There's a post on the Chicago board where a hobbyist outed a provider who NCNS him for the second time. A couple of others wrote posts saying the same thing happened to them. And this is a provider who has great reviews. We all know we can't submit reviews for NCNS sessions.
The ladies maintain DNS lists for hobbyists who do the same thing and rightfully so. Since TER is easily the largest national review site, maintaining a NCNS list would be a benefit for the hobbyists. When a NCNS occurs, the hobbyist simply submits the ocurrance; no comments or stories. One could go to the list and see how many NCNS's a provider has been accused of. Possibly one variable, is that a NCNS could be marked as 'Verified' if the hobbyist submits some supporting evidence like emails. Of course providers should be able to dispute them in the same way. I know... how do you keep malicious asswipes from submitting false information. The same question can be asked of the NCS lists. I think most hobbyists would be able to read between the lines. If a provider has great reviews and has a NCNS listed from an unknown or untrustworthy hobbyist, I think most of us would schedule with the lady.
Thoughts?
-- Modified on 1/27/2007 7:30:49 AM
-- Modified on 1/27/2007 7:32:48 AM
Iv'e had problems with ncns not with that provider but all I ask is a courtesy call. If I can't make an appointment or running a few minutes late I call. If I'm early I call. It's simple call.
While I wholeheartedly support the creation of a NCNS catagory, I would have huge problems with promoting the distribution or publication of private e-mails for verification.
I as well as others have brought this up before; but lazy providers looking for easy excuses and their WKL always unite in strong opposition saying it will be abused by competing providers and disgruntled hobbyists alike.
IMO a 'Black List' naming the contributing hobbyist with all the system's currently implemented safeguards (IE:IP recognition etc) is no more and no less valid than the review system itself and it's safeguards.
The only REAL losers to a NC/NS “black list” will be the very providers that are predisposed to unprofessional behavior and ethics.
The providers who regularly practice professional accountability will be justifiably rewarded by the conspicuous absence of multitudes of such listings.
-- Modified on 1/27/2007 9:24:21 AM
I can't tell you how much time it takes to plan a trip from coordinating travel plans to marketing, screening and setting up appointments. Add the additional time it takes to arrive at your destination and the bottom line expense of the actual trip (remember guys it isn't just the cost of the room that we incur when touring)it's infuriating to have someone NCNS. In my case I sub out my fitness classes to make a trip which means I forfeit some income when I travel.
I was just up in Westchester (and this is just the most recent example!) where it happened to me recently in Westchester by someone I've seen twice before. He still hasn't called or emailed to explain or apologize so yes, I'd love to be able to post his pattern (and others of course) in a forum where it might be useful to someone else. I'm not saying we should persecute folks but certainly, the review system keeps us girls on our toes – wouldn't a NCNS board be just the check and balance system we need for the guys? I know there are valid complaints about girls doing the same but I have to say that the Touring NCNS factor is a *HUGE* problem and needs to be remedied.
We resposible hobbyist would welcome such a listing. And yes, it happens on both sides.
Notice: Hobbiest reserves the right to be a no show if and when he looses keys to car, did not withdraw enough cash during the day or forgot that it was a bank holiday. Hobbiest also reserves the right to turn and run if detecting LE activity in the area or a B&S operation. Hobbiest also reserves the right to be a no show should it become clear that there will be significant upselling or other untoward activity detected by due dillingence. All money exchanged under the terms of the hobbiest provider relationship are solely for her kindness and agreeable nature, laughter at his jokes and her exit following "the date."
Any resemblance to real or fictional people either living or dead is purly coincidental. Local taxes and entertainment fees may apply in certain states and municipalities... remember, 670,616,629 miles per hour, its not just a good idea, its the law!
-- Modified on 1/27/2007 9:58:06 PM
a NCNS forum is long overdue. NCNS is one of my biggest pet peeves! The list of excuses given sometimes is so pathetic. Having common courtesy is not so hard.
The only people fearing a NCNS forum are flaky providers. Like reviews, the experienced guys will know which NCNS updates are legit.
I thought you were petitioning for a NCNS board for providers which is desperately needed. Of course we have our own DNS lists but clearly, our lists only serve us.
If TER decided to offer a NCNS forum to hobbyist but not providers I would begin to wonder if the board is here to serve a community or a boys club?
xo
L
but as many of us know, the ladies already have DNS lists that contains guys that NCNS and are constant late minute cancels. Hobbyists do not have a forum to maintain a list.
IF TER decided to have a forum for providers and hobbyists, that's fine with me.
....if you mean the provider only board it's not really cohesive system. It's basically just a board for posting our ins and outs. We need a database with search features please.
Love you CHI-P
I've suggested this idea in the context of hobbyists who are violent or dangerous. It seems the postings on the providers board would not suffice, because they are not going to be easily cross-referenced. The problem with searching for *bad* hobbyists is that they can use fake names easily, so a provider is not going to know who she is dealing with. Plus, the worst hobbyists are probably not on TER anyway (I hope). The solution I would suggest is a *black list* where the providers can give the phone numbers for the hobbyists. Landline phone numbers cannot be easily changed. So, if a provider asks for a landline phone number as part of her screening, she can easily check the list (whether the hobbyist is a TER member or not). The problem, obviously, is that hobbysists would probably be in an uproar if such a list were developed for guys who were merely jerks. My suggestion, respectfully, is to develop a blacklist limited to hobbyists who are dangerous (e.g., robbery, assault and the like). You could also have a *do not serve* list for the less dangerous creeps, but my guess is that it will be of marginal utility unless it is searchable using some hard data (phone numbers, email [and even those are very easily changed]), and I think you will scare away a lot of customers if they think such a list is being developed with their landline phone numbers.
Your gender recreant's is ever pervasive given that you only have suggestions for further protection of the gals and not a single thought for the guys in relevance to the original topic.
the discussion, however, is about this site, and what can/should be done to improve it.
This should not be a male vs. female issue (as you frame it), or a provider vs. hobbyist issue. This should be a safety vs. danger issue.
Everyone (hobbyist and provider alike) loses if providers are put at risk for physical violence. I do not think this is such a rare occurrence that it can be ignored. I've had multiple providers tell me horror stories. I do not think they are lying.
Completely apart from the fact that human compassion should compel all of us to want to insure the providers are safe when they do their jobs, it is also in our best interests.
If providers face excessive risks in meeting clients, it will make it more difficult and more expensive to see providers. To take just one example (I could give several), some providers will only work with agencies. Why? Because they feel with good reason that the agency will given them an added margin of physical safety. But for the hobbyists, the agencies are really a pain -- the drive up the cost; they lower the quality of service; and they put everyone at greater risk for LE involvement.
We would probably, on the whole, get better service if more providers were independents. But independents need every means available to increase their margin of safety.
Again, that's just one example for why I think it's in our interest to insure provider safety, to the extent possible.
I am not against giving the hobbyist tools to protect himself (from scams or worse). But obviously, this site already provides that to a considerable degree. You can still wind up with a crappy provider, unfortunately, but if you use this site carefully you will probably be able to avoid physical assault.
I am not even sure how often you will end up with a NCNS. Stay away from unreviewed (or fraudulently reviewed) providers, and the likelihood of a NCNS will be slim, because any decent provider will realize she only loses money by screwing up. In the rare instance where that does not happen, by all means, communicate with the provider, and if that does not work, post on the regional board.
Interestingly, the vast majority of reviews rate performance at 5 or above. Given the possibility of fraudulent reviews on both sides of the scale, that tells us that basic principles of economics work. Providers will try to provide decent service because they will get paid more money for doing so.
There are probably more NCNS by clients. They don't lose money by canceling an appointment. And unlike providers, who have obviously gotten over the major hangup of doing this in the first place, a lot of hobbyists are still uneasy about taking the plunge. Just look at how many hobbyists talk about how nervous they are in their reviews.
But while the principles of economics (and a good review system) should protect us from bad deals most of the time, the principles of economics won't help when someone commits an act of violence. That's why even the most radical anti-government economists still think we need laws against theft and physical assault. But while you can call the cops if you are robbed by your plumber, it's a little harder to call the cops if you are robbed by your john.
As long as this trade is outside the realm of the law, to some extent, we have to be self-regulating. And one of the first things we should try to regulate is any form of physical violence or theft --the basics of a civil society.
So, while I am in favor of all the tools on this site for the hobbyists, the providers do not have the same search tools on this site that we do. The best they have (again, limiting the discussion to this site) are the discussion boards. That's not a great search engine for combatting a problem that concerns physical safety (and not just inconvenience).
One of the earlier posts said something about this being for the whole community, not just a boys club. I agree with that. Not only because I would not want providers to be put at unnecessary risk (would anyone?), but because it is definitely in our mutual interest to insure everyone is safe.
So, I am sorry, I do not think this is about gender loyalty.
Again, my proposal is limited to dangerous hobbyists. Presumably (hopefully), this does not concern TER hobbyists, but only other guys. I cannot see why we would not want to add any available tool to keep these women safe.
I'm not getting into a Men vs Women, Us vs Them debate.
You're altruistically beating the drum for more safeguards for the women (something I'm totally in favor of); but you've lost focus on the initial intent and sentiment of the thread.
Even well reviewed providers can harbor a clandestine litany of flaked on appointments. TER’s policy of not allowing a review on a tryst that never happened makes for a convenient smoke screen for unreliable/unprofessional providers to hide behind. The wasted time and money incurred on the part of the hobbyists is demonstrable and the ladies who present a greater risk in this money&time equation should be appropriately promulgated so that even the freshman hobbyist can easily find and make an informed decision from.
This NC/NS problem is a long running, common problem that has not been addressed other than making a post of the occurrence on a respective regional TER board that is at best temporal unless you have a good working knowledge of the available search engines.
In two separate threads today you have surreptitiously manipulated any counter opinion of yours to appear as insensitive to the ladies concerns all the way to brazen misogyny.
Your modus operandi is showing.
You don't (apparently) have anything to disagree with in my post, yet you attack me personally. Why?
You began not with a disagreement, in your prior post, but with an attack, accusing me of being disloyal to my gender (the use of the word recreant). If you attack me as such, it is certainly within bounds to respond to the attack. That's not shifting the debate.
A prior post by a provider pointed out that she wanted a searchable data base. I agreed with her. Again, how is that shifting the debate?
I did not accuse you of being insensitive (you won't find that word in my post), still less did I accuse you of misogyny. Obviously, I'm pretty well spoken, so if you don't mind, let me speak for myself, and don't try to put words in my mouth.
With regard to the posts above by RUG and DJ, if you defend that crap, then really there is nothing to discuss. Those posts are absolute garbage, and the guys who posted them are idiots.
With regard to your concern about NCNS, it has never been a problem for me, which I suppose is why I not as hot on the issue as you are. I don't object to identifying providers who do that, recognizing that it will be subject to all the same abuses as the review system itself (e.g., someone settling a score, etc.). But I would also point out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and there are definitely hobbyists who commit the same sin. Are you really keen on being evaluated by providers via a searchable data base?
So, I am actually advocating for a much more limited idea -- just weed out the people who are committing crimes. You should be wholeheartedly behind that proposal -- every hobbyist should -- because it does no harm, and some good, for everyone.
Especially after calling DJ & RUG misogynists in the aforementioned thread simply because they have a different opinion than you.
I called you no names and inferred no epithets. I merely pointed out what I perceived as a strategy to immediately demonize converse opinion of yours much like the Christian Right quickly adopted "Pro-life" which subtly insinuated that an alternate view on the debate marked one as someone who champions infanticide.
NC/NS has not been a big factor for me either. The fact is though it HAS happened and it costs the better part of a day + fuel when you live 70+ miles from their location.
The great side benefit of a permanent NC/NS listing is that the ladies who strive for professional ethics and common consideration in their craft are rewarded for their efforts by the conspicuous absence of these reports.
Chill out dude. Life is short. The hobby is supposed to be fun not made of arguments.
If you read what hes posted he has a Galahad fantasy a mile wide. He'll either wise up or be used up before long. Me ill just ignore him till i see proof of the former.
As is usually the risk with smart people, they tend to over think the issue. Simply put, the ladies have ample vehicles (i.e., The National Blacklist) to warn their fellow providers about guys who have a habit of wasting their time. That is a very good thing.
All I'm proposing is a similar vehicle for hobbyists to be able to warn other hobbyists about providers who have a habit of doing the same thing. This isn't a Man vs Woman thing. If I were a provider (and God help the poor hobbyist who would schedule with me after looking at my 'accurate' pics) and I had a choice between a 4-hr dinner date with an ATF vs. an already scheduled one-hour with an unknown, I would probably blow off the pre-existing session.
Any provider who says this doesn't happen is not being truthful. If it happens rarely, then it probably wouldn't show up on a NCNS list. But if it's a habit, it probably would and that needs to come to the attention of the hobbyist community. At that point, they can schedule a multi-hour to protect against getting bumped or schedule their one-hour with someone else.
Capiche?
I was responding to a post by Love Laney, which argued that providers on this site should have a searchable data base of hobbyists available to them. I agreed with her idea (in modified form). I don't think there's anything wrong with responding to someone else's post.
I've already agreed with the idea of somehow tracking NCNS by providers. Whether your idea will ultimately work or not is unclear, but I don't think there is any harm in it. I said that in a prior post.
There have been multiple responses to my post, but not one that says -- one way or the other -- whether providers should be given the same tool hobbyists have on this site, namely, a searchable data base. I don't know why the posts cannot address that simple issue.
I don't think it is an answer to say that there are tools available elsewhere in the internet. The national blacklist to which you refer, for example, is somewhat limited (apparently not a lot of providers use it) and it costs money. TER is unique because of the breadth of its reach. The question for TER members should always be how we can improve this site, and we should not worry about what the rest of the world does. If an idea makes this site better, that's all that matters.
It is important to recognize that the providers and hobbyists share mutual interests. When a hobbyist is a NCNS, it hurts not just the provider, but also other hobbyists. Providers (and especially agencies) will tend to overbook their schedules because of this problem. NCNS by hobbyists will also invariably drive up prices. I would submit that NCNS by hobbyists is related to NCNS by providers.
Thus, it is very much in our interest to address both problems. We should try to discourage both providers and hobbyists from NCNS.
I would be curious, then, whether you would oppose a NCNS list that tracks such behavior by both hobbyists and providers? Why should we not discourage behavior on both sides of the transaction?
Telling providers to look elsehwere (i.e., not on TER) for help is a self-defeating idea, in my opinion. As hobbyists, we want this site to be as helpful and user friendly to providers as possible. Why? Because it will attract more providers to this site, and it will help the high quality providers run their businesses more efficiently. We want that, because the easier it is for them to do business, the better it is for us.
I don't think that's an over-complicated idea. It's a very simple idea: make this site as useful as possible for hobbyists and providers alike.
I don’t think if I'd find an NCNS list useful at all. I know that only a small percentage of the encounters a provider has are reviewed. I’d be very surprised if any provider has even 10% of her sessions reviewed on TER. If a provider has 9 reviews and 1 NCNS post on TER, that in no way means that she is a NCNS 10% of the time. It could be .01% or 99% and there is way to know. It stands to reason that hobbyists with many reviews also have more experience selecting a provider and making arrangements and would therefore have a low occurrence of NCNS by providers. So we would be left with a board of NCNS posts from newbie’s, which no one is going to take seriously because they don’t have the “experience”. And unless there is a lot of information about the NCNS (time, location, distance traveled, how far in advance arrangements were made, etc.) is given, I would be skeptical about what really occurred especially if she had several good reviews. I am using TER extensively to develop a “short list” of providers for my upcoming trip to Vegas where I will re-enter the hobby as an active participant. I really doubt that an NCNS list would assist me in developing my list.
Just my 2% of a dollar.
If your Handle is attached to the complaint. The scales of hobby justice are tilted away from the hobbyist as the edge is to the house in Vegas. The wild card I'm speaking of here is the all powerful 'Personal Information' that you may have submitted to the very provider who has just stood you up. Now you go running to the NCNS board to enlighten your brothers about this crime (believe me ladies, wasted time and wasted hard on IS a crime), and the next thing you know you are on the receiving end of the wrath of a provider scorned. The risk far out weighs the reward in this scenario. An alias is also useless and easily defended with the usual laundry list of excuses and white knight defenders.
I think your ideas are noble and healthy for the serious hobbyist, but a foolproof system is just not there yet.
NSF
I got no called/no showed on last Friday.
Sara
What a fool. You look like a mouthful, er I mean handful : )
-- Modified on 1/28/2007 3:52:39 PM
What are you addressing? My comment was to Sara. I bet she got it and obviously, you didn't.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=21154&boardID=33&page=1
It's clear - we all agree a NCNS forum is needed. Now then, let's address the HOW (i.e. functionality and efficiency) of the proposal.
So glad to see the topic getting the attention it deserves even if it was thrown off track earlier in the thread.
Merely follow the outline of the "White List" afforded the ladies.
At bottom of the provider's profile page start a list as such:
DATE REVIEWER # OF REVIEWS TER MEMBER SINCE 200?
A listing could only be made by a username with 2 or more currently standing reviews.
A reviewer could only post "1" NC/NS per respective provider.
The same IP recognition software in effect to safe guard review validity would hold true for NC/NS reports.
Would there be occasional misuse or abuse? Yes; but the problematic nature of doing such would self police the system, and just as a reviewer with multiple reviews is given more value; so too would credibility be given or taken away by the listed number of the username’s reviews.
One is for the computer geeks (please don't take that as an insult): How does TER insure that reviewers really are reviewers? I see a lot of reviews that appear to be bogus (false positives and false negatives alike). Sometimes, I assume it is a provider having someone shill for her (or a provider shilling for herself). Sometimes, I imagine it's a provider stabbing a competitor in the back (or a disgruntled client, etc.).
It seems you cannot prevent that entirely, but one thing would be to insure that no one can sign on to TER with mutliple handles using the same computer. So, does TER have the technology to insure that does not happen?
Assuming the answer is "yes," then the second question is a policy question: do you oppose making the NCNS list mutual?
TER has an aggressive IP recognition software that thwarts multiple usernames, reviews etc. This same safeguard that keeps the review system from becoming a swamp of self reviews, shill reviews, and reviews meant to sabotage would automatically police a NC/NS "black" list. The efforts to get around this safeguard would prove overly problematic for vengeful intents.
I’m not against a NC/NS list naming flakey guys in spirit; but there are already black lists big & small, public & private, regional & national, respected and otherwise that already exist for the ladies use and protection.
-- Modified on 1/29/2007 5:05:47 PM
If you have the details and computer logistics figured out, why not develop a detailed proposal (as detailed as you can make it) and start a new post on the suggestion & policy board. I would suggest anticipating and meeting each concern/objection that might be raised. I will voice my support as long as it you put forth a mutual proposal.
I have no formal computer training so the "logistics" would be up to STAFF.
What I do have is 4 years of history around here and the S&G board never appeared as much of a 'discussion' board where the merits of things were debated. Whether ideas have been garnered and implemented by administration from S&G I do not know. THIS particular volley of opinions however; is the most progressed on this often repeated subject to date.
STAFF; The good citizens of TER would like to submit a redress for a long suffered grievance.