Board policy on escorts responding in review threads

[jeff jones]

I think that Mr. Jones and Mr. Martin are overlooking something. It's obvious by all the announced discounts that it is a buyer's market in the sex trade for now. Displaying contempt for clients and otherwise embarassing them is not going to increase business (unless masochists are in the majority at merb).

Where did i say it wasn't a buyer's market or that displaying contempt wouldn't decrease business, i simply stated a fact.

 

[johnmbot]

A lot of us Johns would find out in a hurry that we are not nearly as handsome, charming, funny or as good in bed as we may think we are.

one of the mods agree's i look like matt damon, so i think i'm pretty safe.

 

[Mod 8]

(unless masochists are in the majority at merb).

No. We moderators are in the minority here.

 

[Mod 11]

Here are some posts done in the Kaii thread that have some value here. I can't move the posts themselves because it would mess the timeline of this thread but, I'm including the time the post were done.

At 5:55pm on 07/11

I don't want to hijack an Outcall thread and am unsure of where to post this.

I understand your points and rules, but I found her posts illuminating and am glad I saw them. I absolutely don't care if people respond to my anonymous handle impolitely. I would rather than the Mods err on the side of being permissive rather than suppressing feedback, however uncivilized.

I'm sure it is true that the vast majority of us hire SPs because we can't get young, attractive women to fuck us for free. I also believe that most SPs work as such to support a lifestyle which their studies and work ethic would not ordinarily entitle them. I believe that it is an equal bargain. IMHO, neither clients nor SPs are better or worse than the other.

Kaii's reaction reminds me of a story. A businessman, relaxing for an afternoon, was being berated at a bridge club by the professional card players. His response was: "I'm stupid, but I am a self made multi-millionaire and you jerks have no careers. The best you can do is make a few hundred dollars on a good afternoon from people who have interests other than playing games."

My reply at 6:27pm

AV, the reason is twofold:

1- If sp are allowed to barge-in in review thread and insult members at will, every time the girl gets a bad review, it won't be long there will be no bad reviews at all. Not every reviewer have a thick skin and there are many who simply won't bother for fear to get blasted. The goal of MERB is to allow the good AND the bad to be reported, as long as it's done respectfully. If Kaii would decide to become an advertiser, she would be allowed to post her side of the story, politely, without insulting anybody. That's not what she did.

2- Why only advertisers? Simple business sense: providers need to see advantages at becoming a paying advertiser. Allowing anybody to post about their services and getting exposure would not be fair to those who pay to advertise.

Thanks

Reply to my post at 6:58pm

I have to agee with Mod 11 here. As much as I enjoyed a healthy exchange of opinions this afternoon, I felt NJDude was may have been somewhat intimidated after simply giving his honest opinion. The deleted parts of the thread tend to confirm this, as does NJDude's decision to delete his comments. Guys let's face it, many of the guys who use services of SP's simply aren't able to have experiences with desireable ladies. So they fufill their fantasies with SPs who provide the experience. I see no reason why a performer/SP should be able to provide feedback on the experience for many reasons:
1) The SPs (and we all have recognized this) simply don't have a high opinion of us. This will undoubtedly come thru in their comments. This will further tend to inhibit what members post
2) "Privacy" (and I almost choke when I say the word in association with Montreal) is part of what a client pays for in his fees. How many SPs do you really think will have a truthfully good thing to say about many of their customers. Guys, do you really want the SP's commenting on your technique.

EB, you or Doc may not have a problem with this, however this highlights your lack of empathy to the average Joe who simply wants a good experience. I fear you and the other "Senior Posters" have lost touch with the point of these boards. Thus, the lack of good information available to the "Average Joe"

Thus your attitude may result in more nubies simply opting not post their experiences if they know they too will be critiqued. Yup, you got it and I admit it......I'm for the "Average Joe" and always have been. I've been shouted down by most of the Senior Posters here. It's this very lack of empathy to the lurker, the nubie, the average guy that is snuffing out the flow of information.

EB, I have a question for you. How in the fuck do you know NJDude will get over it? You're applying your standards and thickened skin to his mind and feelings. Do explain, I can't wait....Do you have some crystal balls I'm not aware of?

At 8:04pm

If we allow SPs to respond to bad reviews, no one would ever post one. We would also have to allow them to respond to good reviews and then review threads would be filled with thank you posts in the nature of "thank you, sweetie. I had a great time too. XOXOXO" It would never end and valuable information would vanish from the board. This has already been attempted in the past and that was the result. It will not be tried again.

As for her post in this thread, if it had been made by any member it would have been removed and earned a suspension.

We have asked NJDude for permission to restore his post but as all members on MERB are in control of their own posts, the decision rests in his hands alone.

M8

 

[Jman47]

Allo everyone,

I have been reserving commentary on this thread, but some of the things CS said made me chuckle and also hit home.

And based upon our experience, you believe an SP (by their very nature "illusionists") are going to tell anywhere near the truth??.....LOL.

I had to chuckle about this...CS I certainly hope you are not delusional enough (lol...I know your not) to think every guy who posts here is nearly as good as he states in his reviews or by any means that the view of the SP would match his ... if taken in an "independant" survey. We are all "illusionists"...it's the nature of the game, its part of the fantasy.

Now a litlte about privacy. In my opinion the following is true:
1) Guys these agencies and indies in Montreal pass your information around like popcorn.
2) The e-mail lists, phone numbers and names are e-mailed from one to the other.
3) They discuss your habits and preferences and physical description

Absolutely accurate in my opinion...of course there is an "underground" of info.
It pays to be discreet and a little mysterious....

Relative to the original topic and subject matter...I personally would find in very appropriate and enjoyable to see SP's post comments...IF...as someone said they would remain above board and professional. However, as we have seen displayed many times by members...it does not always happen that way(damn sports threads...lol) and sometimes posts are made in haste (and without thinking) and that will surely keep M8 and M11 very busy...

Have fun,

Jman

 

[Eddiemn]

Honestly, i know that i am not attractive, not charming and probably not good in bed. This is why i call agency. The idea of a sp coming here to tell me the truth about me isn't something that i want. It will break the magic completely. But if i write on a board about her, she have the right to respond. I try to be respectful in all my post and review, i expect the same thing from her.

 

[hormone]

I'm all for allowing ONE SINGLE polite-respectful, not self-promoting response from the SP herself, within the same limits of respect and discretion and consequences as are imposed to all others. Simple "thank you's" or "I liked it too" should not be allowed.
I always like to get both sides to a story. I also judge the character of the SP by how she responds-- if she is articulate and respectful, it may make me want to see her more. If she is juvenile and insulting, I will porbably cross her off my list.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I'm all for allowing ONE SINGLE polite-respectful, not self-promoting response from the SP herself, within the same limits of respect and discretion and consequences as are imposed to all others. Simple "thank you's" or "I liked it too" should not be allowed.
I always like to get both sides to a story. I also judge the character of the SP by how she responds-- if she is articulate and respectful, it may make me want to see her more. If she is juvenile and insulting, I will porbably cross her off my list.

Ironically the same hypocrites who are advocating the policy of not allowing an SP to reply previously posted that they would not see Kaii because of the "attitude" that was evidenced by her reply. It simply does not get any more hypocritical than this. On the one hand we have an admission that Kaii's deleted post provided information in choosing whether to see her, and from the other fork of the same tongue we have repeated posts saying she should not have been allowed to post at all.

As far as I am concerned the sole criteria in allowing one reply is the informational value.

All of these arguments that SPs should not be allowed to post because such posts will hurt the feelings of the reviewers are hugely presumptuous, condescending and insulting to board members and are also misogynistic. As far as I am concerned any poster whose feelings are hurt is a girlie man and his review is probably worthless if he will delete it based on criticism or retort from the SP. I don't assume that, however. I assume that most posters have the intelligence or the guts to accept constructive criticism. Some years ago, I repeated with an SP who, in person and not on the board, criticized a review I wrote about her. She felt that there were too many personal details, in particular with regard to her ethnic background which I had mentioned in my review. I went back and revised the review to say that she was "Asian" rather than the countries/states in Asia that comprised her ethnicity. It was simply the respectful thing to do.

But the line of reasoning being promoted in this thread for not allowing any replies is both hypocritical and disrespectful. It assumes that all reviewers on MERB are babies who cannot handle criticism. It assumes that SPs have nothing worthwhile to say and they are all liars or "illusionists." It assumes that no informational value can attach to such posts, although the lead hypocrite posted to say that based on Kaii's reply her attitude was such that he would not see her - a tacit admission that Kaii's reply had informational value to him such that he could make a choice to see her or not. Unfortunately I am not in a position to expose the full extent of the hypocrisy because all of the posts were deleted. But that does not change what it is, a bunch of fucking bullshit for all the reasons set forth above.

The real reason for this policy to ban such replies is that allowing such replies will create too much work for the Mods. I actually accept that reason more than the others, but nobody has been honest enough to admit to it. I say shame on everyone who has advocated this policy.

 

[Mod 8]

Eager Beaver,

The real reason for this policy is to avoid seeing review threads cluttered with arguments and back and forth discussions between providers and clients. MERB exists to privide useful information and the ease of finding that information would be destroyed if this were to be permitted. Members complain enough as it is that they cannot find anything using the search function. Imagine if searching for reviews on an SP were to give you dozens of her own posts as a result instead of useful reviews. The rule about only allowing advertisers to respond is a valid one as it allows us to verify the identity of the agency or SP. Otherwise there is no possible way to verify that the person responding is actually who they say they are. If you can provide a way around this verification problem I would like to hear it. And of course, MERB requires advertising revenue to exist and that revenue would be diminished if all SPs could get free visibility by simply responding to every review made on them.

As far as the question of providing extra workload for the mods, if that were all that concerned us neither the lounge or sports forums would exist as they take the majority of a moderators time to moderate, much more so than the review or 411 threads.

And I will repeat once again, if Kaii's post had been made by any other member it would have been removed and a suspension issued. It was disrespectful and insulting and did not belong on this board. That is a non issue.

Mod 8

 

[jeff jones]

As far as I am concerned the sole criteria in allowing one reply is the informational value.

The real reason for this policy to ban such replies is that allowing such replies will create too much work for the Mods. I actually accept that reason more than the others, but nobody has been honest enough to admit to it. I say shame on everyone who has advocated this policy.

I myself would love to see them post, the good the bad and the ugly and allow posters to come to there own conclusions on the particular sp but i agree the reason it won't happen is quite often it would become a shootout and create a bunch of work for the mods but all posters are using board handles, not there real name so they should be able to take it, plus there is the issue of free advertising and verifying that the poster is who they say they are. So there would be lots of problems but to bad it couldn't get worked out. The board would be more interesting.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I myself would love to see them post, the good the bad and the ugly and allow posters to come to there own conclusions on the particular sp but i agree the reason it won't happen is quite often it would become a shootout and create a bunch of work for the mods but all posters are using board handles, not there real name so they should be able to take it, plus there is the issue of free advertising and verifying that the poster is who they say they are. So there would be lots of problems but to bad it couldn't get worked out. The board would be more interesting.

Basically this post is a good summary of the issue. The real problem is that the moderational decisions would be too difficult to handle because of the multiplicity of the issues created by a one reply rule, but I still would like to see it experimented with on a 30 day trial basis. I suspect that not many of these ladies would reply, because they would be told not to by agency owners, but now and then you would see a Kaii type reply where difficult decisions would have to be made by the Mods. Personally if I were Mod I would have possibly edited some of the language used by Kaii but not deleted all of her post. It's easier to delete than to edit. But that does take work, as does deciding if it is real and if it is made to get free advertising (I don't think that was the case on Kaii's reply, the main issue with it was that it was somewhat insulting). On balance though, if the one reply exception to the rule were implemented, I doubt we would see very many SPs responding, so the concerns are probably very overstated by those who are voicing them. We'll never know, of course, since there seems to be no interest in having this type of an experiment.

 

[Royal]

Ok, two things:
a) I don't think the whole escort service attempt at keeping it "all" a secret is that much of a big deal, if you follow all of CS Martin's rule, its probably cause you're married or are ashamed of your own actions requiring such services. Also, most agencies are competitors, I doubt they share information as liberally as CS seems to think. Frankly, all of this sound overboard. Pick a girl with a hidden face at an agency picture, and that generally means she too has a private life and wants to keep it so... which makes your position that much more safer.
b) I'll politely ask the mods to cut the crap about paid forum arguments etc... I own a forum that can house this site just as much, and to be honest, it costs me peanuts, peanuts.... and although I'll admit that I don't know how much you charge for the advertisements (monthly, yearly), had I been charging for such services, I'd make a good profit margin for sure, considering that the cost of upkeep for a forum like this one would be/is virtually nill. The right/priviledge to replying to threads based on payment (due to upkeep costs) is an easy argument to which few can rebuttle, because they have no clue, how much it costs, to keep a site forum running (Even if my forum is SMF based and not vBulletin, it ends up being pretty much the same...) So, let's drop that argument out of the pond cause it ain't holding any weight in water. Money, forum upkeep cost, etc, isn't really an issue when it comes down to the right of replying without advertising.

I will agree that the post was made in anger, and some form of rebuttal towards that account from the mods might have been allowed, but from where I stand, I doubt that a permanent banning is the key to fairness in the present circumstances.

And as for SPs being allowed to post, SPs aren't agencies, hence they don't pay for advertisement unless they're indy, asking them to pay when they're in an agency is kind've stupid while at the same time you ban them from joining this forum completely. As for us, the reviewers, it's our duty, when we choose to post, to post as much of an accurate review and to be respectful when doing so. Reviews in which we ought to be detailed and explanatory when it comes to our rating; on the other hand the review that elicited such a reply from the SP (that gave birth to this thread) was not a true review (at least not in my book); if all reviews were like that one, we wouldn't get anywhere, we wouldn't be able to get a taste of what the SP is offering at all. It's a shitty review with nothing to offer to us and only a degrading personnal assumption of tastes which the writer specified as his own.

What are his tastes to me, they're worth nothing, and yet the mods wanted that post to remain when it was worthless in terms of info other than knowing that the writer didn't swing that way in terms of preferences. Mod11 stated to me once how some people will see a goddess in a 300pds midget, and that's a personal thing, good for them, but info like that doesn't help us merbites in assessing anything about an SP qualities, services, attitude. Frankly, even if it was phrased nicely and politely, that review was still degrading to the SP if you think about it.

Seriously, think about it, most of u can't pick-up a girl for free, and then you have the guts to go tell a woman who provides you a service (that you weren't forced to do with her, cause remember an agency is always eager to please u when it comes to tastes), the guts to tell her that you wouldn't chose her out in a crowd, that "you're a 5..."; that is a low blow if not insulting. I'm not saying you're not allowed to comment on looks, but if she's bellow your standards based on your tastes, and you still decided to go with it knowing from the start if wouldn't be "fantasyland" the moment you opened that door; then you were biased from the start, and that review isn't good to me, or to u, or to anyone else.

Anyways, that was my two cents. I hope I'm not insulting anyone, and I hope not to get banned.

 

[EagerBeaver]

a) I don't think the whole escort service attempt at keeping it "all" a secret is that much of a big deal, if you follow all of CS Martin's rule, its probably cause you're married or are ashamed of your own actions requiring such services. Also, most agencies are competitors, I doubt they share information as liberally as CS seems to think. Frankly, all of this sound overboard. Pick a girl with a hidden face at an agency picture, and that generally means she too has a private life and wants to keep it so... which makes your position that much more safer.
b) I'll politely ask the mods to cut the crap about paid forum arguments etc... I own a forum that can house this site just as much, and to be honest, it costs me peanuts, peanuts....

Royal,

Your post is totally on target. The "shame factor" is very high I think with the critics of this proposal. The problem is that they want to share their shame with everyone else, and not everyone else needs to be sharing their shame. As to the rest of your post, all I can say is "Bingo!". Thank you for the refreshing honesty in your post.

Let me add one other thing, Eleganza IS a paid advertiser on this Board and Kaii works for Eleganza so along the lines of your thinking she has an arguable right to respond anyway.

One thing I disagree with you on is that I don't think NJ Dude's review was completely worthless. He gave an opinion on her looks; she didn't like it, and obviously did not like his "look". We now have neither side of the story so we are discussing it only in the abstract.

 

[Mike Mercury]

...I don't want to waste any time whatsoever on reading self-promotional fluff or banal responses from SPs...

Neither do I.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Mike Mercury,

The reply authored by Kaii was neither self promotional fluff nor banal. While that may be a concern for the Mods, that is not what why the subject post was deleted here. The Mods have asserted it was deleted because it was insulting. It was insulting, but could have been edited so as to tactfully express a reason being given in her reply for why no chemistry existed with NJ Dude.

We are getting into a revisionist discussion about a post that is no longer up. I saw the post. If you did not see it, it's not fair to characterize it as either "self promotional fluff" or "banal."

 

[Doc Holliday]

The Beave does raise some many good points. And yes indeed, there are too many girlymen on this board. Toughen up, boys!

 

[Mod 8]

Some people seem to be forgetting that MERB is a business. Fred is not running his boards so that people have a place to share their reviews, he runs his boards to make money. That is the main reason that no non-paying provider will be permitted to post on this board in review threads. So no, that point of the argument will not be dropped. The other point that makes this a non-starter is the impossibility of verifying that the person claiming to the SP who is replying could be anyone: from another client trying to gain favor with her, to a competitor trying to make her look bad and ruin her reputation. With no way to verify the identity, there is no way that a reply can be permitted.

As far as editing the content of Kaii's post is concerned, if we were to have edited it there would have been little left to make sense of. We are not in the habit of changing anyone's words for less offensive versions. If a post breaks the rules to a point where an edit is not possible, it will be removed and the poster banned.

And for your information, NJDude's post has been restored so you can all see for yourselves that he did not attack the girl, did not insult her, did not do anything that deserved such an angry, insulting reply. His final line is "Nice girl but no repeat for me". If you have a wish to see SPs responding to reviews, she is not the best example to base your argument on.

M8

 

[CS Martin]

Ok, two things:
a) I don't think the whole escort service attempt at keeping it "all" a secret is that much of a big deal, if you follow all of CS Martin's rule, its probably cause you're married or are ashamed of your own actions requiring such services. Also, most agencies are competitors, I doubt they share information as liberally as CS seems to think. Frankly, all of this sound overboard..

Young lady, for the record I'm not married and I'm not ashamed of my actions. All of my friends, business associates and family know exactly what I do in Montreal. In fact, they often ask me when my next trip to Montreal is whenever I sound stressed. I'm not allowed to go into past history on this board, but I TOTALLY STAND BEHIND MY ADVICE NO MATTER YOUR AGE, MARITAL STATUS, FAMILIAL STATUS, BUSINESS AFFILIATIONS. Further, I stand ready to prove to the moderators of this board that agencies do share some information and that multiple indies has forwarded lists of clients e-mails to me. I make this offer with full knowledge that the moderators can ban me for making unsupported claims.

 

[johnmbot]

b) I'll politely ask the mods to cut the crap about paid forum arguments etc... to be honest, it costs...peanuts, peanuts.... considering that the cost of upkeep for a forum like this one would be/is virtually nill... Money, forum upkeep cost, etc, isn't really an issue when it comes down to the right of replying without advertising.

i don't disagree with your point at all, but you are leaving out one factor: the $ value of someones time. this is obviously a money making venture. so be it. whoever started merb deserves to get what ever he can and wants out of it $ wise. so...

as an example, let's say fred zed makes "x" amount of money from merb, and puts in "y" amount of time into it. since he only makes "x", it is possible he doesn't want to bother creating more possible problems and/or work for himself by allowing "z". the "x" to "y" ratio is irrelevant to everyone but fred. if fred makes $1,000,000 for 1 hour of work, it's not my place to expect him to put in 2 hours if he doesn't want to.

regarding the mods, they are unpaid. how much time would any of us put into merb for no pay? we all have different limits. moderating a board takes a lot of time to read. lawyers charge $500/hour to read. would a lawyer moderate merb for free if it started to feel like work? everyone needs to think about what their time is worth $ wise. it is not our place to say "fred makes $100,000/month from merb, so how does a little more work harm him?" or "merb costs peanuts to run so money, forum upkeep cost, etc, isn't really an issue when it comes down to the right of replying without advertising." if the reason is as simple as "nope, i own this joint so i make the rules" we have to live with it. then again, some members can't take "no" for an answer.

 

[Mod 11]

...

And as for SPs being allowed to post, SPs aren't agencies, hence they don't pay for advertisement unless they're indy, asking them to pay when they're in an agency is kind've stupid while at the same time you ban them from joining this forum completely.

Royal, no banning material in your post.

An SP working for an agency is representing that agency and is represented by the agency. If she want to be free to jump in people's face, she should take all responsibilities about flying on her own, not just the fun parts. One of the less fun part is paying for advertisement. Jumping in people's face is "relaxing" but in this case, it could have backfired in Eleganza's face if NJDude would have had a hidden agenda. Luckily, he did not. At your work, unless you are on your own, if a customer is not happy with your service and you jump in the customer's face, you'll get fired on the spot. If you work for an employer, your employer will discuss the situation with the customer.

---

As far as banning her permanently, she registered a handle with the only goal of blasting a member. First post and a barrage of anger. That's why she was banned permanently: she had no other reason to join. It had nothing to do with the fact she was not an advertiser. We have banned permanently other people in similar situations, posters who post insults at their first post, and we will certainly do it again.
There are a few SP who are regular members and post once in a while in various sections. For quite a while, we even had a good group of strippers. If any of these person would have a burst of anger and blast a customer, they would get SUSPENDED for a few days,same as any regular member, not BANNED permanently. There is a difference. Try to go in a bar for the first time and take a swing at some guy who scraped your car. Then, try to get in a bar where people know you and take a swing at the same guy. You're likely to get expelled from both place but one will expel you in a more gentle way than the other. Same here.