Yet another story about (mis)treatment of customers.
Customer (monger pal of mine, not me but someone I actually can vouch for) given green light, gate is not working. Spends 15 minutes looking for/getting to the apt via alternative entrance. Asks PO for an hour and is still kicked out after 40 mins.
The girl confirms the gate isn't working the entire day.
Later PO texts the monger that it's not their fault gate isn't working and to not ever ask for full hour again. Agency is SweetAngels where Tiana is the... uh... the one girl that never leaves.
Now, attention, here's my question....
Whose responsibility is the incall location and why shouldn't a monger be able to ask for an hour in such a scenario? Clearly, to me it is up to PO and org who are responsible for this. If gate isn't working it's up to them to provide fast alternative entry and to ensure all customers still get full hour even if the green light has to be a few minutes later.
There is no way in hell these 45 mins should be on the customer imo. To me, that's just insulting.
Im sure some will have a different opinion. Let's discuss.
I'm not here to fuck with The Gumiho's biZ but unlikely to be treated this way at Viola's or The Candy Shop.
YEMV
yea i had issues mult times at viola's but they always have backup ready to go so you can still get full hour
Definitely on the Booker to have an entrance provided and give the hour to the Monger coming to the session!
Maybe 5 or so minuets are ok, but with 10 or more you should get the hour.
The girl has come down to open the door quite a few times!
As soon as the PO knows there's a problem with the gate, they should have something set up!
They do tell you to blend in and be inconspicuous, right?
...have had a domino effect on all the customers after him - every one after him would have been delayed by 15 minutes.
What the doesn't-give-a-shit-about-the-customers PO should have done is to pro-rate the donation to 45 minutes rather than making the customer pay for the full hour. That way the customer's anger at not getting his full hour (through no fault of his own) would be assuaged and the K-girl's schedule wouldn't be messed up.
I've had it happen with other orgs. The appointment is slid ten-fifteen minutes and PO apologizes in advance. It ain't great, but it's honest and it gives full hour.
Have no problem when it happens like that. Acknowledging that an issue is on their side and saying hey all customers are off by 10-15 mins, but everyone gets an hour, is fine with me...
In fact, I've seen Pos who have rep of being very stern, do it. So I know some of them can swallow their pride, admit theres an issue and do what's right for the customer. And it will pay off in the long run. Because when this conversation starts again I will be like, yeah PO X had this situation and they acknowledged issue on their side and accommodated the customer and they were able to get a full hour. They're professional and were fair.
-- Modified on 11/14/2022 12:12:42 PM
in SoCal that would still act this way if the customer texted him IMMEDIATELY and told him the gate isn't working. If instead of instantly reporting the problem, the customer CHOOSES to try to get inside another way and wastes 15 minutes doing it, that's on him, not the org. I have had gates or doors where the code didn't work, and I immediately text the booker and report it. This shifts the burden to the booker to account for MY time because he/she has been put on notice that there is a logistical problem which is not my fault. In each case, the booker either talked me in another way in real time while I stayed on the phone, or else sent the girl or her roommate down to let me in (you don't need the code from the inside). Neither takes more than 5 minutes, even in the largest complexes. Fire rules require multiple entrances and exits.
Explain to me why the fifteen minutes the monger CHOOSES on his own to try to "find another entrance'' is not on his dime? The booker could have talked him in in 5 minutes or less, because the monger has an obligation to report the problem before he tries to solve it himself. This is but another example of how you want to blame the booker or org for a problem that may not have existed if the monger had done something smart like NOTIFY the booker of the problem before taking any action on his own. You often have a building with 600-1000 apartments and you want the org to eat the time the customer spent trying to find it by himself? That just encourages stupidity on the part of mongers.
Once again, you are making baseless assumptions.
How did you arrive at this asinine assumption he didn't notify the booker that the gate wasn't working?
This is the first thing that anyone does in such scenarios.
" given green light, gate is not working. Spends 15 minutes looking for/getting to the apt via alternative entrance. Asks PO for an hour and is still kicked out after 40 mins. "
While I would accept you didn't mean to imply there was no communications after getting the green light it is far from clear if there was any communication by the guy in the states search for a way in. Might want to at least accept your text allows for the interpretation you so readily reject.
Cdl could at least have asked me whether or not he contacted the PO once the gate wasn't working. I would have answered him.
If this is the point his argument hinges on, why not ask instead of assuming? Instead, he does the opposite of what occams razor says to do.
I think we both know why.
Your application is laughable.
If you want to invoke Occam's razor here, the simplest explanation that has the fewest assumptions is that he took what you wrote as written. As written it is fully consistent with the interpretation, which is what I pointed out.
As fully written, it's ambigous at best. Nowhere did it say that the person didn't contact the booker once the gate wasn't working. Cdl took that point of ambiguity and flipped the story on its heels without wanting to address the actual issue. As written it simply doesn't state whether the monger have done it or not. Cdl assumed that he hasn't.
Once again, the monger did contact the booker and told him gate isn't working. I clarified it right after.
Will I hear any input from you on the subject?
On your question? I'll ask you the same question you asked PBS about his post. What type of response did you expect?
No, I didn't see much of a reason to respond to a question that seems to be the equivalent of "Is water wet?"
With all due respect, I think the questions are quite different.
One can argue that org is not responsible for external factors coming into play. Now I would disagree with that concept, but it's certainly a viewpoint.
If you mean by "water is wet" , that the monger shouldn't be responsible for those 15 minutes if entry isn't working correctly (my stance) , it would help if you explicitly would state so.
It's not that I want validation for myself or my point , but I'd like to see people who generally defend the orgs - state it, if they agree with me. Clearly cks and cdl disagree and even though I clarified the position they found a way to not state that as is, it's wrong.
There isn't much to respond to someone who says "bbfs makes you eskimo bros haha". I mean yeah,and?
The burden of responsibility for lost time when entry isn't working, is a topic that can go either way.
This is a pattern of writing displayed by Rocket many times. Assert a fact pattern that supports his narrative, omit facts that don’t support his narrative, and then blame the readers for not understanding his writing.
That’s our boy rocket. In addition to what you noted, in another recent thread he admitted embellishing (really lying) to make his story more sympathetic to his premise. He completely lacks honesty or credibility. It’s sad he continues to behave this way, and even more sad that Admin continues to allow it (although this thread, like most of rocket’s nonsense, will ultimately wind up in the Other Cities domain).
I just checked the "other cities" entire fist page and I don't see any threads made by me there.
The only thread I found at all that was started by me was like over a year ago. Cdl has at least five threads moved there. But don't let these FACTS get in the way of you not liking my attitude, and you making up lies.
I hate to admit when you're correct, but since in your words I'm 'an honest guy with a spine' I have to concede I was wrong. It was your brother from another mother, gdaddy100, who had all of his posts moved to Other Cities. In your case, most of the threads you push into the right margin pushing your repetitive bullshit just get deleted by Admin. I guess it proves that gdaddy's stuff had some redeeming value, while yours wound up in the trash bin.
I thought it was clear that the monger contacted the booker. He did contact the booker. Why would I omit the fact that supports my argument on purpose? Lol
" . . . . Spends 15 minutes looking for/getting to the apt via alternative entrance." If he consulted the booker, it would not have taken 15 minutes. I've done it enough times in huge apartment complexes to know if the booker is on the phone guiding you, it's NOT going to take 15 minutes. YOU are making assumptions not included in your original story. I'm assuming based on the time YOU said it took, or is your monger friend one of the dumbest mongers on the planet? Once again, you leave out the critical pivot point in your original story that determines whether or not the org's response was reasonable.
If you had said, "He immediately notified the booker, who stayed on the phone and gave him instructions on how to get in another way, but it still took him 15 minutes . . . .", it would have supported YOUR narrative that the org was not reasonable in their response, so why would you leave that out if that's the way it went down? If you add it now, it just looks like you are trying to cover up your twisting of the story to make it the org's fault when in reality, your friend wasted his OWN time wondering around the complex looking for a way in. YOUR narrative doesn't make sense in blaming the org, given the facts you decided to include in your OP, and my interpretation is certainly reasonable based on my own experience and that of others here. The only way it would take 15 minutes to find the next closest entrance would be if he didn't know the complex and was ON HIS OWN in trying to find it. Nevertheless, maybe this is one of those times that you should revise your story to cover up the holes in it? You have tried it before.
Yet another dumb assumption by you simply because you never had such an experience. Idiotic assumption.
Here's a note from my own personal experience. At one place, this very year, the booker guided me when an elevator was not working. Do you know how long it took me to get to the room? It wasn't 15 minutes. It took half an hour. At that point I was thinking just asking for hhr sesh even tho they don't offer them generally. But the booker was good and girl didn't have a back to back so I got offered full hour after booker talked with the girl.
My bud didn't have such luxury as SA schedules back to back often.
Do you know why it took 30 minutes for me even with the booker "guiding" me? Because this building has no reception and each time the booker would tell me to try way X I had to go outside, receive a text, go back inside try X, go back outside text that it didnt work, rinse and repeat.
This is your problem, cdl - instead of reading the story as is you try to make assumptions based on your own experience. You'll never blame any org this way lmao. Did you ever have a cell phone have no reception in an apartment building before btw? Plenty of mongers do here. I'm sure you'll blame mongers for choosing a specific cell phone provider too. Do you know also, cdl, that many bookers are text only nowadays? Might come as a surprise to you.
the legitimacy of your stories is my own experience, and those of hundreds of mongers that have shared their own experiences with me. I like to think that after thousands of Kgirl sessions, there is nothing new that I have not already experienced, and so far, that seems to be the case, but you post stories like this to fit your narrative that orgs are always unreasonable, even if you have to tweak them a little, so given your history, you can't blame other mongers for taking them with a grain of salt or reading them with a critical eye for details. The vast majority of your posts are attempts to paint orgs in a bad light. Granted, they are not perfect, but your "mission" here is quite transparent.
Now you have added your own story to the mix, which has to do with a breakdown of your technology. From my own experience, I know that some networks have better coverage in some areas than others, so is this the booker's fault? No, and you agree the booker treated you well even though it was not his fault, which doesn't really help the narrative of your first story, where the guy never got into the building in the first place, and most likely never talked to the booker when he couldn't get into the gate. Network coverage OUTSIDE the complex should not be an issue. He was outside according to your story.
And yes, I experienced no reception this past weekend when I parked in the lowest underground level of a Kgirl's residential apartment I was visiting. No reception at all, but not a bad place to be in a nuclear blast. Lol
-- Modified on 11/15/2022 2:41:28 PM
Is what's laughable. If we are to by that, no org has never done any wrong. Lol. You already come into this biased, hence why you capt-save-a-org it. It's like if you never got a virus on your pc you will claim that there are no such viruses that exist.
Here, again, you claimed, based on your experience, that a booker will NEVER take more than fifteen minutes if he's guiding you. I showed my own experience where it took twice as long, easily. And that happened in the last six months.
Yes, in that case the booker treated me well - but again, it's the fact you claimed, that booker will NEVER guide you for more than 15 mins. This is just false info based on nothing but bullshit. I've had a booker guide me for longer than 15 mins more than once too. I spent close to half an hour at an empty ass building at midnight trying multiple entrances.
It's like that time when you asked me for fake reviews in LA and how you've never seen them EVER, and when I produced them you quickly changed your qualifiers.
My mission isn't to throw dirt at orgs. My mission is to consolidate every instance of transgression against mongers and make sure it's heard. And to also discuss how morally wrong it is. I'm not here to paint orgs as some inherently evil entities. And I'll readily admit when they do well in my eyes. But you acting like they're somehow all good and can do no wrong like Atticus Finch, is hilarious. Orgs fuck over mongers on the daily.
In this case, you happily took the lack of explicit statement saying he did contact the booker and told him gate is not working, and constructed your own argument around it trying to absolve org from any blame. Pathetic.
-- Modified on 11/16/2022 10:16:59 AM
the booker would NOT guide you, I said that under most circumstances it would never take that long. You like to put words in other people's mouths to support a failing argument. In this case, you came up with a story of your own where the circumstances were so unique it can only be classed as an outlier. Using outliers to try to make a point is a sign of desperation. If it takes longer than 15 minutes, then either the booker was NOT on the phone, there was some unique failure like the phone connection, as in your case, or the monger is just a little slow mentally, and can't understand directions. Not of your content in this mitigates any of the points I made in my last post. You are just throwing shit against the wall to see if anything sticks.
BTW, the only thing that is laughable is YOU saying your mission is NOT to throw dirt on the orgs. Do you want to see links to some of your past boasting about "going after" orgs? You seem to have selective amnesia about this.
These are your words:
"I've done it enough times in huge apartment complexes to know if the booker is on the phone guiding you, it's NOT going to take 15 minutes."
It's funny how you criticize me for not mentioning the dude contacted the booker, yet claim you said "in most circumstances" whereas you said no such thing at all. You didn't say a single thing about "in most circumstances". And when you don't claim in most circumstances, all I have to find is one example to make your statement untrue. Do you know what proof by contradiction is?
I've had a situation even before this year's, where it took me way more than 15 mins.
The booker WAS on the phone, there was no "unique failure like the phone connection" , and no the monger was not "just a little slow mentally, and can't understand directions".
I don't throw any dirt on orgs. I report bad behavior and want that behavior condemned and punished. I don't make up any lies to have org or girls appear in negative light. It's not my goal to throw dirt on them, my goal is to let everyone know of bad behavior and make it public so people are aware and can condemn it publicly. Bad business ethics shouldnt be rewarded, it should be punished and what better way to punish it than telling TRUTH about transgressions? But yeah I get it in your experience orgs can do no wrong and no matter how many stories you get, they can no do wrong in your eyes an all these expereinces are deemed outliers.
But once again, pretty much no one in this thread from usual suspects condemned the behavior explicitly. Even after I confirmed explicitly that the booker was contacted and told that gate wasn't working. It's rather telling. No one besides badger said the org should be responsible. Once again, telling. Jensen does his thing of "why say water is wet", but if really was that it's as easy as that he would say so explicitly a long time ago.
-- Modified on 11/16/2022 1:56:49 PM
changed your story, no one agreed with you. Do you see a pattern here? Lol
There is no limit to you being a weasel. Here's what you claim I said, . . . . "a booker will NEVER take more than fifteen minutes if he's guiding you."
Here is your quote of me, which is correct . . . . . ""I've done it enough times in huge apartment complexes to know if the booker is on the phone guiding you, it's NOT going to take 15 minutes." How can you possibly say these are the same things? The booker WILL guide you, but you HAVE TO ASK." It's true that in the case of an entrance not working, it will not take the booker 15 minutes to get you through an alternate entrance and to the incall quickly IF HE IS GUIDING YOU ON THE PHONE. Where did I say the booker will NEVER guide you?'" I didn't. You made it up. You are at a desperation level now where there is no more point in continuing the conversation. You are wrong, but you won't accept it, so good luck trying to restore your cred after yet another example of your dishonesty. I'm betting you will obfuscate on Jensen's points as well.
-- Modified on 11/16/2022 4:53:39 PM
You want everyone to thank you for being some type pro-monger savior by responding to your drivel about poor treatment by agencies. It is a uncontroversial issue that getting in the locked door is the responsibility of the provider side. Who the fuck is going to argue against that? So not saying anything to you is much more about having little interest in talking with you than anything about what I think (except about YOU).
I think BPS actually gave a good response to your -- ideally the guy should have gotten a prorated session for whatever time he got. If the PO told everyone else to shift their schedules (many of whom may well not have the flexibility) that would have hardly been any different in effect that bumping them for your VIP monger rants. The guy should not have expected that to be done for him even though he was not at fault for the bad gate given the impact to everyone else scheduled that day because they also have no fault. For that matter the PO really doesn't either. Shit happens.
So yeah, your post and question was pitifully obvious and not worth a response just as the question "Is water wet?" is generally going to be very uninteresting and not worth a response -- or perhaps taken as rhetorical.
But since you seem to demand a response from me. No, actually not giving the guy the full hour was not mistreatment of a monger -- giving him the 15 minutes and thereby perhaps preventing one or more other guys from being able to make their appointments, or stay the full period of time would have been much greater as more mongers may be been impacted. It's just another one of you mountain from a molehill rants. And that has nothing to do with the question of who owns the responsibility of the door lock though it does fall on the PO/provider to try to find the most equitable solution when things go wrong.
But I suppose if I'm going to double down on stupidity and continue this conversation with a rock maybe lets see if we can get some better information so someone can actually come to something of an informed conclusion.
1) Was your friend the first to report the issue?
2) Was his session scheduled early in the day's work or end of day?
3) Was there talk on other boards regarding the problem? If so, what was being said?
4) Can we agree that my last statement is more correct that your attempt to claim the PO is responsible for door locks on the buildings?
5) Was the PO on the phone for the 10-15 minutes while your friend was looking for a way in?
Without some/most of the above it is actually difficult to assess if giving your friend the full hour is either fair or monger friendly.
So perhaps you need to cut YOUR bullshit.. I never claimed I want anything my way. What I want is bad behavior being called bad behavior towards the consumer.
What I want is situations where behavior is bad to be called out, PUBLICLY. This is something you dont sem to understand from day one, because you had similar reaction to negative reviews being public. Especially in light of people who are butt buddies with bookers and who defend orgs like they can do no wrong.
"It is a uncontroversial issue that getting in the locked door is the responsibility of the provider side. Who the fuck is going to argue against that?"
Then why is it so hard for someone to explicitly say it?
"No, actually not giving the guy the full hour was not mistreatment of a monger -- giving him the 15 minutes and thereby perhaps preventing one or more other guys from being able to make their appointments, or stay the full period of time would have been much greater as more mongers may be been impacted. "
Ah so it's the responsibility of seller to make sure ins and outs (building ones, that is) are working, but when it comes to giving buyer what he agreed on (time and money), it's suddenly NOT his responsibility? What is such responsibility worth if it's not backed up by time=money?
And given that the girl said the gate was not working the entire day, it means that every single customer had to go through this.
I've had a situation happen to me when a girl fell asleep or some shit, PO promptly apologized and said every single appt after will also be shifted 15 minutes and everyone will be given their hour.
"And that has nothing to do with the question of who owns the responsibility of the door lock though it does fall on the PO/provider to try to find the most equitable solution when things go wrong."
Ohhh I see you invoked semantics here. I thought it was crystal clear that my question of responsibility wasn't about ownership, but precisely about who needs to come up with solution and who is to be blamed. In both cases the answer is "
is the water wet" to me. In any other biz if seller cannot fulfill their obligation, the contract is void.
It is undoubtedly up to a single side to make shit work. And ideally, the client would listen to the solution and if he doesn't like it he doesn't even have to use the said solution. At that point, the seller side should be doing everything they can to make the buyer happy because THEY fucked up. You know the whole "if pizza isn't delivered on time x it's on us" thing? Yeah, that thing. It's both admission of guilt and mitigation in one. Orgs should try it because a lot of their reps are ego tripping.
"1) Was your friend the first to report the issue?
2) Was his session scheduled early in the day's work or end of day?
3) Was there talk on other boards regarding the problem? If so, what was being said?
4) Can we agree that my last statement is more correct that your attempt to claim the PO is responsible for door locks on the buildings?
5) Was the PO on the phone for the 10-15 minutes while your friend was looking for a way in?"
1. Don't know
2. Don't know - usually he's a morning/afternoon person. But like I've said, the girl told him it wasn't working the entire day.
3. Talk on other boards? About specific day when gate wasn't working? It's not uncommon. The response of the PO was uncommon. But no, haven't seen it. Shit like that is rarely mentioned.
4. I'm not sure what statement you referenced. It is the sellers responsibility to be responsible for incall, ways to get into said incall discreetly and on time, and if there is any issue with said incall to provide monetary, moral or physical (if kinky enough) compensation to the buyer. Or just call the whole thing off.
So if you were talking about your statement of "
it does fall on the PO/provider to try to find the most equitable solution when things go wrong"... yes, but not just that. Admission of guilt is paramount. Many buyers will not want to do anything with the seller if the seller can't admit their fuck ups. And if one brings the whole useyrhead schtick of "Asians have to save face"....just don't. Admit responsibility/guilt.
5. I believe the PO was texting back and forth. Just as a note - some people don't use voice. Many orgs here are text-only in the first place. Some folks use burners with text only. I, for example, don't talk with POs in voice, ever. Last thing I want is my voice recorded.
"Without some/most of the above it is actually difficult to assess if giving your friend the full hour is either fair or monger friendly."
This is something you've failed to understand here, I think. It's not about giving the guy extra time. It's about the fucking org claiming afterwards, that they're not responsible for shit they're fucking responsible for.
Shit they literally get paid for by girls and guys.
The mistreatment isn't in giving less time, Jensen. Shit happens. We all know that. The mistreatment was telling the monger he shouldn't have asked for an hour (even though he did schedule it for an hour) because they're not responsible for this mishap. Is that not fucking clear? I've had Pos apologize to me profusely after shit they weren't responsible for. This PO not only didn't apologize, he literally said his responsibility wasn't his (OK PO is female I'm pretty sure but you get the fist)
The mistreatment here is that of a principle. A shitty PO with inability to admit the situation at hand is their fault and their fault only. That is the mistreatment. The client is supposed to ask for his time, contrary for what the PO has claimed.
From your original:
"Whose responsibility is the incall location and why shouldn't a monger be able to ask for an hour in such a scenario? Clearly, to me it is up to PO and org who are responsible for this. If gate isn't working it's up to them to provide fast alternative entry and to ensure all customers still get full hour even if the green light has to be a few minutes later."
"This is something you've failed to understand here, I think. It's not about giving the guy extra time. It's about the fucking org claiming afterwards, that they're not responsible for shit they're fucking responsible for.
Shit they literally get paid for by girls and guys.
The mistreatment isn't in giving less time, Jensen. Shit happens. We all know that. The mistreatment was telling the monger he shouldn't have asked for an hour (even though he did schedule it for an hour) because they're not responsible for this mishap. Is that not fucking clear?"
Clear as mud.
Your claim is that the booker saying they are not responsible for the functioning of the gate was their mistreatment? They are NOT responsible for the gate -- the building owner/management is and the booker can not do anything about it. Again, what the book is responsible for is providing an alternative way in (which clearly was provided) -- or worse case notifying everyone the sessions cannot be kept due to that access problem.
Or is the mistreatment that it took too long to explain to your buddy how to get in?
Or was the mistreatment telling the guy his session cannot be extended so to stop asking for that? You've already said the issue was not actually losing time so it's just about being told not to keep asking for what cannot be given?
So I'm not buying YOUR claim. You like to take some aspects of an event, sometimes embellish or over emphasize them, ignore other relevant aspects and facts in order to make your story be one of monger abuse. From everything you've said it sounds more like some shit happened and the guy is pissed he cannot extend his session to to the full hour (the hell with everyone else coming later -- a true monger bro's behavior, right rocket?) and gets told that cannot be done and to stop asking for it. Apparently there is some need to blame someone for the broken gate and related impact but neither side is actually responsible for the gate working. Both need it to be working.
If you want me to agree with your claim of abuse get some evidence showing that the PO not only didn't find a way for your friend to get in quickly but also didn't do anything to mitigate the issue for later customers, or that others had already reported the gate issue and the PO had done nothing in terms of work arounds that would have mitigated your friends delay. Chatter on other boards might do that -- say someone was the first session of the day and told the PO and went through the whole ordeal of finding the alternative way but your friend as a later session and was never given any indication of a problem before attempting to use the gate and then spend the time reinventing the wheel as it were to get in. But as it stands, all you're doing is posting a hearsay version of the he said - she said BS we often see posted on the boards.
I would also say that in these types of situations, a pro-monger/monger friendly action, and one more beneficial to mongers, would be to make it known that the gate is broken and if someone has a session scheduled with that booker they should confirm, if they don't already know, what the alternative way in will be so they don't have to waist any time. In fact, some might even be able to share with others via back channels so the guys arrive fully informed and able to quickly get in the door.
I thought I made it very clear.
The client has a RIGHT to ask for full time he's paid for. Getting less time is not good, but shit happens. Telling a client he shouldnt ask for full hour in a situation where the PO initially told him to use a bad gate, is a piece of sh!t move.
The PO HAS to apologize and take BLАME for the situation. Because it's THEIR responsibility to their clients. The booker saying it's not their responsibility and don't ask for a full hour, is extrеme contеmpt for the customer. Period.
And yes, the org is fully responsible for the gate and way in being accessible. This is yet another case where you attempt to shift blamе. If org chooses this incall, they are responsible for stuff not working affecting clients time. Period. They are responsible for rerоuting clients. That's what they get paid money for. Room and scheduling. When you can't give a way in that isnt eating a client's time, you're responsible. Not a building owner. If you can't make due, just cancel the appointment.
If I go to a lаwyers private office and I get stuck in his elevator on the way to my appointment, he is responsible for it. I shouldn't lose time on my appointment if something in his office doesn't work. Isn't that clear?
I've already mentioned one way one PO diffusеd a similar but different situation by making all subsequent appointments shift 15 mins later. This way everyone gets an hour. Now, this was on the girl and yet PO still managed to apologize and admit it's a fаult on their side. Not on both sides, not say it's on the girl so don't blаme me, but apologized because he/she is the one I book with.
"I would also say that in these types of situations, a pro-monger/monger friendly action, and one more beneficial to mongers, would be to make it known that the gate is broken and if someone has a session scheduled with that booker they should confirm, if they don't already know, what the alternative way in will be so they don't have to waist any time. In fact, some might even be able to share with others via back channels so the guys arrive fully informed and able to quickly get in the door."
Your back channels are far more personal it seems. Alas, my back channels are riddled with PO snitchеs, mоles and shlls that won't hesitate outing an identity to an org or a provider.
Actually, since some of your back channels include Klient, yours are too. Lol. Anyway, broadcasting a situation in the same day over a private channel might as well tell an org what your online handle is. Some of us don't want that. I know for you it probably doesn't matter since you get vetted via your handle on here. But some of us don't want our online persona to be tied to a phone number.
As far as he said she said, this is the nature of online conversations. What's even the point of discussing anything if one simply won't believe any situation that shows org in a bad light? There are tons of these situations. I get it, in your area they are probably swept under the rug and are dealt with privately,just like bad reviews. Yeah, I don't subscribe to that. I don't believe in "protesting in private". When I see a shitty girl I'll call her out in public as loud as I can. When I see an org do something shitty I want to broadcast it as loud as possible. So that next time they will do better, if not for basic customer treatment, then out of feаr for their money.
"If you want me to agree with your claim of abuse get some evidence showing that the PO not only didn't find a way for your friend to get in quickly but also didn't do anything to mitigate the issue for later customers,"
I already said the girl commented the gate was broken all day, when my bro got there. Considering he initially was given the instructions for the broken gate, what else do you want? If the girl knows the gate is broken for a while, why is PO giving directions to use the broken gate? You tell me.
-- Modified on 11/18/2022 3:08:41 PM
-- Modified on 11/18/2022 3:10:55 PM
We had a problem like this in the DC area. I just asked if the call box was fixed. If not, tell them to text you when fixed.
I'm not walking behind a tenant to get into the building. That's risky. What if the tenant, you're walking behind to get into the building, asks to see your key or he'll call the cops? I'll bet if a bunch of you say F it. They'll find a better way. Don't get pushed around. It's a booker's problem, not your problem.
-- Modified on 11/18/2022 12:02:03 PM
Sometimes the best course of action for an idiot is to keep his mouth shut and quit digging himself into a deeper hole.
In Rocket’s case, he beats a dead horse and ends up slipping.
It was the provider who knew the gate was broken
And guess what. She didn’t even bother to tell the Booker BECAUSE HER OTHER CUSTOMERS WEREN'T DUMBFUCKS who needed over 15 minutes to find an alternative to punching in the gate code.
Rocket even slips up and unknowingly admits the PO didn’t know the gate was broken
And all day long, the provider’s clients probably mentioned, “Sorry that I was a couple of minutes late, I had some trouble at the gate.” It wasn’t a problem until one idiot got lost for over 15 minutes. For all we know he was standing in a stairwell rubbing one out so he would last longer once he got to the incall location.
We also don’t know what the English level of the provider was. Good chance that she didn’t understand what the prior mongers were saying when they (IF THEY) mentioned the gate to her.
Leave it to Rocket to completely screw up both the timeline and the fact pattern to further his Quixote-esque crusade against KGirl Orgs.
To quote Gomer Pyle USMC: SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
I think this whole issue needs a Congressional Investigation. There is an incredible amount of nuance in some of the explanations. For example ...
.
Is it broken? "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."
Huh? What the fuck did I just read? "slip up"? Lmao.
I mentioned the girl said the gate was broken all day in my initial post. Maybe you should read better.
1. The fault is not on the mongers side. He was not told the gate is broken until he found out for himself.
To say the fault is shared between the girl and the monger is idiotic.
2. If the girl knows the gate is broke she tells the PO, period. Girls talk a lot to the PO all the time, and tell them everything. It is also in girls interest to not have pissed off mongers.
"And guess what. She didn’t even bother to tell the Booker"
This assumption is made out of thin air whatsoever.
"For all we know he was standing in a stairwell rubbing one out so he would last longer once he got to the incall location"
This is pure nonsense. No wonder rh is giddy.
Funny thing is, on the other place where my friend posted this, most if not all mongers commenting were quite sympathetic and blamed the org.
Quite a contrast to here because hey... rocket is the messenger. We must protects our orgs who can do no wrong because they supply us pussy. Lmao.
As for you, cks, I'm gonna call you a snitch from now on. I know who ratted on my post about disrupting biz via tools. Here's a refresher for you and other clowns. Once you say things are illegal and hence regular rules don't apply, all bets are off. If you think the feds give a shit about a brothel phone number being disrupted, I have a bridge to sell you. Lol.
-- Modified on 11/19/2022 11:20:08 AM
That is the closing line from your OP.
In the last post you make the suggestion that the people are focused on the messenger rather than the message. I suspect that is true to an extent -- but you're also often a questionable messenger that like to filter the message to make it fit your view and conclusions.
You've told me that the lost time is not the problem or where the mistreatment comes from. Okay, so why was that part of the story? Similarly the functionality of the gate is not the PO's responsibility -- offering a solution/work around to that failure is. We all (I'm pretty sure) agree on that point of detail. Again, why bring that up? Last, what should one think the "never ask for the full hour again" even means? Seems like that only makes sense if the guy is just harping on the lost time and has already been told extending his session is not possible (one might guess because the next guy in line). Again, that doesn't really seem the core issue you claim to be pointing out here.
So I think the way you posted the issue, the message you crafted and brought to everyone, is largely responsible for all the discussion you seem to find offensive. How do you think the discussion would have gone if you had posted the following instead:
*******
Another story about poor customer service.
Customer (monger pal of mine, not me but someone I actually can vouch for) shows up for his session, gets the green light and then finds the gate is not working and cannot go in. Spends 15 minutes working with the PO to finally get in. (If you really feel this needs to be stated So he's now not getting his full hour as the session cannot be extended and is not too happy with that.) When he gets to the session the girl mentions that the gate has been broken all day.
Don't you think it's one the provider side to let the customer know in advance that an alternative way in will need to be used, and it might take a bit longer than usual so come a bit early.
*******
To me, the relevant details one might add to the story are not about what really seems to be an argument between your buddy and the PO but rather things like: 1) Did the girl actually tell the PO about the gate or some other indication that PO would have known. When in the day was your buddies session? If it was the second one even the third then that is a bit different than if he was the penultimate or last appointment (it does take time to solve problems). What was the main cause of the delay getting in -- was it understanding where to go or difficulty in getting a response back from the PO?
But ALL of those details I mention could be left out as well if all that is being asked is do people think it's on the providers side to provide a solution to the problem of a broken gate that prevents entry.
So yes, you , rocket, as the messenger, given how you like to provide the messages, creates the controversy that then you turn around and claim is only due to others being pussy whipped by the agencies.
[Not sure what happened to my original response saying basically the above but looks like TER is having some issues given the display of the last 3 or 4 posts.]
Here Ill repeat what I said
"Whose responsibility is the incall location and why shouldn't a monger be able to ask for an hour in such a scenario? Clearly, to me it is up to PO and org who are responsible for this. If gate isn't working it's up to them to provide fast alternative entry and to ensure all customers still get full hour even if the green light has to be a few minutes later.
There is no way in hell these 45 mins should be on the customer imo. To me, that's just insulting"
There are two parts of my argument
The first one is simple and holds true for any appointment made with any entity in any producer-consumer scenario, no matter legal or illegal.
Let's call it part A
1. Customer paid for an hour
2. Customer is entitled to his hour
3. If customer cannot get the full hour, he has a right to complain or refuse the session.
-------
Here come the second part, part B
1. If the org/po/girl (the customer doesn't give a rats ass who) cannot provide a way to get in in such a way that customer does not get his full time, it is up to them to :
1a) apologize
1b) admit guilt - this is important. YOU are answering for this. I know, Jensen, you keep trying to zpin responsibility at face value, but in the context of consumer-producer of a hooker session (aka a trick) the responsibility to the client is solely on sellers shoulder. Because building owner isn't aware of this. And guess what? The client doesn't care. The client needs to get what he paid for.
1c) offer some optional reimbursements forthe nuisance that the client thinks is valuable.
-----—---
In this case, it's very simple.
1. The client did not get an hour, even though client followed all the instructions.
2. The client had more than all the rights in the world to ask to what he was entitled to.
3. The client did not receive an apology
4. The client received a short session.
5. The client was scolded for asking for full hour
6. The client was told that the seller is not responsible for malfunctioning in call the seller chose themselves.
Is that clear? I'm not sure in how many words I can go on describing the issue.
Customer not getting a full hour once, is not good but manageable. Shit happens. It's not great to lose 25% of value (and really 15 mins is a lot more than 25% since clocks are already fast), but once in a while its a sunk cost associated with the hobby.
HOWEVER not acknowledging that the problem was in their end and asking the customer not to ask for full hour in a situation like this, is complete mistreatment. What this PO did is equivalent of wiping the floor with the customer. They are responsible for a way to get in so the customer gets full time. The customer paid for full time and asking for it is his full right - and in most contracts if buyer doesn't get what he paid for he can request a full refund.
Is that clear enough? The PO should be spreading their butt cheeks for all the clients she/he screwed over, and admitting her guilt AND responsibility.
Everything you've said is fluff. It doesn't matter what time of the day the client scheduled for. The only thing that matters is getting what he paid for and his full set of rights when he didn't get what he paid for. The client isnt responsible for anything else besides paying agreed amount, arriving in time, behaving appropriately with the service provider, and following instructions. My fellow monger completed all three, the rest is irrelevant. I don't care if the house is burning down to the ground, its not the clients fault and don't ever make it out to be. It is up to the seller to fulfill their contract or spread butt cheeks and apologize for fault in their side.
you responded to was that the controversies here are generally not driven by the underlying message but by the behavior or the messenger.
It's largely pointless to respond further but I will make 3 observations.
1) You are trying to hold the booker to a much higher standard and any other business is held in similar circumstances. When an even that is outside the control of either party to some agreement occurs the seller side is not the responsible part and the buyer considered entitled to full performance of the terms. Both express, and particularly implied, contracts all have stated or implied indemnity or termination clauses related to such events. Your denial of that is either an amazing level of ignorance or a complete lack of common sense fairness.
2) Your attempt to lay all the blame on the book for the 15 minute delay is not based on an support facts whatsoever. Worse, you seem uninterested in considering what might need to be known before assigning that blame. Hint, the broken gate did not cause the 15 minute delay. Hint, there seems to be a complete lack of indication any of the other customers that day experienced a delay. But you're not even considering in a purely academic sense what type of scenarios would support the booker being at fault and what might suggest the customer sharing some blame or holding it entirely. I don't think you biases allow you to look at things from such a perspective though.
3) Your suggestion that the booker should solve the problem by giving the guy his full hour and then unilaterally shifting everyone else's schedule to allow for that directly violates the terms these other people agreed upon. It's not even necessary to think too hard about things to realize that approach is unlikely, at best, to do more than just shift the lost time to someone else later in the day, and may will make the over all situation, in terms or lost session minutes for mongers, even worse. In short your suggestion is hardly pro monger or a solution.
I find it strange you go from one to the other in a span of two posts, but sure. You do you. I for once was excited you're willing to discuss. Alas, the excitement was short-lived.
As far as controversies being driven by the behavior of the messenger, if grown men can't separate their dislike (or like) of messenger and the story as told, then are they even rational human beings who put objectivity above all? If people can't believe someone who've they rationalized as "bad" being right or good at something, than what is their belief worth? I find it ironic given how many people here, including you, have lamented that my viewpoint is "myopic" and "binary"
Anyway, back to the topic here.
1. Nonsense. A business owner always apologizes when customer isn't unhappy due to circumstances they're responsible for, even though they might have no control over the circumstance. One more time - if youre doing an incall, everything about the incall is the sellers responsibility. Hell, sometimes business apologize even when the issue is on the customer side just to be courteous. Now, THAT would be having more expectations than usual, I agree. But being able to ask for full time without being scolded, and also hearing an apology is hardly a high standard. Its the BASELINE standard.
You want a tech example, since I think you're pretty tech literate? Once upon a time, a product sold by a company I was in, had an issue opened by a customer. We actually caught it before via internal monitoring, but we couldn't do much about it. Customer complained. When analyzing the issue, it was established that the issue was in fact on Microsoft side, since api theyve used used Microsoft api, and our product was down as a rwsult. There wasn't much we could do since the api was used by the customer and our product simply used it for purposes. Ie, it wasn't really our fault. And yet, guess what, we were responsible for the product. Now internally we filed a ticket with Microsoft, but externally I wrote a paragraph of RCA and had my tech writers edit it. I did mention the root cause was ms api, yet guess what? I apologized and as part of resolution (problem went away as soon as Ms fixed their side of things) offered a monitoring solution which would propagate the api inaccessibility status to their end, besides just to my devops engineers.
The customer, just as I expected, was skeptical about problem being on Ms side - even though most people with technical knowledge and understanding of how our product works and looking at logs could easily understand that everything we've said was true. Yet they were satisfied with my answer. I apologized for something we didn't do - because my team and company were responsible for the product in front of the customer. And guess what? A happy customer makes a company many millions in enterprise software.
2. " Your attempt to lay all the blame on the book for the 15 minute delay is not based on an support facts whatsoever"
Where did I say lay all the blame? I said, between two sides, if one side is responsible to the other for the in call, and something goes wrong, even if it's an external event, the seller is the one responsible and should admit blame. I'm not interested in the reasoning just like our customers weren't interested that the problem was really on m$ side. They paid money to us and we answer for the product. Just like customers aren't interested to know there is an issue with product when datacenter in city X gets hit by a natural disaster. Is that so hard to get, Jensen? If someone doesn't have a backup, they shouldn't blame it on the hurricane/tornado. They should admit guilt because they're responsible for the product and could've had availability zones to backup the datacenters. Whoever owns and sells the product, gets the blame. Is that so fucking hard to get?
"Hint, the broken gate did not cause the 15 minute delay"
Lolwut? Yes, it did. The booker gave instructions for the broken gate and then once receiving message about gate not working, tried other alternatives. Following those instructions it took 15 minutes to get to the place.
The lack of apology is simply some principle or power trip of the booker.
3. Uh... I only mentioned this solution because I've seen this done right under my nose. It is arguable if it is a good solution, agreed. Still, if someone asked me whether I'd want to get 1) a head start 15 minutes late but keep the full hour, or 2) start right now but only get 45 mins at the price of an hour.... I'd always choose the former. But again, simply my opinion and I don't hold it as the absolute truth.
Also I'm with my bro when he said that clock should start when you get into the apartment, and end when you get out of the shower. But that is debatable and another topic.
--------------
Once again, you glossed over or pretended to not understand main point. The booker should not have scolded my bro for asking for an hour - this was completely rude and unprofessional. The booker also should have admitted it was on her/him.
Were the booker to do those two things and NOT give him the full hour, this thread wouldn't be made. We're the booker to give him full hour but still scold him and say he's not responsible next time, the thread would still be made.
Your post:
Customer (monger pal of mine, not me but someone I actually can vouch for) given green light, gate is not working. Spends 15 minutes looking for/getting to the apt via alternative entrance. Asks PO for an hour and is still kicked out after 40 mins.
The girl confirms the gate isn't working the entire day.
[1. Many questions about "Spends 15 minutes looking for/getting.... The main one might did the booker give helpful and good instructions and was that 15 minutes the minimum to have expected? Secondary might be what was your buddie's reaction to the situation and what tone was used when telling the booker he needed help?]
Later PO texts the monger that it's not their fault gate isn't working and to not ever ask for full hour again.
[Why would that text be sent later? Seems like the guy won't let go and keeps arguing about the lost time. That is not reasonable once he's been told the original end time has to be honored.]
Agency is SweetAngels where Tiana is the... uh... the one girl that never leaves.
Now, attention, here's my question....
Whose responsibility is the incall location and why shouldn't a monger be able to ask for an hour in such a scenario? Clearly, to me it is up to PO and org who are responsible for this. If gate isn't working it's up to them to provide fast alternative entry and to ensure all customers still get full hour even if the green light has to be a few minutes later.
[Seems obvious that the monger did ask for his hour and was told that was not possible. Your story seems to imply that the guy kept pushing the "I want my hour" demand forcing a stronger reaction than already given. Worth noting that to date no indication that any other customers had difficulty.]
There is no way in hell these 45 mins should be on the customer imo. To me, that's just insulting.
[If the booker provided the fasted solution to the guy and other clients were already scheduled then it's not reasonable to give the guy his hour and interfere with everyone else's schedule. If, and this is just a possible case, on the other hand the guy spend 15 minutes bitching about the broken gate and how the booker was responsible for that and he better get his full hour then the loss of the time is on him. Booker doesn't even owe him a prorated session.]
***** OP and some comments above. General response
Okay, so now the issue is about being courteous. That cuts both ways. If your buddy was not also being polite the booker is hardly under any obligation to stay polite. But you provide no insight to the tone (or even the medium) of the conversation starting with reporting the gate was not working.
Your example is very common -- most people try to interact both politely and professionally in business interactions but some don't always manage to consistently do so. I'm sure that if the customer was not merely skeptical of the "MS's problem not really something under our control." but disrespectful to your company and its people, demanding the company return what ever the equivalent of the lost time might be that you also could not provide at some point someone is going to stop being polite to that person.
I have been in situations where something goes bad and results in a negative impact to a customer, or even several. We also apologize even if the root cause is not ours. But occasionally someone on the customer side just looses it and becomes abusive and unprofessional. In such cases the person is warned that abusive, disrespectful or overly impolite will not be tolerated. That is done in a stern, very direct manner that in a normal situation would be considered rude and impolite. I've also been on the followup calls in such cases with upper managed from both side to address the situations and seen the customers management apologize for the inappropriate behavior. SO now you have the counter example to yours but we still don't know how the communications between your buddy and the booker so we don't know which example is most similar the case you posted about.
So no, just based on your limited information you provided it is not just clear the booker did anything that was not justified. Fill in all those blanks and then we might be able to agree on a conclusion/assessment of the specific case you presented. This is why I say it's about the messenger and not the message. You want to start with some specific event that occurs, present limited information about it, are reluctant to entertain discussion about various ways it might have played out, or flat out dismiss such discussion. But it's the details of the specific that will ultimately determine if some general rule should apply or not. But you ignore all that.
Maybe you think you are having discussions but the reality is your posts are just pure argument. As part of your rhetorical style you shift your ground. In the OP what was your closing line? "There is no way in hell these 45 mins should be on the customer imo. To me, that's just insulting." Yet when I was talking about the lost time a few days back you claimed the time was not the issue but acknowledging responsibilities was the main issue for you. Then you shift back to deserves the full hour claim, and the responsibility claim. Now you shift to courtesy is an obligation/expectation on the part of the booker, but remain mute with regard to any such obligation by a customer, and want to claim that the book never has an excuse to be blunt, discourteous or angry. No exceptions at all it would seem.
You seem to have missed that I actually quoted you in the subject line to the post noting that the messenger is a larger source of controversy than the message. The point was that you don't actually discuss with anyone. You argue and you don't do so fairly or honestly.
Since you missed that point it was clearly pointless to discuss further.
Excellent analysis, Jensen.
Since you missed that point it was clearly pointless to discuss further
Rocket’s bullshit opening sets us up for a very long-winded, bogus premised diatribe (his signature argument style)
Kudo’s to Jensen for following Rocket down his rabbit hole and deconstructing every point he made. I don’t have the patience for the deep dives.
However, as I've explained thrice by now, the latter is worse. Not fulfilling an obligation to a customer is bad, yet acting like it's not your fault this obligation wasnt fulfilled is worse. It makes the seller look like someone with severe ego issues.
It's not really about being (Im)polite. It's about admitting fault. You seem to ignore this, yet you claim I ignore your points. You can be impolite and still admit fault. Or you can be polite but don't admit fault.
The reason I brought up my example was you claiming I have unrealistic expectations. I gave you an example of a very realistic expectation. In my case my company wasn't even responsible for the situation. In my buds case, it's actually on the PO. You try hard with cemantics to say orgs are not responsible for incall location being accessible. But they are. They sell a product that requires accessing the incall, it's their responsibility. 24/7. And an indie is responsible for a hotel Incall being accessible.
And I don't care what happens in the hotel. If she can't make it or I can't enter on time given instructions, that's on HER. Next time choose a better room, house, block, street, city, country, continent, galaxy, universe. But this time... it's on her, I expect admittance of fault AND a full agreement that I have a FUNDAMENTAL right to ask for full hr
In a two way biz it's certainly NOT the customers responsibility to make sure Pos instructions are actually legit. In this case, they weren't. Shit can happen, we both agree, but in the case when shit happens on your side, own it. PO clearly didn't.
I'll also say that a couple of times I was late (5 to 10 mins) to an appt I'd text the PO and apologize profusely before, while driving/parking. Because clearly it was my fault. Yet countless times I was given green light 5-15 mins late, barely any Pos apologized. Smells like double standards? In both cases, there is a clearly guilty party. But somehow booker thinks if its the girl or trick pad issue they aren't responsible! Any issue with the product is on the seller, period.
Also your cemantics and double standards again. I get it, you *discuss* but I *argue*. Ha.
" did the booker give helpful and good instructions and was that 15 minutes the minimum to have expected? what was your buddie's reaction... and what tone was used when telling the booker he needed"
How can you expect me to answer the first q with no reference? Even my pal prolly can't answer it since he never tried getting in before via another exit.
As far as tone, I have no clue. Im not him and don't have an insight into his texts. However, saying he talked shit to the PO because no PO responds like this, is a baseless assumption and a fallacy of begging the question.
"[If the booker provided the fasted solution to the guy and other clients were already scheduled then it's not reasonable to give the guy his hour and interfere with everyone else's schedule. If, and this is just a possible case, on the other hand the guy spend 15 minutes bitching about the broken gate and how the booker was responsible for that and he better get his full hour then the loss of the time is on him. Booker doesn't even owe him a prorated session"
PO provided him a solution and it took fifteen minutes to get the room via this solution. I thought it was really clear. If the fastest solution still caused him to lose any time from his hour, that's on PO and always is on PO.
A customer contract says one hour. Customer has paid for an hour and is entitled to it.
Let me say or the at this louder for the folks in the back like snitch cks.
The CUSTOMER is EN-TI-TLED to what he paid for. In real biz situation, a customer can ask to take his money back and walk. And shit on the company in the process.
And here's something important that you seem to be missing. No matter the tone, it doesn't absolve the seller from their guilt.
"but disrespectful to your company and its people, demanding the company return what ever the equivalent of the lost time might be that you also could not provide at some point someone is going to stop being polite to that person. "
it wasnt about being polite. It was about admitting guilt, publicly to keep the customers happy.
And we did pay them extra. Because kpi says there was an outage. We sell a product. Hence it is our fault even if it isn't. It's something I keep repeating to you to no avail. This isn't about being polite. This is about taking the responsibility and not tucking tail in like a btch
Likewise, in this case, taking responsibility was apologizing to the customer who fulfilled his obligation fully - paid in full, was on time, followed the directions and treats the girl well. This did not happen, and not only that... the PO scolded my bro to never ask for full hour when he in fact had full right to do so. Its about having customer rights to ask what they've paid for. Also, the PO promised him full hour at the beginning so not only can PO not admit guilt she's also a liar!
Now. If the PO told him "fuck off it's our fault and you deserved an hour but you can't get it" in the off-chance his response was rude like you claim, that's completely fine. It's rude but admits guilt. It's saying it's not my fault - when it is - and making it seem like the customer who is at fault here - that is infuriating and making my blood boil.
You don't get outs when you admit guilt. So someone refusing to admit guilt when they messed up and caused the customer to lose time is unacceptable and is behavior indicative of what I colloquially call "scum".
"be that you also could not provide at some point someone is going to stop being polite to that person.
"
Stop being polite, sure. Not admit guit? No chance. We made the product, we sold the product. It's on us to make sure customer is happy.
So, again, no one gets an out simply because they didn't like the tone.
" present limited information about it"
As describing someone else's encounter I cannot ever provide full details of the encounter and all of you know it. I told the story as it was told to me, and I can't be bothered to ask him for more details every time someone tries to make assumptions that weren't in the story to start with.
And especially cdl and snitch cks love to make these assumptions because then they claim that I add facts on. It's hilarious, really. Imagine asking your buddy in private group about something that wasn't mentioned, then me relaying it back here and I hear that I changed my narrative. Lol.
"but remain mute with regard to any such obligation by a customer"
I already outlined the obligations that a client has. My bud completed all of them. Obligation to be polite when getting shafted is NOT an obligation, but we don't even know whether he was polite or not.
I can call someone a POS and still win in court against them. You know why? Because guilt and responsibility aren't predicated on me being polite or impolite. It's predicated on contract and obligation. Something the booker clearly breached.
"Your story seems to imply that the guy kept pushing the "I want my hour" demand forcing a stronger reaction than already given."
My story said that after the appointment, he received a text from booker who said you shouldn't ask for an hour in this situation, and again if such situation arises again.
" Why would that text be sent later? Seems like the guy won't let go and keeps arguing about the lost time."
here you go again making an assumption out of thin air. The story clearly states then later text is sent by PO, yet you make up an assumption, begging the question.
Overall, you are still failing to decouple being polite from admitting guilt and responsibility.
Totaling his car and closing down the freeway for an hour, whose fault is it in the context of appointment?
Guess what, no one cares to hear why you're late. The fact is, you're late. But if you fail to say sorry or admit your responsibility, things typically won't go well. Especially if you are late for a very important meeting.
You're still responsible for getting there on time regardless of shit hppening out of your control. And in the same vein, the org/po/girl is responsible for incalll working and getting a customer full time he's paid for.
The failure of admittance of responsibility is the fundamental issue we completely disagree on, in case you didn't read my longer post. And it wasn't a passive fialjre of admittance. It was active failure of admittance - the booker explicitly said the seller party is not responsible for this issue. This is by far the biggest issue here.
PS. Tonight Ive learned TER has 8k character limit for posts 
One of the times I missed a session was when some lady rear-ended me on the freeway ON THE WAY TO THE INCALL. It was 15 minutes past the appointment time when I called the booker and told him what happened, texted a time-stamped photo of the dent in the back of my car. His first words were, "are you injured?" I wasn't, but he said don't worry about it, just call when you want to re-schedule.
The key to having excuses accepted is when they are rare. Guys with a lot of excuses who are chronically late or last-minute cancellations will reach a tipping point where their business is no longer valuable to the org. As I've said before, "all businesses want your patronage on terms they can live with, not at any cost." Lost revenue can be prevented by cutting off the customers most likely to give you that result, regardless of the type of business, but it's ironic that when a monger gets to this point where his continued business is no longer worth the inconvenience and aggravation he brings with him, he always points the finger at the booker, the org, or the girl because he feels ALL of his excuses were good ones, which is not really the point.
-- Modified on 12/6/2022 12:01:43 PM
1) I'm not your friend, pal
2) I don't care what your bookr friend asked. You're responsible for being on time so you called and said sorry you're not going to make it, right? It was your responsibility to get there on time. Not the bookers.
And it is always the booker/org/indie responsibility to answer for anything incall related even if it's not their fault. Just like it is
the buyers responsibility for anything outcall related even if its not the client's fault.
What is so fucking hard to understand here?
You seem to be saying that there is never a time when an excuse is acceptable, which is different than what you said further up. I'm saying there is such as thing as a good excuse, if they are used rarely. The more you make excuses, the less cred the excuses have, regardless of how valid they may seem to the person making them.
According to your post, if an earthquake renders a building unfit and the session must be postponed for the safety of both the kgirl and the monger, it's the fault of the booker/org/Kgirl. On the other hand, if a provider shows up late to an outcall appointment, it's the fault of the monger. This makes less sense than ALMOST anything you have posted on this board. Your position leaves no room for exceptions, so it will be interesting to see how you walk this back now that you have buried yourself in absolutes.
"According to your post, if an earthquake renders a building unfit and the session must be postponed for the safety of both the kgirl and the monger, it's the fault of the booker/org/Kgirl."
Correct, it is the fault of the party responsible for the incall. Because they're responsible for it in the context of a two-way bidirectional contract
Conversely, if an earthquake renders my outcall location unfit, then it is my (ie mongers) fault.
Imagine an escort on a tight outcall schedule trying to get into my building following my instructions and they aren't working. Then yes I will be responsible and will have to settle for less time and be apologetic to the escort.
It's all very common sense. Incall party is responsible for the incall lcoation, outcall party is responsible for outcall location. In a contract that involves one party going to incall/outcall.
Have you ever thought why someone who gets fucked up off a building negligence in some company sues the said company and not the building? Aside from being able to settle for more money, the point is the company who leases the space is responsible for any hazards inside to their customers. NOT the real estate company that lends them office space.
-- Modified on 12/20/2022 7:26:14 PM
Between walking back your comments of nearly three weeks ago, and doubling down on lunacy. Lol
When it comes to premises liability, it's not so black and white. It depends on the nature of the hazard, and not necessarily where it was located. Do some research before you post speculation like this.
What did I walk back on?
I always maintained the responsibility of incall location is on the org. And always have maintained they should take the responsibility.
That's consistent with your bias against orgs. No matter what the monger does, he's always right and the org is always wrong in your world.
Not true. I just said a monger would responsible for outcall malfunctioning in the same way an org would be reposible for incall malfunction. Whoever sets the place is responsible for it and should admit guilt.
It's ironic to hear this accusation from one of the fiercest org and booker defenders out here.
Also you haven't mentioned what did I "walk back" here?
-- Modified on 12/21/2022 1:23:33 PM
instead, you continued to double down on your lunacy. You ignored my point on the prior posts. You said if there is a problem with an incall it's the orgs fault, and if there is a problem on an outcall, it's the mongers fault. I gave but one example (there are more) of a provider showing up late at the monger's hotel. How can that be the monger's fault? You completely dodged this example. Do you merely not understand the question, or do you want multiple examples? I suppose if the provider got stuck in the elevator on the way up to the guy's room, that would be the monger's fault, too, because he selected the hotel? This is what happens with binary thinking. You have no room in your thought process for anything other than one way or the other. You don't allow for any middle ground, which is . . . . . wait for it . . . . "lunacy."
A provider showing up late to a mongers hotel is her fault, obviously. Just like it is a mongers fault showing up late to an incall. I thought that's super obvious. I didn't think you lacked the cognitive ability to separate obligation of someone arriving on time and someone responsible for the location they picked.
"suppose if the provider got stuck in the elevator on the way up to the guy's room, that would be the monger's fault, too, because he selected the hotel? "
Finally, it took you so long to get this simple concept. Yes, correct.
One more time, if you are a patron of a restaurant, you got to the bathroom and pipes burst on you leaving your clothes stinking of sewerage, you don't sue people who did the pipes or rented out the space. You sue the restaurant because the only contract you had was with the restaurant. Theyre responsible for pipes not bursting on you randomly when inside the restaurant. And they're responsible for elevators working. Etc etc.
Finally I find it amusing that you, defending these orgs, are hiding behind the concept of "binary thinking". It's so fucking hard to admit that orgs should give buyers what they paid for, in full and be responsible for their own in call. Amazing how you try to polish their turds.
I always think back to useryhead stories about how apparently Asian cultures attempt to "save face" (a concept I find hilarious in general, because it's nonsense as I've dated many Asian girls who never exhibited any of that and their parents who often were first Gen immigrants as well) and laugh.
Because saving their face is just an attempt to escape accountability. Many of the ebooker sna dogs are Power hungry entities who need periodically be shown their place - without saving face, in fact the opposite. And I'm glad to do it.
Would be able to see that "In-Call Location" and "on time" are separate fields on TER when submitting a review and maybe figure out why they are separate, as each corresponds to a different obligation.
Maybe I thought too much of your abilities, cdl.
Your abilities seemingly only exist to make the orgs, bookers - and girls - appear better than they really are and better than they actually behave, and absovle them of any blame.
whenever you know your argument is lunacy and you lost, you post a second time, trying to get a little dig or personal attack in. Coming from you, they mean nothing, but thank you for confirming that you are doubling down on lunacy. Confirming that an outcall provider being stuck in an elevator is the monger's fault because he picked the hotel is your crowning achievement in the advancement of nonsense. A power outage that interrupts their rendezvous is neither one's fault, because it's considered a force majeure (act of God that neither party could control.) Continuing to double down on your binary-thinking lunacy just makes you look egotistical and not too bright, but you go ahead and be you. You are earning the new pronoun "lunatic" on your own.
Personal attack?
I merely clarified that arriving on time is an obligation for both parties and is separate from responsibility for the location . Sure shit happens, and yet when that shit happens it's the tardy party prerogative to make the other party know, apologize for being late, and be prepared for not getting the contract fulfilled.
And if the escort gets stuck in my hotels elevator, yes I will have to apologize. Escorts schedule is respected so I can't possibly ask for the same time as before. And it is my fault for settling in a hotel that caused issues.
In the case I've described, it was up to the booker to admit that they were responsible and that the customer had the RIGHT to demand full time he fully paid for. Instead, the booker said the customer is not entitled to full time and dodged responsibility for the in call.
Just like I said, in the case you go to a restaurant and then the seage pipe bursts in the bathroom, it is the restaurant who will apologize and will be sued. And if I will get stuck in their elevator it is THEY who will apologize and will be sued.
Not the people who built the elevators or the pipes. But the restaurant, because I'm attending the fucking restaurant
Your inability to get a simple concept of being accountable and accept responsibility for bidirectional contracts, is uncanny.
But I get it, orgs and bookers can never do no wrong and escorts never fart. I get it. They also aren't subjected to same ethical standards for whatever reasons and should be allowed to save face for some silly reason. They are somehow allowed to tell a customer who has paid in full that they aren't allowed to ask for time they fucking PAID.
The only lunacy here is you thinking it's normal to treat customers like shit because the sellers sell pussy and because that act is illеgаl
absolutely nothing about who should be liable in a given situation. If the broken pipes were caused by back pressure from the city sewage system, the restaurant has no liability for that and are an innocent victim, just like you, even though the restaurant is not completely covered in shit like you are. You could try suing the city, but the restaurant would win if you sued them and may get an award of attorneys fees having to defend against your frivolous suit. How many people have you actually sued in your life, anyway? I would venture to say, "none" because you have a very distorted view of how the legal system works in civil matters.
If there were a city-wide power outage, it is likely that neither provider nor monger would be able to keep the appointment. Trying to assess "blame" in that situation based on who was hosting is a fool's errand, but loony conclusions right up your alley.
Once again, if I go to a restaurant and end up in a predicament on the restaurants property, then yes I will sue the restaurant.
Premises liability :
"A premises liability lawsuit holds a property owner responsible for ANY damages arising out of an injury on that person or entity's property"
And a sewage pipe bursting would definitely be a cause for apologizing to customers caught up in it at the very least. The PO offered no apology, and also has claimed that the monger shouldn't request a full hour in a situation where the monger has a RIGHT to request it because he PAID for it.
about the restaurant fail does not turn a loss into a win. Sorry.
If a guy arrives at the incall later than the time he booked because he wandered around the complex for ten minutes after getting the go ahead, he is not entitled to the full hour unless he was not given the go-ahead by the time that was booked. If he gets lost, it's on him. You can't fix stupid. If he is ten minutes late, why not just ask for a 15% discount? I'll tell you why. It's because it makes him look like a cheap-ass. Demanding the full hour when you are late because you got lost is much the same. That's all for me on this one. Go ahead and repeat yourself yet again.
"Premises liability law refers to the legal principles that hold landowners and tenants responsible when someone enters onto their property and gets hurt due to a dangerous condition. With few exceptions, premises liability claims are based on negligence, although the doctrine may be applied differently than it is in other personal injury situations. "
This definition is the opposite of what you tried to peddle.
LOL at someone getting lost. Nowhere in this thread did it say anyone got lost. You trying to move goalposts again. Once again, the customer received instructions and gate was not operable. The customer didn't get "lost", he followed the instructions he received after telling the PO the gate is broken. You are deliberately twisting the story to suit your agenda. How pathetic, all to protect the shitty PO who is drunk with power and has no personal responsibility or ethics. So no, the customer has a RIGHT to request full time in case he didn't get it and he wasnt at fault. I'll repeat it as many times as needs for someone like you who don't get it.
-- Modified on 12/28/2022 10:33:31 AM
a restaurant patron would absolutely have a cause of action against the restaurant if he were injured by bad pipes while inside the walls of the restaurant. the patron would file a complaint against the restaurant who would then file a cross complaint against the landlord or any other entity it feels is liable for damages if the plaintiff hasn't already done so. indemnity and hold harmless clauses would come into play but none of this matters to the patron (plaintiff). all of the defendants would come to the table and hammer out the percentages of liability owed in the matter. if they can't agree on who pays what, usually they would go to arb (if it were a tenant landlord relationship) after a jury awards the damages to the plaintiff. one thing is certain, filing a complaint against the restaurant would not be considered frivolous or vexatious. even if turns out the restaurant is liable for 0 percent, nobody would blame the plaintiff for filing against the restaurant. further, "bad pipes" wouldn't be considered a force majeure incident in the first place. "good pipes" that suddenly burst due to a earthquake for example would be a force majeure incident, and even in such a case would not be considered a frivolous claim should someone need to make one. it may not win, but it wouldn't be subject to attorneys' fees against plaintiff.
that the patron was injured, but only that he was "covered in shit." I don't disagree with you on the indemnification concept, but that goes beyond the example that was set by the poster offering "covered in shit" as proof of liability. Injury is another matter. With that said, no doubt there are ambulance chasers who can turn, "covered in shit", into emotional trauma for $400/hour. Lol
actually,... IF i were a pi attorney, i wouldn't take a case that only paid 400 per hour. and literal chasing of ambulances is not allowed even though crim defense guys can chase cop cars.
You're kidding, right? You forgot to put "lol" at the end, right?
A personal injury does not have to be a BODILY injury. Being "covered in shit" due to someone's negligence most certainly IS a personal injury.
Also, personal injury attorneys or "ambulance chasers" as you refer to them, do not charge by the hour; they only get paid if they win the case. Therefore, if an attorney takes a "covered in shit" case, you can damn well believe he expects to have a successful outcome so that his client will get compensated and the attorney will receive remuneration on the if/come.
Of course none of that even applies to the situation we're talking about as the customer had not yet reached the actual premises. They were still in the common areas of the complex. I suspect the more accurate analogy here would be the guy trying to get to his dinner reservation on time but finding the entry to the place blocked by a traffic accident. Then once he could find parking and enter the restaurant finds that he must rush a bit and is expected to leave in time for the table to be cleaned and set for the next seating.
Jensen, I am disaappoitned because I wrote a big post where I outlined the confusion you seemed to have with my response.... and I've never received anything back from you. Tis a shame.
Or do you still maintain that the PO isn't responsible in any way shape or form for the I call and admitting guild is against her race/religion?
It's a funny situation, if no one is responsible for the situation, why should the fucking customer pay for less time? Certainly wasn't his fault. He should've been given the money back for 15 minutes at the very least. And PO should've never even said a peep about his right to request full time - it is natural to ask for full time given you haven't received it and it want your fault.
I don't expect a response from you.
But I do hope Tiana wears this incident like a Scarlett letter forever. Shit yorg with double listing b&s and hundreds of fake reviews on the other platform when this org got started.
Look how he is clinging to words of "covered in shit" and bringing up prices where he knows damn well the discussion was all about principle.
I was saying in no uncertain terms, that the tenant is responsible for any issues occurring on the area he occupies in the biz between a business and a customer. Cdl spurned that and called it lunacy. Now he is walking back. Moonwalking Ronald McDonald here lol
I know the original topic has been beaten like a dead horse and I'm not looking to chime in to who's right. Here is where my reply should be relevant. My one and only experience with this org, SweetAngels had several issues. You can look at my review of Hwa and make your own judgement but at the heart of it goes to some semblance of customer service. The PO for this org does not care in any way about repeat business or making things right for the customer.
I received several PM's after my review that echoed the sense that besides Bella (who if she decided to leave would be a death for this org) most providers were beyond the standard PS of most agencies. Mine was a blatant bait & switch. The reasons for me staying are in my review but ultimately, even with the provider stopping at the 30 minute mark and offering to return $40, the PO told her not to and that with all the time wasted between them, the time had been spent which (20 minutes had remained).
I don't care about $40. I have chalked up many not-so-great experiences to chemistry and walked early. What I don't appreciate is an org that is misleading customers and then doesn't care about at least keeping them happy and returning.
Yes, I won't be returning. I have 8 other orgs to choose from that I have access to so I'm not worried. I don't even care why you guys want to bicker about semantics and bashing team_rocket_qwerty but I will echo what should be at the heart of this topic which is the PO doesn't give a "F" and not interested in keeping the customer happy.
I haven't even seen Bella so maybe some of you who don't want to lose access to her might white knight here and that's okay. I've been guilty of protecting some favorites a long time ago because I wanted to continue seeing the provider and maybe even getting better service but eventually, all good things come to an end and this is a business transaction. Sometimes, the service you get is far better in value than you expect, other times, it's okay. And lastly, sometimes, you speak up because you don't want others to get crappy service. Is this 100% altruistic as a PSA? Nope, I admit, I don't want crappy orgs sticking around or PO's for that matter.
So not to open old wounds here but clarity on what should be most important here.
That’s just so scummy to take away from the clients time because the lady’s incall gate wouldn’t open.. she shouldn’t be so double booked to the Point of rushing clients out of her apartment, that’s just crazy to me.
Transaction declined
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!