Bad Review Blackmail

[Regular Guy]

Not always so simple..................

Hello!

Not a big poster around here...I do not live in Quebec, but I have posted on other boards.

This is what happened to me:

I declined an appointment from a gentleman (something about his e-mails did not sit right with me, and he was unwilling to provide me with a reference for verification). In response, he threatened: "I will be sure to review you and let everyone know how rude you are..."

To be honest, that comment has tainted my view of review boards ever since. How do you know what you are reading is true?

I am not convinced that having many posts makes you more credible...often belligerent over-posters beef up their stats in order to gain "credibility". Due to the inherent anonymity of the boards, credibility can never be determined 100%, regardless of a person's posting statistics.



Just wanted to comment on this quote...

It has been my experience that "gentlemen" will more likely attempt shenanigans with a girl who is new to the business, since she is less likely to stand-up for herself. For a girl that is new to the business, the threat of a negative review is extremely persuasive and would likely result in acquiescence. It is a shameful aspect of the business that many "gentlemen" target new girls to take advantage of them. This is only one example of that.

In conclusion, yes this game has been tried many times and with some girls has likely been successful. Review boards are anonymous and there is no proof that anything written on them is true or untrue. This is most unfortunate....I guess, like everything in life...it is a gamble.

You have made some interesting points here and they should be addressed:

First off, when a negative review is posted, you are right that it can be problematic for a new girl. If the girl has been seen by other members those posts will also be on her thread. MODS are pretty good about monitoring that multiple threads on the same topic be merged. If they miss it often other members will request it.

Second, If the post seems out of character with the other posts on the thread, often the reviewers who posted favourably will comment on any aspects of the negative post which seem out of character. This can often generate quite a lively discussion. If other members smell a rat they have been known to give guys like this quite a rough ride.

Third, members are not stupid. Often through seeing how the reviewer turns a phrase or messes up with some detail of the lie, they pick up on it. If the reviewer just rails away at the girl and her service without giving specifics then he has very little credibility.

Fourth: If it is an agency girl often the owner will post his views. If he is reputable then often he can make a good case for his girls and present his own feedback concerning them.

Fifth, the reviewer has his own reputation to consider. Members will almost always check the board pedigree of the poster. Far too often a new handle will be created for shilling purposes. Also a reviewer who tries this stunt too often begins to show a pattern of negative reviews of girls who regularly enjoy a good reputation. His own credibility can be called into question.

Sixth, most members are aware of the factor of chemistry. Every once in awhile putting two personalities together often resembles the effect of combining fire and gasoline. It is a hazard. It may be true that professionalism for the sp or a sweet disposition on both sides or both goes a long way to overcoming the worst of this but it happens.

It is interesting to note your observation that,

often belligerent over-posters beef up their stats in order to gain "credibility"

. Though this may be hardest to prove, most members here can do the math. Accusations aren't made outright but don't kid yourself, the suspicions are there.

In the end analysis I suppose there is no foolproof way to put the pin on these jerks but for the most part the system works. Pretty hard to find anything which is perfect in this world.(Well modesty precludes......................)

 

[YouVantOption]

Hello Youvantopinion,

How about just sending all the information you and the lady (if possible) have privately to the mods.

Maxima sees stuff in my posts that isn't there, and asked the same question as you about what is there:

Of course, having the SP post about this here leaves things open to abuse on the other side, if someone knows she is getting a bad review, she might make a false claim about this happening. (In both cases this activity was reported to the MODs, who are apparently keeping on eye on the two jerks I know about trying these shenanigans).

 

[YouVantOption]

Wonder as much as you want. I don't write reviews

Interesting. So what then is your contribution to this board?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Why the specifics are required...

ZM,

Assuming that the objective is to win with the hand that is dealt and winning is defined as getting some form of benefit be it a discount or extras or whatever the clients sees as winning then it becomes a question of improvisation given the circumstances.

If the carrot of a good review offers the greatest chance for benefits then that is the hand that is played. If the cudgel of a bad review offers the greatest chance for benefits then it is used.

Leaving aside for now the notion of bad -vs- good and refocusing on the seminal post and its underlying scenarios, one of which unfolds as follows:

Provider doesn't deliver the advertised or announced or expected (per standard practice) service. Consequently, client informs provider that she will be reviewed accordingly. Realizing the consequences, provider makes a case of blackmail and issues complaints (through a spokesperson in the cases here referred to).

Such a scenario is made possible on account of the word blackmail, which definition supposes that the sensitive information is substantially TRUE (contrary to defamation).

Also skeptical over the notion of blackmailers leaving evidence in writing and in voice mailboxes, unless of course we're talking about very stupid blackmailers or, as presented above, providers being defensive over the perspective of a bad, yet justifiable, review.

 

[French Girl]

There is bias in everything...

Third, members are not stupid. Often through seeing how the reviewer turns a phrase or messes up with some detail of the lie, they pick up on it. If the reviewer just rails away at the girl and her service without giving specifics then he has very little credibility.

Fifth, the reviewer has his own reputation to consider. Members will almost always check the board pedigree of the poster. Far too often a new handle will be created for shilling purposes. Also a reviewer who tries this stunt too often begins to show a pattern of negative reviews of girls who regularly enjoy a good reputation. His own credibility can be called into question.

Just a few points I would like to comment on....

No, I do not think that members are stupid; however, some may not be critical readers. Case in point, there are many people that actually believe that the Fox News Network is fair and objective, and not all of them are American.

Also, how many times have you seen someone post a comment in a thread and it is clear that they either: only half read the post; or, read what they wanted to believe. Many people transfer their personal bias towards things that should be objective.

Also, review boards are themselves bias since they are skewed towards girls who provide more services than others. You only need to look at the requirements for service rankings at The Erotic Review Forum.

This is the link:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/info_policies/reviewFAQ.asp?#B

This is the quote from the Erotic Review that I am referring to:

"Again, please try to save the 8 and 9 ranks for situations where out of the ordinary services are provided (i.e. Blow Job - without condom, Kissing with tongue, Really Bi, More than one guy). Each of these, beyond-the-call-of-duty talents count for one hard earned point. Of course, the 10 rating should be reserved for an experience that is really worth a million!"

It is easy to see that there is bias in the review process. What if you are a lady that provides a hand release only. Regardless of how well the lady provides the service she will always be ranked lower than a girl who provides more services. Is that really fair? Not really, shouldn't you be graded according to the service that you do offer, not graded against a client's 'wish-list' of services? This bias is not just at the Erotic Review, it has transfered across many review boards.

Also, many girls that are new to the business are taken advantage of since they do not have the luxury of a reputation to fall back on. Allow me to give you an example...

What if I placed an ad on Merb (with my mere 4-5 posts). Let's say that "Bias Bob" wanted to see me and he had 20 posts. Since I do not have a reputation here on Merb, "Bias Bob" could easily say anything about me, and since he has more posts, his opinion would likely be valued higher than mine. Is this fair? Also, what if "Bias Bob" lived up to his name and decided to threaten me to garner more generous services? Who are people going to believe - the person with fewer or higher posts?

Lastly, using the same example, I am not convinced that "Bias Bob" needs to care about his reputation as highly as you have suggested...he can always get a new handle and stop posting...then no one would know.

By that time the damage is already done to the girl's reputation since, as I have alluded to, many people are not critical readers and will miss the inherent bias in "Bias Bob's" post and assume that the problem was with the girl and not with him.

Therein lies the problem of anonymity...you just never know what someone's agenda truly is...

Also, as clever as we all like to think that we are, there is always someone out there who is more clever.

 

[eastender]

The Review Process

Leaving aside for now the notion of bad -vs- good and refocusing on the seminal post and its underlying scenarios, one of which unfolds as follows:

Provider doesn't deliver the advertised or announced or expected (per standard practice) service. Consequently, client informs provider that she will be reviewed accordingly. Realizing the consequences, provider makes a case of blackmail and issues complaints (through a spokesperson in the cases here referred to).

Such a scenario is made possible on account of the word blackmail, which definition supposes that the sensitive information is substantially TRUE (contrary to defamation).

Also skeptical over the notion of blackmailers leaving evidence in writing and in voice mailboxes, unless of course we're talking about very stupid blackmailers or, as presented above, providers being defensive over the perspective of a bad, yet justifiable, review.

ZM,

You have touched on a very key element of the review process. If the client informs the provider that there will be a review, positive or negative, then the process is tainted from the start. If the provider is not informed about the possibility of the review then the issue of blackmail does not arise - you may have a simple negotiation between the two parties that should result in mutual understanding.

Substantially true or benefit is very subjective. The key question in such instances is "Does it (the issue at stake) really make a difference?"

Years ago - before the advent of such boards, in the old no contact days, the dancers in strip clubs would get pressured to cross the lines with standard lines, "I know the owner, the police , etc. You get the scenario. Your analogy about stupidity holds true today as it did then. After all the prisons are overcrowded with people who believed they had planned the perfect crime. Omitting the getting caught aspect.

 

[YouVantOption]

How many negative reviews have we actually seen here ? Aside from the ones dealing with missed appointment/cancelations ?

While this is no doubt a problem it doesn't seem like a rampant one. If anything I think people are loathe to write negative reviews because they get attacked.

PS Love the word shinanigans

Shenanigans. South Park-ism.

No, the problem isn't rampant, but it is obviously common if some girls are willing to speak up about it. Keep in mind there are a whole lot of SPs who don't read MERB, don't read English well enough to respond, and are intimidated well enough not to respond.

That's the whole point of threats is to make someone weaker than you afraid, and to comply to what you want.

Amazing the lengths some people will go to to save a few bucks or get a golden shower or mud-slide, huh?

 

[Regular Guy]

Reviews and reviewing

Okay FG. A couple of things:
First: I did not intend for my points to be taken by themselves in isolation. Let me give you an example. You state:

No, I do not think that members are stupid; however, some may not be critical readers. Case in point, there are many people that actually believe that the Fox News Network is fair and objective, and not all of them are American.
Also, how many times have you seen someone post a comment in a thread and it is clear that they either: only half read the post; or, read what they wanted to believe. Many people transfer their personal bias towards things that should be objective.

That may be true of a post taken in isolation but not when you consider a whole thread. A member who acts on the opening post for the thread of a new girl soon learns that he has probably short changed himself – at least on this board anyway. And comparing news networks may just be a more formidable task than comparing sp reviews. Further, skimming on this board, then shooting from the hip can often earn one a sharp reprimand from another member. Skimming then making a stupid comment as the fruit of that skimming can often earn one the literary equivalent of the 'withering sneer' from another member. Don't do it too often if you want to be taken seriously. This also applies to personal biases.

What if I placed an ad on Merb (with my mere 4-5 posts). Let's say that "Bias Bob" wanted to see me and he had 20 posts. Since I do not have a reputation here on Merb, "Bias Bob" could easily say anything about me, and since he has more posts, his opinion would likely be valued higher than mine. Is this fair? Also, what if "Bias Bob" lived up to his name and decided to threaten me to garner more generous services? Who are people going to believe - the person with fewer or higher posts?
Lastly, using the same example, I am not convinced that "Bias Bob" needs to care about his reputation as highly as you have suggested...he can always get a new handle and stop posting...then no one would know.

First off; I see your handle and the number of posts (4). First thing comes to mind – I have no idea who you are. We have a resident chameleon on this board who takes great delight in exploring his feminine side and slipping one over on the others is a great ego booster. So personally I tend a bit more to deal with the argument than the arguer. That is how you deal with childishness and some reviewers aren't much different. So for openers I will assume you are genuine and take you at your word. And, in that sense, board pedigree depends a lot more on number of posts and their quality. Also members do tend to know each other by handle and style. Unqualified credibility is not often given. To that end taking a new handle means starting over on a long road back. The MODS also track IP's. And some members are quite astute at figuring out when a member tries to change handles as a couple of undesirables have discovered in the past. Not perfect but it works for the most part.

Now as to format and content::

Also, review boards are themselves bias since they are skewed towards girls who provide more services than others.
It is easy to see that there is bias in the review process. What if you are a lady that provides a hand release only. Regardless of how well the lady provides the service she will always be ranked lower than a girl who provides more services. Is that really fair? Not really, shouldn't you be graded according to the service that you do offer, not graded against a client's 'wish-list' of services?

Review formatting is a topic which has arisen from time to time. And boards are constantly grappling with the issue. I notice that the board you refer to has also tried to deal with the issue. This board also has its guidelines and suggestions. Personally I feel all reviews should begin with a positive comment, be in good taste, objective, fair and sensitive. Some members have even suggested that a form style might be useful.
As for the content, well that is a different matter. The review process is actually not biased in that it is a reflection of the job description as agreed upon by the community, guys and girls both. To get consensus here would be like getting everyone to agree on a favourite colour. The sex trade has its divisions: escorts, massage and strippers and in escorting there is outcall, incall and street (with minor exceptions). They are reviewed accordingly. There are one or two industry standards in escorting, GFE and PSE. There is a list of acronyms to qualify services. But all that said, don't expect that an sp who does hand release will be rated as highly as a full service sp. Or that a mechanical full service will garner the same marks as a genuine GFE. That's how life works in everything except government. Market forces prevail.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

How many negative reviews have we actually seen here ? Aside from the ones dealing with missed appointment/cancelations ?

A rare few and for the following main reasons: (1) the basic service is pretty much standard from a provider to another, most allowing daty, dfk, mpos, msog and most providing tc and fs - makes reviewing a repetitive narration of the same circus act; (2) to a lesser extent, the phenomenon of White Knights inhibits the review process; (3) to some extent, the trouble of writing a bad review and dealing with the subsequent discussion outweigh personal benefit...

 

[infanticide]

Not every reviewer reviews every SP he sees. I've seen a few SPs in Montreal that I haven't reviewed here, but I still feel like the reviews that I have contributed have been accurate depictions of my experiences. Not reviewing every girl you see doesn't necessarily taint your credibility imo.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Reviews are a privilege not a right....

Now what really gets to me is that a client denies having met you (like I exposed on the other board)... if he lied to that... what about all his reviews? Credible? NO!!

I fail to see the point. Clients are under no obligation to review nor to disclose their dealings, neither in general terms nor in reference to specific providers.

Examples of credible reviewers being upfront about meeting outcalls yet prefer to keep their dealings with SW's undisclosed exist (not sure about the converse though ).

Athana, please describe the circumstances under which the client you referred to denied having met you.

 

[Montreal Sex City]

A reviewer denying seen this or this lady ...
A reviewer reviewing but then deleting the review ...

Etc ...

Hum ... Am I going to open a can of worm here ...

I once receive an e-mail from a client telling me about his
appointement. Telling me also that he didn't plan doing a
review and that's why he was sending me comments by
e-mail. At first, I find it ok, anyway I don't like to put
pressure on anything, it's a free world!
I had the feedback and for me,
it counts a lot !

Another time, on MSN, I had a client buzzing in to let me know
he did a review on his rendez-vous but wanted to tell me also
how...whatever, I am not here to promote anything about it.

But, and that is where again that business suprised me !
(Well, was I really suprise ... nah ! Not really )
He also said: And here it goes !

Here it goes ??? Curious, I asked him if I may know what he was
talking about ? And here what he told me:

Each time I post a review for an agency different then those I
make business with, I receive instant messages about what
the f*** I am doing there !

Hein ? Now I am lost ! But of course, it's cause I want to know
more ...

He explained to me how some people (and I won't mention if they
are other agencies, independants, or friends of agencies/indies or
friends of friends that pushes for the sames friends of friends lol!)
That are making misplaced comments to the reviewer cause of his
review !

I could go on and on with this, but I will leave it to those who has
the same courage to tell us about those pratices going around !

So now we all wonder why there is not more reviews on the board ?
Do we really all of us want to answer to this ? Come on, must be
at least few more reasons then the one we have heard so far.
Talking about blackmailling about ladies around, what about
blackmailling clients !


Any other comments on this one !

?

 

[eastender]

Correct

How about just announcing to the provider/agency owner that you are an active member of Merb, would that not taint the process from the start as well? The provider/agency owner can evaluate the possibility for a review without you even have to utter the word "review".

Correct. Given the range of boards I did not want the comment to be limited to one.

Critics for newspapers, etc simply review their niche unannounced. The restaurant critic does not tell the restaurant to be reviewed, etc. Granted such critics are paid and other procedures are in place, usually a witness, etc.

At a very basic level saying anything that implies an advantage would taint the process.

 

[eastender]

Advantage

So in a sense it can be perceived as a subtle way of blackmailing, right?

Hard to say.

In certain circumstances introducing oneself as "XYZ from Toronto" does not have the same impact as "XYZ from Merb". I would limit the difference to an advantage as opposed to blackmail. The advantage might be as simple as implying a greater knowledge of the game akin to a hockey fan implying same by saying they are from Montreal.

Conversely I would be curious as to how agencies and indies track responses.
If distinct contact emails are dedicated to distinct boards then the pendulum might swing in the other direction. A dedicated email could imply that the potential customer is board savy and this should be considered.

Likewise if the potential customer is asked on the phone how he learned about the agency and he replies Merb, then I doubt that truthfulness should be viewed as blackmail or seeking an advantage. How the agency interprets this is another matter.

 

[eastender]

No Obligation

Hard to say? Well I agree.
So tell me if a poster do not write a review after he's seen an Indy, can his non-action be called a lie by the provider on a review board?

No obligation to write a review.

If a review was somehow implied or demanded then it becomes awkward.
A "he said, she said" situation is never easy to pin down. Assuming your portrayal is 100% accurate then technically he reneged on an agreement but he did not lie. If the agreement was coerced then it would not have any standing.

 

[eastender]

Fill in the Gaps

Maxima;

It's not the fact of not writing a review... the fact is he said he never met me!

That's not true... so it's a LIE!

Athena,

Something is missing here. I assume you are referring to a situation reported elsewhere and transported here. I missed the pre Merb episode.


Please put things in context. If you do not wish to repeat a bad experience I will understand.

 

[eastender]

Conflicting Criteria

OK!

I`ll try and leave this clear on my side.

I check this "gentleman`s" Outcall Spreadsheet/Summary Reviews (where he wrote about all the Ladies he has seen) and don`t see my name there, so I ask him why he hasn`t put my name on the Spreadsheet (what is a Spreadsheet for?)... so he tells me that he has NEVER met me; and after that, well the "happy" ending of insults on the boards and by PM!

I don`t care about the review, but from there to have the "courage" of telling me that he has never met me... humm! (this member even contacted me via PM to set-up the appointment, so his handle was very visible)

I`m sure that if Mods would want they would be able to find out (because I deleted that PM after the meeting took place) if this is true or not; but again aren`t PM`s suppose to be private?
I don`t want to start a "battle" here! What good is it going to bring? More insults on my person and my kids? No thank you!

I do my business... and I`ll let him with his business; if he feels "put to wall" that is his problem, not mine!

I was just asking for an explanation! My mistake, I recognize!

This story for me is put behind! Finished!

Ciao;

Athana

PS. Lets not just focus on my experience on this thread... lets go back to the topic and see if in fact there is Bad Review Blackmail (SP`s & Board Members)... i`m really interested on this thread.

See your point.

The criteria for spreadsheets is rather fluid and may conflict at times with board review policies. The question of a time lag is also at issue since some post entries quickly while others wait to reflect and avoid linkage or recognition.

Regardless this is not an excuse for insults or what followed.

You are correct that this thread is interesting to say the least.

 

[Regular Guy]

Reverse Blackmail!

Just as an interesting twist to it all, can we say that clients may also be vulnerable to blackmail. I will not go into detail about source but have been told by a member I consider to be reliable that it has happened to them in the past. A regular who at some point had discussed (either by design or accident) personal info with an sp was sent a blackmail pm to ensure loyalty. There is no question that it can get a bit rough out there as this is an activity which exists in the twilight zone, so to speak. And I can see something like this happening. I think that it would be fair to say that there are unscrupulous types on both sides.

We can't expect integrity and trust as a given here. Nor can we expect honesty or even facility with the process of reviewing. And when an sp joins in, in self defense, it can turn into a he said/she said thing. Perhaps a more formal approach should be mandated. Not sure here. The system does seem to work though imperfectly at times in that members generally act in good faith and bad actors are often exposed by their own postings.

 

[HornyForEver]

Ethics

I failed to understand. So he met the SP but he said he never met that SP....so what? What was the damage to the SP because of that "lie"? So because of that "lie" should all of his reviews of other SPs be dismissed as lies as suggested? So because of that "lie" should he be accused of blackmailing as suggested?
Go figure!

I agree with you and I am not sure if this SP is really in a position to lecture us about ethics and integrity. There is still a heavy cloud of suspicion around some of the reviews that were written about her. If I was in that member's position, I would have also lied and answered no. This SP has already admitted that she keeps phone numbers of the clients who call her, maybe for unlimited periods of time. She is also very confrontational on the boards, so it is no surprise that any member who is not in good terms with her will keep denying that he saw her in the past. This same SP tried to find out my real identity after I wrote some posts on the other board about a suspicious review.

I visit less and less the boards to avoid reading the whining and the frustrations of this and and another SP. We already have enough nagging with our girlfriends and wives and we really don't need to pay for that.

I see the whole thing as an insecure SP who felt frustrated/jealous/inferior because a senior member did not bother to review her and not even to include her in the spreadsheet and she was the one who dragged him into that flame war. His only mistake for now is that he fell into that trap.

On the topic of blackmailing clients. I find the word blackmailing to be a bit exagereated. Though, I paid in the past for negative reviews I wrote on the board. Once with an outcall. The agency owner sent me a friendly PM asking when did the encounter take place. I naively replied. A few weeks later, I called back the agency. The owner asked me first if I was the one who wrote the review on the board. I denied of course. She said OK, but added that no girls were available. The review was by no means rude. I just said that the girl's service was mechanical. Another incident happened last year with a stripper.

I don't disclose my handle and I agree with others that disclosing handles to providers nullifies the reviews or at least taints them. Credible members do not introduce themselves as being board members. So, SPs should already feel suspicious when a client tells them his handle.

So, I would not be surprised to hear that there is pressure on some members from some providers who have a glowing-reviews-only policy.

 

[Dee]

It's not clear to me which happened. What started the problem?

1. Did the poster initially post, without any stimulus, that he had not seen Athena? (as opposed to just being silent about it).

or

2. Did Athena post or suggest he had seen her without him initially in any way posting that he hadn't?

If its case #1 I can see her responding publically although it might have been wiser not to.

If its case #2 it would be worrisome to have a SP publicize the fact when it would be obvious that the client did not want to do so.

(I think what happened was that the poster reviewed a number of SP's and didn't mention Athena, she inquired publically about that, and then he denied having seen her. If this is correct it would fall into situation #2.)