Review inflation

[Rebaynia]

I appreciate your update and find it unfortunate if this is the case, but maybe this limitation has been lifted since I see non-Supporting members (SP's) answering in their own threads in other sections of the board.

I think that counts as the legal loophole. They can't comment on their own thread, but reference to their review on another so long as it falls under the topic of the thread, is part of the natural flow of conversation. But if someone is looking directly for that review, they won't see the rebuttal.

 

[Michelle Gunn]

A few experiences in the last couple months have been ridiculous. Reviews glowing with descriptions like "gorgeous", "stunning" and so on to describe the looks of a SP who ends up being objectively average or below average. Literally below average... as in out of 10 random females age 20-35 walking down the street at least 5 would poll as more attractive. Words like "incredible" to describe someone who you would not give a second look in the real world. Body descriptions are even more misleading. "Curvy" turns out to be - objectively - just plainly out of shape. Reviews rave about a SP's butt and it ends up being junky and shapeless, the before picture in a before-and-after fitness transformation.

Forgive me for this, but I can't get it out of my mind, what exactly is a "junky" butt?

 

[Workingman]

I think the dictionary definition of junky covers it

mod: thread locked - it has served its purpose. Last posts were either off-topic or (deleted) attempts at starting fights between members.