Bad Review Blackmail

[Montreal Sex City]

Hello all,





Hello all,

I am not jumping in here much because ZM and Banger seem to be saying just about all I can think of myself. With all due respects to Jessy XXX, you know I love you sweetie, they are generally right on as far as they go. I don't think reviewing belongs strictly to the client. I understand the angle ZM is trying to focus on, but because of the effects of the review the truth is broader than that. I think there is also an obligation to be as fair and considerate of the SP as possible without losing accuracy and avoiding both favoritism or prejudice. And Banger: his last paragraph couldn't say it better.

As for stealing SPs, yeah, ethically it smells to high heaven. So what do you think the "profit-motive" does, especially in the hobby which doesn't have the same legal support as other businesses. Wrong or not, stealing ladies is the color of this business. All any owner can do is make working for them preferable.

Good luck,

Korbel

With all due respect to you-us, not much are understanding
a single word of what the subject is about. Read the thread
and you will just understand what as to be understand ...
about blackmailling people

It's not about the right to review or not, rights to put it online
or not, not about the main reasons you review etc.
It's about ''few'' of some situations.

Come on, who else will try to tell me I don't get that
the reviews are use to provide some occupation.
You really think I am st**** or what ?

Ain't this thread is about blackmailling or not ?
Or maybe is it just intentional to not getting
straight on the topic ?

I do agree with ZM and banger, spiderman05 is most likely
the only one who admitted had a bad experience
cause he did a so-so review.

Why that should happen ?

Ok, just to make sure let's try that again:

*Ladies getting blackmailled by clients cause of reasons (well that
we where talking about before all the rest).

*Clients getting blackmailled by other parties (that I don't want to
mention-I think enought misunderstanding is already aligned!).

*And here's another, now that we are here, agencies getting
blackmailled from other parties (that I will let others talk
about for the same second reason I just said).

Oh, did I mention no need to tell me that reviews makes the
business run, yeah, I got that 4 years ago !

 

[eastender]

What.................

Come on, who else will try to tell me I don't get that
the reviews are use to provide some occupation.
You really think I am st**** or what ?


I do agree with ZM and banger, Eastender is most likely
the only one who admitted had a bad experience
cause he did a so-so review.

Perhaps we do not have any doubts.

Please refer to my "so-so review" and my bad experience. None was ever posted. Please reference or retract.

 

[banger]

With all due respect to you-us, not much are understanding
a single word of what the subject is about. Read the thread
and you will just understand what as to be understand ...
about blackmailling people

Jessy,

We are still talking on subject...we're just not attaching the "blackmail" word to it....

You cant accuse a member for using his handle for leverage or "blackmail" when the agencies reveal to their own SP's a members handle and reviewer status. Its a two way street....we're both using the "review" to gain an advantage.

Banger

 

[Montreal Sex City]

Perhaps we do not have any doubts.

Please refer to my "so-so review" and my bad experience. None was ever posted. Please reference or retract.

Sorry, wrong handle !

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 will edit my post and replace yours by this one.
However, we got an ''look a like'' exemple

 

[eastender]

Thank You

Sorry, wrong handle !




I will edit my post and replace yours by this one.
However, we got an ''look a like'' exemple

Thank you.

 

[korbel]

With all due respect to you-us, not much are understanding
a single word of what the subject is about. Read the thread
and you will just understand what as to be understand ...
about blackmailling people

Hello Jessy,

Yes, many have responded on that issue. But as with all threads there are always branches on the issue that members divert into. I put my two cents into the main issue long ago.

Regards,

Korbel

 

[Montreal Sex City]

Jessy,

We are still talking on subject...we're just not attaching the "blackmail" word to it....

You cant accuse a member for using his handle for leverage or "blackmail" when the agencies reveal to their own SP's a members handle and reviewer status. Its a two way street....we're both using the "review" to gain an advantage.

Banger

Yes banger I understand what you are saying. But there is a little difference
on what you are talking about and what was started here. You are talking
about some trying to get credit by using their handle, wich we agree it
does not have the same effect as many would expect.

I'll try to say clearly what I was saying on my side. I had few people &
clients telling me that they where getting blackmailled when reviewing
ladies from other agencies then the one(s) they where usually making
business with. Those situations are really happening. Not only when
reviewing for other agencies, but for other independant girls also.
Meaning that, yes clients can receive unpleasant comments from
an agency owner cause he hightly reviewed another girl then
one of his. Same for independants, he can receive not very
nice comment about the new reviewed girl cause she was
reviewed better then her. Also it happens in between
buddy-buddy on the board...almost like school yard !

At the end, possibly there is many people going around and around but,
because of the blackmailling, they don't feel free at all to review all
their encounters. It's not only a matter of having the right or not
to review all of them, it's about malicious limitation created by
few in the business. After all one of the main reason that is
said time after time, it's the final accomplishement of the
adventure. So why some, not all ? There is much more
then having the right to choose.

Nah ... nothing new here for sure ! But talking about it ...

Yes, that might be !

 

[Regular Guy]

A little further........

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 ).

Jessy,

We are still talking on subject...we're just not attaching the "blackmail" word to it....

You cant accuse a member for using his handle for leverage or "blackmail" when the agencies reveal to their own SP's a members handle and reviewer status. Its a two way street....we're both using the "review" to gain an advantage.

At the end, possibly there is many people going around and around but,
because of the blackmailling, they don't feel free at all to review all
their encounters. It's not only a matter of having the right or not
to review all of them, it's about malicious limitation created by
few in the business.

Jessy,

Just guessing here but I think the point Ziggy and Banger having been trying to put across to you is that to discuss the idea of blackmail in reviewing is meaningless unless you define clearly the concept of reviews and reviewing. The problem starts when clients pervert the process or predicate when it is clearly unwarranted. By this I mean that reviews and reviewing by nature must have the following in order to qualify as a review:

(a) a complete lack of obligation on the part of the client to disclose their dealings, neither in general terms nor in reference to specific providers.

(b) an understanding by the agency, sp or independent that reviews must be independent of all external influences.

Any expression of an encounter which transgresses (a) or (b) above ceases to be a review and becomes, let's call it, a “shill with benefits” subject to negotiation or coercion just as one might expect of any business arrangement. Your point seems to be “So what! Yeah I knew that! Big deal – review or shill with benefits. What's the difference?” There is a big difference. Talk about advantage and you are not talking about reviewing anymore. You are talking about a totally different animal. The conclusion is inescapable then. If a client or agency has perverted the process there is no review, period. This helps to define the problem more clearly. What you are dealing with now is shilling (let's call it what it is), with its corollaries: recruitment to shill, shills for sale, coercion to shill. That's it. Agency raiding I think just clouds the issue but perhaps a line or two is crossed here also.

Now you may not feel it is worthwhile to make this distinction but I will say that if this were clearer in the minds of all members and kept in mind in all discussions on this board, we just might see a greater value attributed to members who become known as true reviewers. At least it defines the ethical boundaries for all of us.

 

[Montreal Sex City]

Jessy,

Just guessing here but I think the point Ziggy and Banger having been trying to put across to you is that to discuss the idea of blackmail in reviewing is meaningless unless you define clearly the concept of reviews and reviewing. The problem starts when clients pervert the process or predicate when it is clearly unwarranted. By this I mean that reviews and reviewing by nature must have the following in order to qualify as a review:

(a) a complete lack of obligation on the part of the client to disclose their dealings, neither in general terms nor in reference to specific providers.

(b) an understanding by the agency, sp or independent that reviews must be independent of all external influences.

Any expression of an encounter which transgresses (a) or (b) above ceases to be a review and becomes, let's call it, a “shill with benefits” subject to negotiation or coercion just as one might expect of any business arrangement. Your point seems to be “So what! Yeah I knew that! Big deal – review or shill with benefits. What's the difference?” There is a big difference. Talk about advantage and you are not talking about reviewing anymore. You are talking about a totally different animal. The conclusion is inescapable then. If a client or agency has perverted the process there is no review, period. This helps to define the problem more clearly. What you are dealing with now is shilling (let's call it what it is), with its corollaries: recruitment to shill, shills for sale, coercion to shill. That's it. Agency raiding I think just clouds the issue but perhaps a line or two is crossed here also.

Now you may not feel it is worthwhile to make this distinction but I will say that if this were clearer in the minds of all members and kept in mind in all discussions on this board, we just might see a greater value attributed to members who become known as true reviewers. At least it defines the ethical boundaries for all of us.

Oh la la ! That one, you pulled it out of a hat !

Just forget all about it.

Goodnite and good luck !

 

[Regular Guy]

Oh la la ! That one, you pulled it out of a hat !

Just forget all about it.

Goodnite and good luck !

Well don't get mad. I wasn't taking a shot at you. If you disagree with how I interpreted the following then read my comments and give me your take on it. This is what I was getting from this statement:

At the end, possibly there is many people going around and around but,
because of the blackmailling, they don't feel free at all to review all
their encounters. It's not only a matter of having the right or not
to review all of them, it's about malicious limitation created by
few in the business.

So what I get from this is that a few in the business are redefining how everyone should review. Is this correct?

Also:

Yes banger I understand what you are saying. But there is a little difference
on what you are talking about and what was started here.

That difference is what I have been trying to point out here and I think a couple of the guys. The concept of blackmail may be how the thread started but perhaps the answer lies in how we define reviews and reviewing. Look, you can go round and round on the topic of coercion in the business. You can talk about agency raiding and threats to ensure customer loyalty but unless you take this discussion further like into defining reviews and reviewing the whole thing is simply going to turn into a big venting session. You aren't going to make a dent in it. That was my point and I think, theirs. By defining reviews and reviewing in the context which Ziggy did then the concept of blackmailing in reviews can be seen more clearly for what it actually is. It's not an answer to the unscrupulous practices engaged in by some members and agency owners but at least it brings a little more light onto the topic.

 

[naughtylady]

It happens and will continue to happen.

When I first became a member here and did not have any reviews a senior well respected poster (who has long since left the board) had asked me for a discount in exchange for a positive review.

I told him that my rates were already reasonable and that I would prefer an honest review than a bribed positive one. People will try to save money. Some people are vindictive. Other people are not. Some reviews are written too soon and there is the rose coloured glasses effect. Some are written so long after the memory of the details is less than perfect.

All reviews must be taken with a grain of salt.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

 

[Regular Guy]

To conclude......

It happens and will continue to happen.

When I first became a member here and did not have any reviews a senior well respected poster (who has long since left the board) had asked me for a discount in exchange for a positive review.

I told him that my rates were already reasonable and that I would prefer an honest review than a bribed positive one. People will try to save money. Some people are vindictive. Other people are not. Some reviews are written too soon and there is the rose coloured glasses effect. Some are written so long after the memory of the details is less than perfect.

All reviews must be taken with a grain of salt.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

Just to conclude the direction in my two posts above:

First let's deal with intent. Not all reviewers are as skilled or objective or what have you. Second there are those who are deliberately dishonest. I, for one, have never made the claim that the process is perfect but there are steps that can be taken to improve the situation. From time to time someone brings these ideas up in a thread. It's all about whether the will is there.

Discuss the issue and define the problem areas. I think this discussion is a good start. I don't pretend to have the answers but if there is enough will then something like the following might be a start:

Be prepared to ask MOD's to get on board with some ideas to at least curb some of the problems:
For example: greater assistance with making a review. Being more prescriptive about what qualifies as a review. Perhaps a form format might be an idea to help deal with the rose coloured glasses thing or the false memory issue. The only direction on any board comes from the top. Will you get all members on board. Probably not. But risking the wrath of the MOD's can give a person pause.

Second deal with transgression. The only true sanctions available here are banning(MOD's), shunning(membership) and exposure (loss of reputation and credibility). Dialogue is the key. Define and state the ethics concerning reviews. A board policy statement might be made in the strongest terms putting the emphasis on freedom from influence and that just may have to include the obligation to post or not post or whether to disclose merb identities to sp's in advance. At least the pitfalls should be examined. I did deliberately take a few liberties with interpreting the discussion in this thread but my point is that discussion can lead to new insights and direction. Also when the expectations are made clear it may just put that extra bit of pressure on the transgressors. I can think of a character or two who was drummed right off the board and we all know who they are. Don't expect this kind of thing to be taken seriously until the whole community does.

Or third? Do nothing! Accept it as part of doing business and every once in awhile start a thread like this one and bitch and complain. But I think you will find that after awhile people just stop reading.

 

[infanticide]

I've only been here around a year but I've seen some reviews get removed by mods for being blatantly derogatory or whatever, so there are safeguards in place. I haven't had a "bad" encounter in Montreal yet, I've had a few weird ones though, and I think that its possible to give constructive feedback in a review thread without making personal attacks or derogatory remarks.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Please provide details

[sic] I had few people &
clients telling me that they where getting blackmailled when reviewing
ladies from other agencies then the one(s) they where usually making
business with. Those situations are really happening. Not only when
reviewing for other agencies, but for other independant girls also.
Meaning that, yes clients can receive unpleasant comments from
an agency owner cause he hightly reviewed another girl then
one of his. Same for independants, he can receive not very
nice comment about the new reviewed girl cause she was
reviewed better then her. Also it happens in between
buddy-buddy on the board...almost like school yard !

At the end, possibly there is many people going around and around but,
because of the blackmailling, they don't feel free at all to review all
their encounters. It's not only a matter of having the right or not
to review all of them, it's about malicious limitation created by
few in the business. After all one of the main reason that is
said time after time, it's the final accomplishement of the
adventure. So why some, not all ? There is much more
then having the right to choose.

Jessy,

Can you elaborate on the cases you are referring to, specifically on the nature of the "unpleasant comments" agency owners addressed to targeted clients?

Here's a case that would qualify as blackmail:

agency owner forces client to review his girls exclusively by threatening to reveal (to wife, for instance) his dealings with escorts or other incriminating facts about him."

And a case that, although it perverts the review process, would not qualify as blackmail:

agency owner reprimands client (or threatens to cut privileges such as discounted pricing, booking priority, etc.) for having reviewed girls working for a competitor."

Going back to the subject of clients blackmailing escorts, I have yet to see, among the stories referred to on this thread, one that qualifies fully as blackmail, to cite one example:

To "threaten girls with bad reviews on MERB should they not hand out extra-special discounts", could as well qualify as coercion should the "bad review" include false information (i.e. "I met her" where, in fact, I haven't) whereas "should they not provide services they aren't comfortable with" translates into different scenarios, many of which would be based on the dynamics of provider's right to take exception to the service they advertise/don't advertise and client's right to review said providers accordingly.

Details are required otherwise there's not enough here to minimally make a case of blackmail. Whatever the case may be, the question remains: does blackmailing work or is it just another case of the stupids.

 

[eastender]

Board Legend

Whatever the case may be, the question remains: does blackmailing work or is it just another case of the stupids.

Or is it a board version of an urban legend?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Or is it a board version of an urban legend?

Either way, it gave the opportunity to reintroduce the word sleazeball into our culture.

 

[Regular Guy]

Okay Guys! Let's do this mother......!

Well there it is girls. They called it plain. Give them proof of the scope of the problem and you might just get them on board to discuss strategies for curbing this practise. Barring that, forget it. It falls into the realm of "urban legend". If you really feel this is a cause worthy of the efforts I described above then go for it.

 

[eastender]

Reviews Have Become Subverted

Well there it is girls. They called it plain. Give them proof of the scope of the problem and you might just get them on board to discuss strategies for curbing this practise. Barring that, forget it. It falls into the realm of "urban legend". If you really feel this is a cause worthy of the efforts I described above then go for it.

The issue goes beyond points aformentionned in this thread.

Basically the agencies and the Indies have subverted the review process by making it a marketing tool - evidenced by contests(agency and board sponsored) and the use of review extracts on their websites or in promos.

Now enticement may be the opposite end of coercion but it has the same impact on the review process.

 

[Montreal Sex City]

Jessy,

And a case that, although it perverts the review process, would not qualify as blackmail:

agency owner reprimands client (or threatens to cut privileges such as discounted pricing, booking priority, etc.) for having reviewed girls working for a competitor."

I knew my english was bad, but not as much as what was conclude few posts above but pretty much what it says here above

So yes ZM, accordly to what I was told, this was exactely what I was trying to explain. Even if like you said, it's doesn't seem to be blackmailling clients, it is unfortunate when these occur or let's say if you prefer, not very pleasant.

Or is it a board version of an urban legend?

Possibly not a constant practice but keep in mind that for whatever situation it applies, talking about urband legends always takes some guts !

However, take it or leave it, it's a free world. For me, the point is finally understood and I couldn't say it better then with the above example by ZM. By the way ZM, did it took you long to understand what I was trying to explain ?

One last thing:

The issue goes beyond points aformentionned in this thread.

Basically the agencies and the Indies have subverted the review process by making it a marketing tool - evidenced by contests(agency and board sponsored) and the use of review extracts on their websites or in promos.

Now enticement may be the opposite end of coercion but it has the same impact on the review process.

Marketing tool, yes I give it to you. Everything that can be developp as a marketing tool will be in any business.

And we say in french: '' Et que le meilleur gagne ! ''

 

[Dee]

How cum no one ever tries to corrupt me with kind offers? Sometimes life just isn't fair....