Bad Review Blackmail

[eastender]

Perhaps.................

Yes, To be quite honest I have tried to keep any musings hypothetical. There must be a will or it will only remain good intentions. I don't wish to give the impression that I am marching down the avenue of righteousness beating a drum. I went into detail here as this issue seemed to be stirring strong emotion.



Yes, the concept of "what is a review or should be a review" would have to be defined and a strategy worked out. I do feel that it is important to distinguish between the "collateral benefits" to an agency or sp and overt initiatives to usurp the process. An outline or review format might be a great first step.

So far we are seeing the willingness to explore endorsements, testimonials and other derivatives. Perhaps once a better understanding is achieved then the review will finds its place.

Maybe we will have to have a distinct review section with a disclaimer that review in this section are for not for commercial use by agencies or providers.
Alternatively reviewers who wish to distance themselves from the commercialization could use such a disclaimer.

 

[Regular Guy]

About Being Pragmatic

So far we are seeing the willingness to explore endorsements, testimonials and other derivatives. Perhaps once a better understanding is achieved then the review will finds its place.

Maybe we will have to have a distinct review section with a disclaimer that review in this section are for not for commercial use by agencies or providers.
Alternatively reviewers who wish to distance themselves from the commercialization could use such a disclaimer.

Well I don't dispute the direction you are suggesting. Up to now I have dealt with the question in terms of ethics, perhaps as an academic exercise. But the practice has become so widespread and people so desensitized to it that you may have the more pragmatic approach. Maybe trying to stem the tide would be like trying to mop up the Atlantic ocean. It seems to have reached the stage where members only trust information exchanged on back channels. I do applaud the efforts by administrators on all boards to try to curb the unethical and dysfunctional practices described. The "Suspensions" thread and other initiatives do help. And maybe you are onto something there. In retrospect I feel I could have saved my breath arguing the ethical side of it all. But at least it's been said. Reading the discussion on both this thread and the other related thread and other related threads on other boards I suppose the conclusion would be to take a very cynical approach to this hobby and the usefulness of review boards in general. There has been very little said of a positive nature. Not exactly the type of discussion you might like to see on a membership drive. Perhaps Sapman had the best approach. Enjoy the process for yourself. Be ethical and your own critic. Take what you can from it all whatever that may be.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Cycles of subversion

So far we are seeing the willingness to explore endorsements, testimonials and other derivatives. Perhaps once a better understanding is achieved then the review will finds its place.

Maybe we will have to have a distinct review section with a disclaimer that review in this section are for not for commercial use by agencies or providers.
Alternatively reviewers who wish to distance themselves from the commercialization could use such a disclaimer.

Which distinct review section with the above-suggested disclaimer is bound to be subverted, again: history repeats itself.

Divergent interests are not easily reconcilable. Specifically, the model we know as escort review boards (quite an awkward model given it's alleged mission statement) poses the double problem of cohabitation (of buyers and sellers) and incentives (the ones to cheat being just as attractive, if not more, than other ones to not to).

Alternative models offering solutions, one for instance that would converge with the mainstream, are conceivable.

 

[eastender]

Ethical Issues

Well I don't dispute the direction you are suggesting. Up to now I have dealt with the question in terms of ethics, perhaps as an academic exercise. But the practice has become so widespread and people so desensitized to it that you may have the more pragmatic approach. Maybe trying to stem the tide would be like trying to mop up the Atlantic ocean. It seems to have reached the stage where members only trust information exchanged on back channels. I do applaud the efforts by administrators on all boards to try to curb the unethical and dysfunctional practices described. The "Suspensions" thread and other initiatives do help. And maybe you are onto something there. In retrospect I feel I could have saved my breath arguing the ethical side of it all. But at least it's been said. Reading the discussion on both this thread and the other related thread and other related threads on other boards I suppose the conclusion would be to take a very cynical approach to this hobby and the usefulness of review boards in general. There has been very little said of a positive nature. Not exactly the type of discussion you might like to see on a membership drive. Perhaps Sapman had the best approach. Enjoy the process for yourself. Be ethical and your own critic. Take what you can from it all whatever that may be.

Personally I appreciate the ethical side of the debate as it provides a solid base. Sapman's point is very valid. However you have to be vary of those that will manipulate whatever is available.