Best Agency of the Year for 2011

[freezin]

I vote for CandyShop/CP

 

[ultraman]

1 Montreal sex city 2Les jardins de madisson, 3 Montreal lust

 

[GiveAndTake]

Eleganza
Candy/Chloe
xxxtase

 

[Drake2]

In my 2011 experiences

1: Asservissante - Martin & Tony are far above and beyond any other agency owners in being a pleasure to deal with, close to always on time.

I vote Asservissante for the above reasons. They are my go to agency.

Second I vote for xxxtase. They are not as good as they used to be but my current ATF is on their roster so they get a mention.

 

[Mod 8]

Any SP who works for any agency is free to change for another agency whenever they wish and agencies can charge whatever rates they feel the market can support. If those rates are more than you wish to pay it is your choice not to pay them.

My votes in order go to Candyshop, Eleganza and Montreal Sex City. Asservissante gets honorable mention and Gof/Devilish,xxxtase and Angels now get very little of my business. Angels for their ridiculous attempt to set fees higher and steal girls from other agencies and the other 2 just don't provide sp's with good service in my opinion. There are some smaller operations I won't bother to comment on for now.

 

[luv2kayak]

Since you asked, I'll give my opinion. And I should preface this by acknowleging that I am one of those who was disqualified in the nomination process. I'm not trying to argue whether or not many of us should have been disqualified, as I agree that it appeared that most seemed to be in favor of using the qualifications that were applied, so it is what it is.
But anyway, by my count less than 100 MERB members qualified and participated in these nominations. That's out of a total membership of over 39,000. My point is that that's less than 1% of the total MERB membership, and in my opinion I think we need to try and include as many members as possible in the voting to get a better sample size and have a more meaningful representation of the membership.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, and as was stated earlier in this thread it's your poll and you can do as you please. :smile:

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

My point is that that's less than 1% of the total MERB membership, and in my opinion I think we need to try and include as many members as possible in the voting to get a better sample size and have a more meaningful representation of the membership.

I'm not sure why you were excluded. While you are new to the board, you have shown considerable effort in posting at least one extensive review. While you only have 24 posts, I know of at least one poster with over 5000 posts on this board an not a single review.

I do see your point, but this is a community and we're here to share information. If restricting a poll such as this will help stimulate more participation, more power to it.

 

[CS Martin]

I'm not sure why you were excluded. While you are new to the board, you have shown considerable effort in posting at least one extensive review. While you only have 24 posts, I know of at least one poster with over 5000 posts on this board an not a single review.

I do see your point, but this is a community and we're here to share information. If restricting a poll such as this will help stimulate more participation, more power to it.

So to extend your "rationale", would it be fair to say that a fully disabled person who's never paid taxes and does nothing but draw benefits should lose their ability to vote in political elections? Futher, what if a person who's served in the armed forces and is now disabled for over 5 years be denied their voting privaledges in political elections? Should an individual that's not part of the recognized electorate be denied voting also? Where is the line and by what right do they set the line? Democracy, think about it.....

Now if I'm correct the next move will be to attack those questioning the policy rather than actually discussing the rules....this should be good.

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

So to extend your "rationale", would it be fair to say that a fully disabled person who's never paid taxes and does nothing but draw benefits should lose their ability to vote in political elections? Futher, what if a person who's served in the armed forces and is now disabled for over 5 years be denied their voting privaledges in political elections? Should an individual that's not part of the recognized electorate be denied voting also? Where is the line and by what right do they set the line? Democracy, think about it.....

Congratulations, CS. That's the most bizarre attempt at an analogy I've come across in at least 30 years. C'mon, 'fess up, you're channelling Daydreamer now, aren't you.

 

[CS Martin]

CS,

I appreciate help about voting for escorts no matter who it is. But, mods take note, there will be absolutely no political extensions allowed in this thread. "Democracy" as to who should vote among the qualified hobbyists is one thing. "Disabled person who's never paid taxes" are NOT included. There are political threads for this.

Thanks,

Merlot

M,

The questions were posed in "allegorical sense". Perhaps you're unable to understand it in such an intellectual context? Now where did I put that 4th grade reader?

 

[rumpleforeskiin]

The questions were posed in "allegorical sense". Perhaps you're unable to understand it in such an intellectual context? Now where did I put that 4th grade reader?

Oh, please. Now go back to the 7th grade grammar text and look up allegory again. You're not even close. Perhaps you meant "analogy" as your syntax would lead in that direction. The logic in it, or lack thereof, however, is nothing short of bizarre.

 

[man77777]

- Chloe's P (price, price, price)
- Angel Escorts

 

[Parkyboy]

- Candy Shop/Chloe's Playground

- MSC

- XXXtase

 

[Lovemaker]

Perhaps you're unable to understand it in such an intellectual context?

Please don't blind us by your intellect and education again.

 

[Lovemaker]

So to extend your "rationale", would it be fair to say that a fully disabled person who's never paid taxes and does nothing but draw benefits should lose their ability to vote in political elections? Futher, what if a person who's served in the armed forces and is now disabled for over 5 years be denied their voting privaledges in political elections? Should an individual that's not part of the recognized electorate be denied voting also? Where is the line and by what right do they set the line? Democracy, think about it.....

Even Chris Angel would be left confused by this magical display of utter brilliance. Are you a savant by any chance?

Congratulations, CS. That's the most bizarre attempt at an analogy I've come across in at least 30 years.

ROFL!!!!!!! I understand what you mean Rumple but also please try to understand that this is his greatest intellectual work in over 30 years

 

[anon_vlad]

So to extend your "rationale", would it be fair to say that a fully disabled person who's never paid taxes and does nothing but draw benefits should lose their ability to vote in political elections? Futher, what if a person who's served in the armed forces and is now disabled for over 5 years be denied their voting privaledges in political elections? Should an individual that's not part of the recognized electorate be denied voting also? Where is the line and by what right do they set the line? Democracy, think about it.....

Now if I'm correct the next move will be to attack those questioning the policy rather than actually discussing the rules....this should be good.

Analogies should be employed to inspire reasoning, not to reason inductively.

Your analogy is weak and inapplicable as disenfranchising groups of people would severely change society. I don't see any terrible harm in restricting voting in an online survey about escort agencies.

Here's my analogy:
Don't you agree that a a survey pertaining to the handling of Lamborghinis should be restricted to the tiny proportion of the population who have driven such cars?

 

[quest]

eleganza and angel escort

 

[Lovemaker]

Here's my analogy:
Don't you agree that a a survey pertaining to the handling of Lamborghini should be restricted to the tiny proportion of people who have driven such cars?

Great analogy, Now this makes sense! I agree with you anon_vlad, and I couldn't say it any better.

 

[Merlot]

Hello all,

NOMINATIONS CLOSED.

Angel Escorts - Merlot, thegreatwalooo, quest, ManApart, MasterPuppet, TheHeat, WoodyWoody, GuitarPlaya, cloudsurf, suikoden_45, sebseb, man77777, quest (13)

Asservissante - sweetwater, rumpleforeskiin, Doc Holliday, mike279, cloudsurf, lesolide, reverdy, Justforfun, sapman99, sergejean, nylonlover, pat98, Special K, foxwilly, hormone, lovelegs, darkside99, suikoden_45, Rex Kramer, Drake2 (20)

Candy Shop/Chloe's Playground - sweetwater, Doc Holliday, cpp433, mike279, snoodle, lesolide, evillethings, nylonlover, pat98, Crazydan, Conan, Special K, chadnyc, lovelegs, *BIGMC*, Guy7777, rumpleforeskiin, sapman99, foxwilly, hormone, nycbadboy128, suikoden_45, Touch, DM.Goya, sebseb, Hal, avgjoe, cloudsurf, Rex Kramer, pyjama guy, freezin, GiveAndTake, man77777, Parkyboy (34)

Chocolate Love Divas - pat98 (1)

Devilish/MGOF - amazona, snoodle, Hal (3)

Eleganza - thegreatwalooo, quest, sweetwater, quest, rumpleforeskiin, Doc Holliday, Kansas Frank, lesolide, reverdy, ManApart, evillethings, sapman99, sergejean, johnmbot Conan, Special K, foxwilly, hormone, Maddogwill, chadnyc, lovelegs, panthere, TheHeat, WoodyWoody, Hal, Rex Kramer, pyjama guy, GiveAndTake, quest (29)

Girls4U - montreal_monk01, DM.Goya (2)

Goodgirls - avgjoe (1)

Les Jardin de Madison - Ultraman (1)

Montreal Angels - amazona, (1)

Montreal Lust - Merlot, ezekiel, Justforfun, Ultraman (4)

Montreal Sex City - ezekiel, Kansas Frank, Cat Daddy, nylonlover, Conan, Touch, avgjoe, nycbadboy128, pyjama guy, Ultraman, Parkyboy (11)

Nadya's VIPs - ManApart, sergejean, WoodyWoody, DM.Goya (4)

Satin Dreamz - ezekiel, mike279, Justforfun, montreal_monk01, Touch (5)

XXXTASE - Merlot, amazona, quest, cloudsurf, snoodle, reverdy, evillethings, montreal_monk01, GiveAndTake, Drake2, Parkyboy (11)


Quest voted at 12:01 am...let's just say I was a minute late locking the door. His vote didn't change who would make the poll.


KEY QUALIFICATION RULES:

1. A minimum of 20 posts to establish posting history before Jan 1, 2012.

2. A credible review with some useful service information before Jan 1, 2012 as a standard to establish some proof of being an active credible hobbyist of escorts.

***If you have not been added to the nomination list if you posted before the latest update time it's because you did not qualify. But participation by all contributors is appreciated.

Check how your vote was recorded and if you want a change or a mistake was made send a PM or make a note.

QUESTION:

Everyone who gave an opinion approved weeding out those with less than 20 posts and none or very superficial reviews. Since I cannot prevent them from voting, does the membership approve of an official vote count at the end of the voting that would weed out those who didn't qualify for making nominations?

If so, only the number of those who did not qualify to vote for each agency would be given, no names would be used. But a list of the disqualified would be provided to the mods for the agencies in case of dispute.

Or should the vote be left as is?

COMMENT??? Mods included.

Since you asked, I'll give my opinion. And I should preface this by acknowleging that I am one of those who was disqualified in the nomination process. I'm not trying to argue whether or not many of us should have been disqualified, as I agree that it appeared that most seemed to be in favor of using the qualifications that were applied, so it is what it is.
But anyway, by my count less than 100 MERB members qualified and participated in these nominations. That's out of a total membership of over 39,000. My point is that that's less than 1% of the total MERB membership, and in my opinion I think we need to try and include as many members as possible in the voting to get a better sample size and have a more meaningful representation of the membership.
Anyway, that's just my opinion, and as was stated earlier in this thread it's your poll and you can do as you please. :smile:

Over the years of the boards existence a low percentage of members have written reviews, but that situation doesn't negate the reviews.

I don't see it as my poll and to make it more inclusive I have asked for the opinion of the membership, even those who still keep their 4th grade reader, for their opinions. That's how much I have tried to make it Merb's poll. Someone is going to be administrator. Keeping the details open to the opinions of the membership is the point, so an admittedly imperfect effort was made to make the nominations more credible.

The problem always has been shills and credibility. It was very easy and quick to check a member's history and see some just don't write real reviews, only post when polls come up to promote the same lady, or created a new handle after the nominations began to tilt the numbers. Unfortunately the method of post counts can exclude very legitimate members. That's why the qualifications were so low at 20 posts. Other problems included disingenuous nominations such as one admitting never even having been to Montreal in 2011 while still nominating agencies for the same year. You see the problems.

Even the mods probably can't be precisely sure about everyone who is legitimate and who isn't. We know there are banned members sneaking onto the board. Since members wanted more legitimacy I tried to do so.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[luv2kayak]

Fair enough, Merlot.
I understand your reasoning, and that you applied the qualifying criteria for these nominations that the majority of the members wanted, and I don't have a problem with that. I personally will refrain from voting in the final poll until it's determined what qualifying criteria will be applied.
And I just wanted to add my thanks for your efforts on behalf of the MERB members in conducting this poll.