think most providers would take small criticisms in stride, remember some here thrive on drama, both providers and clients. Maybe provider ROS access for NO's only.

I don't even want to be able to reply in the review (I have no problem with the "make a thread in co-ed" policy) but I want to know what people are saying. For all I know, someone has said I offer X, Y, Z (that I don't offer) just to make their dick hard while writing the review. In an ideal world, providers would be able to see the ROS, and if they let us write in "NO" recommendations only...goodness I'd just be tickled pink.

But I will take whatever apples the ECCIE gods throw us, and hopefully it's being able to read my own ROS one day soon. On what I call "Canadian ECCIE" (perb . ca - it's seriously like a smaller ECCIE and up north!) girls can read and reply in reviews. And no one rebutted stupid little things (as someone mentioned), only serious issues. It was such a change to come to this :/

[aka]

anhellica, the facts seem to bear you out.

[TheDuck]

Originally Posted by TPJR

I've seen Anhellica many times since about February and I can vouch that she absolutely does not offer BBFS. She has a ton of positive reviews and it would be a travesty for this allegation to ruin her reputation.

No, actually you CANNOT vouch for that. What you CAN vouch for is that she did not offer YOU BBFS. That is the point of all this, there is no way to dispute something that occurred BHD if you were NOT PRESENT!!

BTW, if you saw the movie "City of Angels" there is a line you might have heard..."Some things are true, whether you believe them or not"! I have no idea whether or not the subject of this thread offers BBFS, but my point is that neither YOU nor I know for sure what happened between two others BCD, and we should not insist that we do

[Copierguy0]

Originally Posted by HoustonMilfDebbie

I agree 100 percent; "What's good for the goose is good for the gander..." I am just saying let's have equal rights on these boards, please. This is not the dark ages anymore. We have a right to know if what they are saying is the truth and so does everyone else.

Anyone can write a review; even me! I haven't written one for myself, and would never stoop that low...let's get transparent and hear both sides of the story...it's only fair...and it's the right thing to do.

Just my two cents!

I Agree, and Let Hobbyist into that Powder Room and other restricted areas/sites, to see what is said. If some hobbyist are listed in that DNS BLACK BOOK, we have a right to Rebuttal there as well.

Whats Fair is Fair, wouldn't you agree?

CG

[Guest022315]

Originally Posted by Copierguy0

Whats Fair is Fair, wouldn't you agree?

CG

SLight difference my friend. For a good amount of ladies it is their only source of income. Where as for us who are not pimps nor SO nor husband it's just for fun and getting our rocks off for the most part. ijs

[johnnylongcaulking]

Originally Posted by Copierguy0

I Agree, and Let Hobbyist into that Powder Room and other restricted areas/sites, to see what is said. If some hobbyist are listed in that DNS BLACK BOOK, we have a right to Rebuttal there as well.

Whats Fair is Fair, wouldn't you agree?

CG

Access to ROS is not even close to being equal to access to Powder Room or the Men's Lounge. Having access to ROS is simply enabling providers to learn from their customers and learn which customers to trust. Think about it for a sec. If a Provider notices that Hobbyist A tends to embellish his reviews in a manner that isn't aligned with her desired market strategy (lol...strategy / prostitution) she can then decide not to see said hobbyists when he solicits her companionship. Also, if Hobbyist B notices that Provider C always responds maliciously to reviews, he can put her on his DNS list.

ROS access eliminates significant moderation efforts also reducing a lot of the temptation for ladies to have fake male accounts...a lot, not all. This also reduces the amount of moderation that actually needs to happen.

[aka]

Originally Posted by Copierguy0

I Agree, and Let Hobbyist into that Powder Room and other restricted areas/sites, to see what is said.

I made that argument and retracted it coz the proposal is that the ladies get access to ROS. If it were access to the Men's Lounge, then the Powder Room comes into play - what's good for the gander is good for the goose.