I thought it'd be a good idea to share such places if you know of any.
Obviously you don't want to be BLd by providing a truthful review that might be a negative review or simply below a score of seven, for example. Also it'd be nice to know which places do it because such bullying is against ter tos.
There was a good advice said on this board about making sure that bookers or orgs can't tell who you are by your handle. Still, I would argue that it would be for the benefit of everyone to know which entities conduct such practices.
Were you BLd before by someone who didn't like theit grade you gave out to them on a review site? I in particular, I would love to know more about your story!
-- Modified on 8/25/2021 9:50:26 PM
I don’t know about the other regions, but over at the Washington DC board, there’s been a fair amount of discussion over the years re agencies and or providers that try to keep tabs on mongers who write not so glowing reviews.
Not sure that trying to lodge a TOS complaint against an agency allegedly engaging in such behavior would get you any redress either.
Sadly, bay area regional board is pretty much dead on this forum.
Would appreciate a link to DC regional board about korg agencies topic you mentioned. Thanks in advance.
Judging from the responses and their lack thereof, I do think we will be able to fit all regions here lol
I remember a year ago some people saying not to post blah/non-glowing reviews because of such bl practices. I wonder if it's OK to do so now since it seems that these practices magically disappeared.
Happy Friday my monger brothers!!!!
I was on good terms with the booker's orgs that I patronized starting in 2016. Of course, Kun Gumiho was always tug, tug, tugging on my steel psychic cable.
I am currently BL with the following orgs: Asian Angels, Klovers, 🐇 kgirls, kgirls Academy and Sweet Angels.
It all started with me accidentally insulting Jessie. I drunk texted her one night something benign but she took it personally. Anyhow, she got me BL.
I did happen to get an appointment with Tiana. We had three sessions and we had an argument at the end of the third session where I wound up arguing on my way home with the booker after the fail with Tiana which got me back on the BL.
I don't want to fuck with Tiana's biZ so I'm not going to share that story. I will add that I wouldn't say avoid a session with Tiana. Just know she's YEMV.
I was a regular at Hourly Dreams org which is now defunct. I had a session with a So Cal kgirl with the stage name of Ellie. Long story short, I had kissed and made up with Jessie but unbeknown to me, she's Ellie's BFF and I wrote a review on Ellie where I closed the review by stating 'there's not a snowball's chance in HeLL that I'll ever repeat with Ellie'.
Got a call after publishing the review that if I ever want another date with Jessie that I need to retract my review, and apologize to Ellie and booker for fucking with their biZ. I did and all is well with me and Jessie.
It is what it is my brothers.
YEMV
-- Modified on 8/27/2021 5:02:25 AM
it has not been writing an honest review of a problematic sessions in an objective fashion but basically becoming an asshole with the girl and agency. That is a lot different than getting BLed due to a review that reports a bad session.
While I'm sure someone will spin this a different way, that is the core aspect of what those of us from the DMV area have been saying about things. Don't act like an asshole and start throwing accusations around and be totally disrespectful to these people. They are people and will work with someone that is honest and fair with them but those who are the "difficult" person get told to leave -- a lot like with ANY other business.
I'm pretty sure being told to retract a review that said Ellie is a no-go, because it fucked with their business
was a DIRECT example of an honest review of a problematic session being threatened and as a result taken down.
Saying there's no chance in hell I'll see girl X again is a perfectly fine statement on a review site. There is absolutely nothing disrespectful or asshole-ish about it. That you even try to spin this as such is telling.
Twoon, thank you for your post. It's a shame you were bullied by a girl and complied to remove an honest review. If I were in your shoes, I'd simply report this and let everyone know I've been threatened that way.
I also would like to point out your put their business above honesty, which is something I don't like, but at least you freely admit it. Some people can learn from you, sir.
Oh and... you do know who ran HD right? 
Rhetorical question.
-- Modified on 8/27/2021 11:39:32 AM
"I wrote a review on Ellie where I closed the review by stating 'there's not a snowball's chance in HeLL that I'll ever repeat with Ellie'. "
In no way does that sound like an objective review. It is clearly an emotionally charged review and if that was the ending it sounds like it was a very asshole type review and not one you can really call "honest". Given the other two cases Twoon mentions were about his attitude and arguing with the girl (and given his many statements about his ball and chain probably were a bit insulting but that's an inference) I don't think you can claim it was an honest review of a bad session and not the tone and argumentative and insulting review (we don't have it to read I suspect so...) that was the cause.
I do know of a recent (6 - 8 months back) of someone in this area who wrote a scathing review and even mentioned he wondered if it would get him BLed but I never heard that it had. I want to say I've seen him mention seeing other girls at the agency since do don't think he was. Perhaps he will clarify if it ever happened or not. Again, he was also yelling at the booker so that should be factored in.
Basic message here should be if you want to verbally unload on someone they will likely respond badly so it's not clear if the tone or the message was the source of the reaction. GIGO so you need to put a better dataset together if you want to have someone like me believe you give a fuck about honesty rather than just trying to push your soapbox agenda (which apparently you don't even have the ability to offer first hand support for these day so keep asking others to prove your case for you).
All reviews are subjective by default. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he said.
That you conclude that because he said "there's not a snowball's chance in HeLL that I'll ever repeat with" her, makes it a dishonest review, is once again, telling. It also mind-boggling how you arrived at that logic.
That you consider this innocuous statement of dissatisfaction in a review of an offering, on a review site, as "unloading" is equally baffling, but it makes a bit more sense given your historic inability to write a dissatisfied review or name a name publicly.
Again, there is nothing wrong with what he said and it does not make his review any less honest. The mere fact that you actually think that we need to sugarcoat dissatisfied reviews and choose words carefully, versus positive reviews, already depicts how biased you are there.
I'm sorry, what does my first hand experience have to do with anything? I don't expose my handle, my identity is not known to orgs. And hence I don't get asked to retract my reviews. The orgs don't have power over me like they would with a monger who they have full info on. Also, given my history, they know if they try to threaten me, I will expose everything publicly. So besides me obviously keeping the bad review, I'll also let everyone know that they tried pulling this stunt. They can't buy me or threaten me. All they can do is attempt to discredit me.
I also want to know other people's experiences
, because people like you don't like what I'm saying and discredit anything I say. So I'll use their stories, so you can't do the same with them.
The reason I made this thread is to call out specific bad practices. A year ago a certain poster with clout claimed this was a common practice and warned people to be careful. He also claimed that a booker was proactive and told people at screening they would be BLd of they were to write a review less than 7.
All I want to do is to investigate whether or not it still applies, and if it does - to name the names of orgs/bookers who do this. This would be to the benefit of every monger who is unaware of the practice, and it would hit the booker/org in a way that they perhaps would consider dropping such practices.
How you justified a story of blackmail over a negative review where a monger was effectively forced to remove his review.
Which is, btw, against the policies of most review sites, including this one. Persecution for reviews is something this site is very clearly against.
No where did I say Twoon's review was dishonest. I said it my not have been objective -- it was clearly emotional. Please don't try to equivocate between non-objective and dishonest. THAT is YOUR spin and you do it WAY too often.
Now, for for a quick fact check, Twoon wrote:
"I was a regular at Hourly Dreams org which is now defunct. I had a session with a So Cal kgirl with the stage name of Ellie. Long story short, I had kissed and made up with Jessie but unbeknown to me, she's Ellie's BFF and I wrote a review on Ellie where I closed the review by stating 'there's not a snowball's chance in HeLL that I'll ever repeat with Ellie'.
Got a call after publishing the review that if I ever want another date with Jessie that I need to retract my review, and apologize to Ellie and booker for fucking with their biZ. I did and all is well with me and Jessie. "
No where do I see the booker saying Twoon cannot see other girls but that he will not be able to see Jessie. From the first quoted paragraph one might assume this is coming from Jessie. Perhaps that is essentially the case if Jessie is the only one worth seeing there but I suspect not. So not at all clear from the evidence that this really is an agency issue versus them being largely the messenger from a top girl.
None of this is to say no one has ever been BLs for a bad review. But your post seems to suggest it's not nearly as frequent as you claim or as clear cut as you claim.
Also, since Twoon is the poor guy in the middle of this I am not knocking him for either being a bit emotionally reactive to situations or texting while drunk and coming across differently that intended. I don't really even take issue with how he wants to deal with the situation as it's both his choice and he is the one that really knows the details of the last situation and if he perhaps went over board or if Jessie is worth the compromise to him. I don't think he is under any obligation to others to act in ways that are contrary to his own interests in terms of this situation.
I did not put any words in your mouth.
"It is clearly an emotionally charged review and if that was the ending it sounds like it was a very asshole type review and not one you can really call "honest"
These are you words right? "if this was the ending it sounds like...review ...not one you can really call honest"
I'm pretty sure that not honest=dishonest. You are being dishonest right now saying you did not say twoons review was dishonest. Because that's exactly what you said.
Moving on.
*So not at all clear from the evidence that this really is an agency issue versus them being largely the messenger from a top girl."
Who gives a shit? Many times the top girl is = agency. The point here he was forced to retract the review. He was forced to apologize to booker as well for "fucking with their biz" which is directly correlated to a non-glowing review. And given that twoon gives glowing reviews to most girls, I'm sure that review stood out. If you gonna call out "asshole" reviews, I also expect you to call out asshole tactics. The girl has the same exact amount of rights as the booker to bl someone because they didn't like someone's review. Zero. Rights. That's the amount.
"But your post seems to suggest it's not nearly as frequent as you claim or as clear cut as you claim."
Where did I mention frequency anywhere? It's ironic you tell me not to put words in your mouth, yet you do it right away. I referenced certain posters here saying this and even warning against posting low reviews with certain bookers. I've asked to hear people's stories.
Stop accusing me of shit when I merely quote your own damn words. And I'd like you to stop the damage control/downplaying of problems. A problem is a problem regardless of frequency; if it causes even a single innocent monger a problem, it's a fucking problem well worth talking about
-- Modified on 8/28/2021 3:47:41 PM
How can you stoop so low as to quote someone and use their EXACT words to prove they are lying???
Shame on you. ROFLMFAO
Jensen, he busted your lying ass red handed. Those were your EXACT words, taken completely in context that you are now trying to run from. Have you ever considered a career in politics?
Lol where were you Gag? It's par for the course, ever since the very first argument we've had
It all started with arguing that saying what
he'd do is not the same thing as giving an advice and then getting on me for supposed misrepresentation. In a thread that asked for advice
Been par for the course ever since.
Well the quotes around the word were supposed to indicate that I was addressing some truth or false status of the review but more about the emotionally charged and so highly likely less than objective presentation of the event. However, yes, you "got me" I use the word honest.
You get your brownie point for the day.
Good that you want to focus purely on the semantic aspect of one sentence rather than the entire argument.
Just take the fucking "L" already and move on. You have CLEARLY lost this one. Don't be "that guy" who continues to argue long after he has been proven wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt.
FFS, he clearly put the word in scare quotes.
So once again, why not STFU?
Scare quotes or no quotes, the meaning of his statement is exactly the same.
I can't really call this review "fake"
I can't really call this review fake
Do you see the difference between these? I don't.
"it was a very asshole type review and not one you can really call "honest""
"it was a very asshole type review and not one you can really call honest"
Do you see the difference? I don't. And in fact if I ask anyone on a linguistic board what is the meaning of these they will give you the same answer. That the author implied that this type of review cannot be classified as "honest". Shame on you and anyone else who tries to twist this, attributing the misrepresentation to me, while I merely pointed out that's idiotic to say the review is not honest because of saying "snowballs chance in hell to see her again".
Um, no.
"Scare quotes are quotation marks that writers place around a word or phrase to signal that they are using it in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense. Scare quotes may indicate that the author is using someone else's term, similar to preceding a phrase with the expression 'so-called'; they may imply skepticism or disagreement, belief that the words are misused, or that the writer intends a meaning opposite to the words enclosed in quotes."
LOL -- but you're wasting your breath -- or finger tips I suppose 
As I said in the first post some here will want to put a different spin on the point.
I know what scare quotes do.
So what is the meaning of that statement? Do tell.
"it was a very asshole type review and not one you can really call "honest""
Again, if I go to a linguistics board - and I will certainly do so if needed - what do you think they will say? I think you know they don't have a horse in this race.
The scare quotes obviously challenge the meaning of the word in quotations. If the meaning of a sentence doesn't change with their use, why do they exist as a literary device? Please go to the linguistics board - they will tell you the same thing lol.
So what does this sentence actually mean then? I've asked kyungjean and maybe you can answer.
What does "it was a very asshole type review and not one you can really call "honest"" mean in regards to the word honest and the whole statement?
What is the implication here? Why can't I call this review "honest" yet jensen throws a fit when I say he implied that it isnt? Please explain. You can pm me if you want to not continue dragging this thread.
The review was honest in every fucking way. And like jesene himself mentioned, honest doesn't mean just voracity. An emotional review is the most honest review, because it shows what you really think, throwing things like gallantry and sugoarcoating words away. Saying what you feel not giving a fuck what others will think of you and consequences. This is the most honest review in every sense of this word.
-- Modified on 8/31/2021 4:11:49 PM
Kyungjean, in addition to being a stalker, is either a moron or a liar
Anyone with anything higher than a fifth grade education knows that "scare quotes" are often used (rightly or wrongly) for EMPHASIS.
A normal person reading a review that says anywhere in it that there isn't a "snowballs chance in hell" of the reviewer seeing her again would read it as nothing more than another way of saying what a lousy time he had. This would be the LAST kind of review I would ignore if I valued my time and my money.
BTW I suppose this is as good a time as any to reveal the name of the moron sending me unsolicited PM in an attempt to stalk me. I am sure you have already guess that the "whiny little cunt" that I was referring to was none other than kyungjean.
No worries, Gag - I can handle it. Me and floorhump having a good discussion about linguistics now.
I think the point of contention is scare quotes vs referring to words/terms
Ie, "I met this" woman"" might imply the woman was a tyranny and throws shade on word woman in context. Absolutely agree.
But"beer had no alochol so I couldn't call it "alcoholic" " has no such skeptical connotation. The word fun is in quotes because it is simply a term referred to.
I'm an argumentative fuck, you know this. Lol
Of course, you're right. A such review from someone like twoon means I'd be running like Usain Bolt away from her. Out of all people, I can count on you to not sugarcoat shit. Lol.
You took Certainly-dinky-length's little penis out of your mouth for a long enough period of time to find your voice!
Good on you!!
So what does this sentence actually mean then? I've asked kyungjean and maybe you can answer.
What does "it was a very asshole type review and not one you can really call "honest"" mean in regards to the word honest and the whole statement?
Jensen obviously assumes, as many might, that an honest review does not have an ulterior motive behind it. So putting scare quotes around the word 'honest' as he did communicates that the assumption of no ulterior motive does not hold. Thus, Jensen may well believe the review is accurate but not honest.
Make sense now? I'm not sure I can make it any more clear for you.
So, in your explanation you say he did think the review is not honest. Ie dishonest.
OK, so that's what I said as well. Where ls the disconnect here? I don't understand.
If he believes the review is accurate and not honest, it means a dishonest review. That's what I said as well. And he accused me of putting words in his mouth.
If I said he said twoon was lying, then yes I would be putting words in his mouth. If I said he said twoons review was inaccurate, I could see as well.
But that's not what I said. I used the same word - not honest. Dishonest. So what's the problem here?
If he believes the review is accurate but NOT honest what is the issue with me saying he did not call it honest? I'm really, really lost here. Seriously.
not honest. Ie dishonest.
0s and 1s read by a computer are much more literal than human language, Rocketman - we are people, not Turing machines turning out these responses to you. lol.
OK, finally we get to the real cause then.
But, the very first definition of dishonest is
"not honest"
http://dictionary.com/browse/dishonest
This ain't OED, but pretty reliable I'm sure.
I think it's fairly unreasonable to say I put words in anyone's mouth where I took the word and used it as its most common use and the very first synonym. Almost like it was done on purpose to detract from my point that there is nothing wrong with such review and there is no reason to bl or extort someone off it.
Anyway, thanks for your patience and explanation. Cheers.
Yea, if you were to consult the OED you would find the meaning of the word is much more rich than "not honest".
Lexico, which is online version of OED, lists "honest" as the only antonym of "dishonest"
https://www.lexico.com/synonyms/dishonest
I think case is closed here. Dishonest == not honest, as stated by OED.
You do know that the online version of the OED is the, um, OED.
You really are pretty stupid, too, to go along with argumentative.
So, please check the actual OED and then come back to me.
OK, on the spectrum computer boy?
You've got it pretty close but falling into rockets red herring or strawman trap. (Choose the fallacy you think most appropriate.) So, I was not assuming any ulterior motives in what Twoon was saying that was just more crap rocket wanted to load in for his argument.
What was said -- not extracts out of context -- was:
"In no way does that sound like an objective review. It is clearly an emotionally charged review and if that was the ending it sounds like it was a very asshole type review and not one you can really call 'honest'. "
The point was that most reasonable people don't assume someone that is all worked up in some highly emotional state generally do a good job of keeping an objective view of the facts. We've all had employees, customers, friends or children come running to us in some emotionally charged state telling us about some terrible event that they just experienced. Does anyone take those initial claims at face vale or we you try to calm the person down and THEN get the facts.
I suppose if one wants to attack the writing rather than the use of scare quotes the statement should have included commas after the two instances of "review". Though I am sure Conan the Grammarian will have a number of questions about the statement and good grammar even if we put the commas in.
Nothing in that suggests the excited person is being dishonest -- just that they are worked up and not thinking rationally and objectively.
But it was much more important to spin that statement off on a right margin track than to actually think about the implications for the claimed point to the post and address that aspect.
Lol. I did not attack your writing. I attacked you dismissing twoons review as non objective and dishonest and too emotional to be objective, to fit your narrative. Which is what you said. I asked how did you logically arrive at the conclusion it's emotional and dishonest merely off the line that is perfectly fine and descriptive of the experience.
You, in turn, yelled at me for putting words in your mouth, instead of addressing the question.
Here you go again with this garbage take. How does saying snowballs chance of hell seeing a girl again is equivalent to some emotional outburst? Just because you are afraid to ever call spade a spade and choose words carefully, that means everyone does or something? Lol. You take mongers for some spoiled children I see. Yet when provider or a kgirl says something I've never seen it considered by you as "too emotional" or "not honest".actually sorry, once and it took the provider attacking other providers. Providers word is gold, but monger isn't. Sure
The fact is, Jensen. There ARE ugly ass girls out there. And there are girls delivering garbage ass redemial service. No matter how you sugarcoat it, there are many mongers who don'tike that and will say they had a miserable experience. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what twoon said, and that statement doesn't even qualify for "asshole" because thats simply communicating the degree at which the monger would repeat. Ie, under no circumstances. You were so quick to dismiss the review as lacking credibility it was laughable. You then proceeded to justify the bl. As usual, justifying bullying ass extortion/blackmail tactics and procedures used.
Like I've said, most of the time, emotional responses actually convey the most truth. It is the apologies later that are calculated. Heart rarely lies. Brain thinks of consequences, heart doesn't. The emotional response if anything, conveys true meaning. Do you think people saying the n word in private or on something that surfaces later, actually feel remorse in their apology? They are always honest the first time. In private, thinking people couldn't hear them. That's where the masks are off and people are most honest. And I want to see who people are really are, not who they present themselves in public. Altho knowing who they are and manipulating them in public is funny, word to Sacha Baron Cohen aka Borat
So no, the sentence twoon said I would argue was rather routine and unindicative of everything you've accused it of. And Gag agreed with me not because he wanted "brownie points" (am I using the scare quotes right?) but because he isn't scared calling things what they are when it comes to providers looks or wording about providers. (hell He has no issues calling girl a cow, which is a bit too much even for me)
Unlike you. This is why I always laugh at pussy protectors. I mean, you wish so hard I'd stop starting arguments here and yet you could've achieved that easily calling out a name of subpar quality product you yourself admitted quality down a lot lately. Could've named any girl with a gut you've seen. You could've killed two birds with one stone. And yet for all that you didn't. All I have to do is put people like you in the position they have to admit provider side is at fault or name them publicy and just grab popcorn and see how you try to houdini your way out. It's fascinating. In the process, on this board, you've discredited both twoons and cdls reviews. Who's the next monger you're gonna discredit when something else comes up that corroborated some bs from provider/org side?
I've had multiple people elsewhere confirm Tim/Alex (csls friend booker) scum tactics at a couple of orgs he owns. But Im sure because at another site that doesn't count. I'm not even bothering to bring it up. Because I know you'll surely discredit anything I bring up.
When you say you can't call it honest, this means you're calling it dishonest. When I said this, you accused me of putting words in your mouth. When you yourself have said as much.
Instead of attempting to clarify that you actually did not mean honesty and perhaps should not have used that word at all... you went and accused me of saying something you did not say. How am I supposed to have any meaningful discussions this way? Maybe next time don't say something that can and will be used against you?
Anyway. Moving on. Aside from twoons example, which you tried to discredit, not much in this thread. I'll be asking around. I got some pms too but I promised to keep the peoples names under wraps. It was pointed out it happens in non-korg orgs too, and I definitely agree - it happens in nonkgirl orgs a lot more, I'd say.
NO ONE disputes that this has never happened but you always want to make it sound like anyone who doesn't give a good review even when the sessions was bad will get BLed. That doesn't seem supported.
As for the PMs, well maybe GaG's bit about spinless people who won't speak up for themselves might apply. If you got PMs keep it private and don't try to claim that is some type of support for the public discussion.
And YET AGAIN I will note you claim I am doing something I clearly was not doing (attempting to discredit Twoon) when I was really just pointing out the only (at the time at least, maybe someone else has posted an example by now but I've not checked) his examples ALL involve a emotionally charged settings with argumentation. That is not just a negative review situation. Another example where you want to look at part of the picture you see supporting your views and ignore that part that would suggest your view is not the full truth of the matter.
As for your ability to understand what others are saying try reading for meaning and not for your personal trigger words and some hitch to attach a critique on for debating points. In other words, try reading for the strongest claim that someone might be making and not just for potential holes to attack.
So now youre putting words in my mouth? Ironic. Sigh.
No, my point was never that "anyone who doesn't give a good review even when the sessions was bad will get BLed".
The purpose of this topic was to construct a list of orgs/bookers who have done this and share it with others. A list of shame to speak. As you know, I believe in public feedback as most effective tool.
And yes, you dismissed Twoons review as invalid entry because of emotional attachment and labeled it dishonest. I said it's preposterous to dismiss a review as such just because of him saying what he said.
You are the one who decided to throw a fit saying I put words in your mouth. If you merely addressed the issue of you discrediting a review and justifying blackmail forcing twoon to retract the review, instead accusing me of mislabeling your statement - which I did NOT - we could have continued the discussion.
To me, saying there's snowballs chance in hell of buying the product again/seeing service provider agian is perfectly fine in a REVIEW and you'll see such reviews on any review sites where the customer is dissatisfied with the good or service.
And certainly it doesn't give any pass to ever bl for it. As long as a review is truthful, a reviewer can use however strong words he can.
And in case of twoon, a negative review from him is so freakin rare that it surely stands out like a sore thumb. It's not quite as seeing a negative review from you but somewhat close.
So far I haven't seen a single coherent argument for why he should've been blackmailed and forced to retract his review. All I've see is an attempt to discredit his review.
It boils down to you saying asshole or emotional review is cause for bl. I'm saying no, as long as review is truthful, it cannot be used as basis of bl. "this hoe couldn't fuck" would be a crude way to phrase a review, but as long as it's honest, it shouldn't ever be basis of bl. That's my point.
This thread seems to have gone on for a while. Yet no evidence of Kgirl org blacklisting for a negative review has been put forth that I’ve seen.
That said, I’m not reading rocket’s posts. Maybe he has come up with something? Even though it doesn’t show up in any of the responses that I can read.
As far as I can see, the conclusion is to keep your reviews as objective and accurate as you can. And then move on. Well, and maybe it’s a good idea to never reveal you monger review board handle. Though I know some disagree with that.
All the best to everyone. Have fun and be safe out there.
By “negative review” I am referring to those that stop short of emotional rants as discussed earlier.
It is "what you let it be"
I've got to side with Rocket here, the orgs can only bully you by threatening to BL you for a bad review if you ALLOW them to. I don't have a lot of sympathy for you guys that suffer through this kind of crap because it's all your own fault.
I have said this countless times on pretty much every TER board, but "hobbyists" are among the most spineless men on the planet. I guess so many of you are used to being pussywhipped at home by your old fat wives that it just comes naturally to you to allow hookers and the pimps/agencies/bookers that you deal with to push you around like the pussies you are. This doesn't apply just to K-girls/orgs, this is endemic to the entire "escort" business, White, Black, Latina and Asian alike. Guys are terrified to speak up for themselves, are browbeaten into sending deposits, giving out personal information that can be used to ruin their lives, the list of things you guys put up with in order to PAY to get laid is endless.
Personally I stick by the mantra I have been repeating here (All TER Boards) for well over a decade.
"I will beg for pussy, I will pay for pussy, but I will NOT beg to pay for pussy"
I have to admit, sometimes I am actually ashamed by the craven cowardice of many of the guys on the various TER boards. Come on guys, grow a fucking pair already.
BTW Twoon, I am posting this as a reply to you, but I am hardly singling you out for this kind of behavior, as I said earlier it happens pretty much everywhere that women are selling pussy to spineless jellyfish.
if you remain anonymous with the bookers and the Kgirls. Guys get lazy in the beginning when they are desperate to get approved, so they volunteer that they are on TER and give their username. I made this mistake with my prior username, so when I started with CDL, I have always protected the handle I use for reviewing. Once you give your TER username to a booker, then you have to deal with this kind of stuff. No booker has ever even threatened to BL me because they don't know me as CDL. I can write accurate reviews without any blowback whatsoever. You could still get BL'd for your conduct, because they know who you really are, but it won't be for a bad review if they don't know your TER username.
Doesn't entirely become moot. If a monger knows a booker will bl for a review, even if they don't know the username, the monger will be hesitant to write a negative review. Why risk problems? He either will not write it, wait a long time before he can warn others, or subtract many details from the review to make sure they can't connect his name to his monger persona.
In all cases, this alters the way a monger approaches the review process quite significantly, which entirely defeats the purpose of reviews and directly aids subpar product to remain relevant. Its purpose as a scare tactic suceeeds. Imo, if any booker tells you you will be blacklisted for a low review, you should report this booker asap. It stands against everything a monger brotherhood stands for
As far as getting lazy... well, we can ask some DC folks on here. I'm quite confident some nova providers and/or agency reps know many handles on here. The DC folks might answer whether they were lazy or desperate.
Twoon clearly is a monger who is open about his identity, and the problem is he is exposed to such blackmail all the time. He might be OK with it and kudos to him having a big heart and patience for bs.
Something I personally don't have.
FINALLY someone said it! I've reading all this bickering and sniveling bullshit while wondering just how the hell an org gets one's username? Do they have some super IP grabbing computer app? So it turns out you suckers are just offering it up? Then, when it comes back to bite you in the ass you whine about it? I would be embarrassed to admit publicly how stupid I was...
if you remain anonymous with the bookers and the Kgirls. Guys get lazy in the beginning when they are desperate to get approved, so they volunteer that they are on TER and give their username. I made this mistake with my prior username, so when I started with CDL, I have always protected the handle I use for reviewing. Once you give your TER username to a booker, then you have to deal with this kind of stuff. No booker has ever even threatened to BL me because they don't know me as CDL. I can write accurate reviews without any blowback whatsoever. You could still get BL'd for your conduct, because they know who you really are, but it won't be for a bad review if they don't know your TER username.
Personally I've never offered my screenname to anyone. I would probably be banned from all orgs because of me being on their ass all the time.
But some people do offer it, including pretty sure - some people on this board. And I don't see what's there to be ashamed about. Being naive isn't something to be ashamed about imo.
I don't think shifting blame from supplier to consumer because of lack of awareness is apt.
Shitty practice dont stop being shitty practice.
When I read a review with a comment like ‘not a snowball’s chance in hell..’ I simply disregard the entire review as unreliable. Because there is simply no way to get a good sense of a girl from someone’s emotional response.
Emotional responses are perfectly fine. In my opinion, though, they tend to invalidate a review. It requires you to know rather a lot about the reviewer to be able to interpret the meaning of purely emotional responses. A review from Twoon probably qualifies as an exception to this rule if you read a lot of his forum posts.
That said, if there are enough other reviews to compare so you can filter out the emotional responses, it’s not as much of a problem. And, if there are a significant number of reviews of the same girl with emotional negative responses (something I don’t recall ever seeing in the kgirl world - though my particular mongering approach may influence that experience), that would be another thing entirely.
I do think that emotional responses in any business review are going to have a risk of eliciting a response that will not be favorable to the reviewer.
So, as always, this is just my opinion based on my own experience. Everybody needs to decide what works for them. Do whatever you think is best for you and deal with whatever response you get. Cause that’s how life works.
This topic is not about evaluating or trusting reviews.
This topic is about threats of BL for a review that might not be to orgs or girls liking, if it is an honest review.
I have never been threatened with being BL'd, my handle is not known, by a booker. I've been asked to write a review, but the booker knew I had a very good session, so they knew it would be positive. I guess, luckily, I have not run into that booker, yet! I always try to give the best description of a session, looks, service and all aspects of the encounter! I just wouldn't write a bogus review!
Thanks for the contribution badger!
Thumbs up, brother!