http://sdasiangirls.com/index.php/approved-students/ask-the-expert
Have an archive dot ph link too in case they pull this"If you choose to give reviews that are negative, then we will
have to sever our partnership and you will not get to visit others.
We will do our best to figure out who you are"
Anyone on here think this is NOT anti-TERrules?
Or NOT anti-consumer in general? I'm interested to know your reasoning if so.
"TER rules?! We don't need no stinking TER rules! We don't got to follow no stinking TER rules! We're the K-mongers! Our loyalties are to the agencies, not to TER.
such a poor troll
Apologies if this is not the case.
Any how, here's the original movie bit that he is riffing on:
but I thought even K-mongers would get the reference.
No K-org ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of k-mongers.
Now I'm riffing on H.L. Mencken.
I view it as an egregious and blatant attack on honesty, feedback and the concept of reviews as a whole.
And that threat is cute too.
All in the name of the almighty green paper.
What's interesting is that this time, it's undeniable. It's all right there, in plain and good English, black text on white background. People can't play the "misread" or "hearsay" card.
I get that it's much easier to post pics instead of saying a practice is bad or condemning it. But I expected at least some people to condemn it and acknowledge it as bad.
But maybe I'm wrong and you still think it's OK, that businesses like these can do whatever the fuck they want and customers only choice is to take it or leave it. Well, if (not saying that you do but if) that's the case, how is bigp wrong then?
There was nothing honest about what BP posted. He was simply trying to stir things up since everyone was ignoring your post.
You asked a silly question as the answer can only come from either the TER admins or from something they have documented. This is not some club where we take votes on the rules. TER is owned by specific people who make the rules as they see fit.
As for the bit you hacked from the password protected section of their site (failure to put proper file/directory permissions is hardly an excuse for bypassing the door) you should have also provided the complete bit rather than the isolated statement. They did actually tell people to call them and let them know. That might be because they want to know what they are getting wrong -- or what the ladies they are providing the logistic and advertising services for are doing wrong -- that might actually be a very good customer oriented bit. So much for you integrity and commitment to honesty.
I don't think you've ever used them but clarify is you have. I know I never have so I would defer those in the SD area decide on just how non-customer driven the agency is as they would actually know from experience.
Hold on now,
"You asked a silly question as the answer can only come from either the TER admins or from something they have documented. This is not some club where we take votes on the rules. TER is owned by specific people who make the rules as they see fit.
"
One of my questions asked if people agreed that it was anti-consumer. Being anti-consumer isn't specific to TER. It's about stifling people's opinion and persecuting them for having an opinion. And yes, the opinion had to be public. Obviously private opinion doesn't fuck their business up.
Judging from your response, seems you're deferring from judging it as anti-consumer - as usual, I might add... ironically youre never that hesitant to judge posters on here. But when it comes to agencies things change.
"
As for the bit you hacked from the password protected section of their site"
I didn't hack anything. Someone alerted me in a private group and I suspect they got it from another forum thread. Because when I went to that forum about to shit on the agency, there were already people who shat on it using the same link.
"you should have also provided the complete bit rather than the isolated statement. They did actually tell people to call them and let them know. That might be because they want to know what they are getting wrong -- or what the ladies they are providing the logistic and advertising services for are doing wrong -- that might actually be a very good customer oriented bit. So much for you integrity and commitment to honesty.
"
Huh? I provided the full link, people can read it themselves. Are you seriously equating me not quoting the whole post, to a threat aimed at all customers to not post negative public reviews?
Wow, you really said it's customer oriented when the business threаtens negative PUBLIC feedback. I honestly can't believe what Im reading here.
Here's my question. Do you really think if I call them and tell me what's wrong, and then write a public review, they won't go through with their threаt?
So it seems you're OK with threаtening public negative reviews. Gotcha. I thought better of you.
No, I haven't used them and I'm not planning to considering the nerve of that fucker owner/booker. I don't need to consider jack shit. Even if he has the best pussy in the world, the threаt of public reviews is disgusting.
I thought such a threat would be self-explanatory but not to you. You seem to think that if the agency is pro-consumer in some other ways it actually cancels out this piece of shit threаt? I have no fucking words
1. Your first question was about the policy being anti-TER policy. Please point to the policy you think applies. The closest I can think of is paragraph 13 in the review posting guidelines. But that is about rewarding for good reviews or promising a good review for special favors. Close but not quite clear cut.
As for the anti-consumer, that will depend much more on how the agency actually behaves than some words in their user info section. We should keep in mind that many other customer oriented, which do make the effort to deliver for their customers, also have non-disclosure agreements about not publicly discussing some service-level failure. In many cases not first discussing with the supplier and seeking remedy first considered pretty unprofessional. It is true that some companies will also misuse such terms. But the presence of the clause is more about poor optics that fact of the matter with regard to actual treatment of customers.
2. My take on these types of situations, as always, is that people can easily choose who they associate with. If I was in SD I would view that threat as an empty threat. I bit like an employer who threatens to fire me if I were to complain about working conditions. I would be quitting if the conditions are not acceptable to me so would see the threat as "you can't quit I'm firing you" after I've told them the job sucks and I'm walking out the door.
Again, repeating myself to you many times, if you want to change a businesses behavior the first thing that has to happen is people stop giving them money. You never call for that. You never call out the people that actually enable the behaviors you so dislike. You never stop giving the agencies you have some much distaste for your own money -- you seem to rationalize it by saying you don't care about the fake/over glammed photos because you don't care about age or looks.
And yes, you asked stupid questions. First, as I said, TER is not some member owned club that we all get together and decide on rules. Second, if you want to find out if the agency is interested in treating it's customers well or not, post the full policy and then ask if someone has directly worked with the agency, especially in terms of having followed the policy of engaging with them if the sessions was not one the customer though was an 8, to see what the actual behavior is. Of course, if your interest is only in the imagery rather than the actual reality of things, then yes, ask the questions you did.
You now inexplicably have moved this conversation into what I think and I how I deal with other situations
The question wasn't do you think the agency is anti-consumer. The question wasn't dealing with "enablers".
The question was, is the statement anti consumer? So to you it seems not, you seem to be of an opinion that agency can say anything they want to customer in their policy and it will never be anti-consumer. Threatening and talking shit about their customers is not inherently anti-consuner to you it seems.
Duly noted. You're saying this statement to paying customers isn't enough for you to say that the statement infringes on clients right to review anything PUBLICLY who they want to publicly, however they want without any retaliation. That is a right.
So yeah disappointing. At least the agency wants dollar dollar bills. People defending their practices...this I will never get.
Ps
And yes, I've talked to many people using this agency. Many of them said they were "caught" when writing a public review and threаtened to be banned.
To me, if you try to thwart public reviews of your business, all to make yourself look better than you are, fuck your business. I'll celebrate when your business ceases to exist. Don't be threаtening customers and playing power games.
" if you try to thwart public reviews of your business, all to make yourself look better than you are, fuck your business."
On this we agree. I just don't really care that much if others keep supporting them or not - as long and they don't then keep complaining to me about it -- I won't. I simply move on and forget about them. Though I would actually hope that they would learn and improve to the benefit of all rather than celebrating about them closing down or losing business.
But given that you have always presented partial facts to make your case look better than it might be, make it seem it's a simple black and white situation I don't see that you're much different.
Edit to address some other false claims you make.
Customers do not have a "clients right to review anything PUBLICLY who they want to publicly, however they want without any retaliation". They certainly have the "right" to post any review they want -- at least if it is an honest, objective representation of a session that occurred. But they have no right to some ongoing relationship with the person or business that they reviewed.
You know that most will read your post and quote think that is all that was relevant to the situation. Here is a bit more that people can decide their own views about.
- quote -
We appreciate reviews on any site but we hope that you remember a few things.
Some ladies you are gonna love. ❤❤❤❤❤
Some ladies you are going to like. 😘❤❤
Some ladies are just ok 👌
Some ladies you aren’t going to match with 🖕
*Please do NOT give 7 or 6 or 5 or less.*
* 7 or less KILLS business for that lady and other ladies.
If you choose to give reviews that are negative, then we will
have to sever our partnership and you will not get to visit others.
We will do our best to figure out who you are.
Remember our rule. If you like the lady tell everyone ✍
*8 or higher*
*If you don’t then tell the assistant.*
(emphasis original)
- end quote -
I would also note that it seems none were banned, even though that is what you see as so threatening. I would be interested in just how many of those people actually paid any attention to the last line and actually notified the business that they felt it had failed to live up to it's claim that the level of 8 (not sure if it's service, looks or both) was achieved or not. If not, I would wonder why they would be afraid to actually follow the rule given they are not getting banned even after a violation of that stated policy.
Personally I find it very positive that they would, in bold, saying Tell Us if they are not delivering 8 level sessions for their customers. Of course it's easy to say something so how they act would be the the key. I would also note that, if they do actually take seriously the implied claim that all their girls will be 8 or higher, when some miss that mark telling the assistant then and there will provide a lot more help for anyone that might be showing up later that day rather than the delay inherent in getting a review posted and then seen.
-- Modified on 9/29/2023 5:20:04 PM
What partial facts have I presented in this case? The fact that I did not copy the entire text (which can be easily found if you click on the link anyway) including emojis? Come on now.
I just dislike floating morality points. I never said people should agree with me, I just want a concrete answer (just liked I wanted a concrete criteria a few months back) to know where they stand. And in this case, where you stand.
For all the bickering I've done with cdl, he clearly stated his opinion before on the subject - something along the lines of "yeah it's sleazy but it's their rules and so either bend over and play by their rules or don't play at all" (I'm paraphrasing) In other words, it's not a big deal to him and he's just fine with these policies because they give him what he wants most of the time. It's his choice, but I'll remember that he chose to indirectly condone it.
I think you misunderstood me. When I say "fuck your business", that doesn't mean I simply don't put anymore money in your pockets. That's not fuck your business. That's me not doing business anymore. Fuck your business to me is.... OK you ever seen the Untouchables and DeNiros rage quotable? "I want his house burned to the ground, I want to take a piss on his ashes". That's fuck your business. Well exaggerated and all but nonetheless. To me a fuck you to customers is a fuck you to me.
When I see something that goes completely against customer rights I want it plastered everywhere so people are aware. Now, if people are still enticed by pussy/service/product and say fuck reviews and other mongers who get their info from them, it's their choice. Of course I'll point out and say they're anti-monger (and I'm sure some will be saying they're not), but it is their choice.
I think thwarting people's reviews and threatening them is very anti-consumer, it is not only disrespectful but it leverages and instills fear into their own clients...just so they can get more money? So the question isn't is the agency overall an agency one should visit. But rather is this particular practice very anti consumer? My answer is yes. Yours seems to be... hell I don't know. In the post I'm replying to seems like you agree but in previous post you claimed because they say you should call if you didn't like something, it somehow isn't? I don't know.
And how do the agencies match YOU with the reviewer? Not possible. How do you get real intel if you are under a threat of banishment? Buck out
Prohibit reviews from this organization?
Delete profiles of girls who tour with this org?
The organization has been contacted re their violation of TER policy. It will be interesting to see if they change their ways.
Good question. I'm guessing that you actually agree that this isn't acceptable?
If not then we have nothing to talk about.
To be honest I'm not a huge fan of removing reviews with profiles. That's how it works on ter but you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Thoze negative reviews that could have helped fellow mongers are now gone too.
So if a prospective monger wants to find out about a girl now they have to go to different sites which probably is also filled with only positive reviews. And hence led astray.
These sanctions are simply not enough. It may be a good start but not enough. The goal is to simply make the org understand that monger reviews are sacred and they can't threaten people who write honest but negative review, just because they lose money.
And yes, this includes methods you have repоrted me for previously. The text on the page of the link I posted is akin to declaration of wаr on honest mongers to me.
Prohibit reviews from this organization? YES
Delete profiles of girls who tour with this org? NO, but don't allow new reviews of girls affiliated with this org.
cks: "The organization has been contacted re their violation of TER policy."
Who contacted the org - a K-monger? BFD, I'm sure they're quaking in their boots.
Now if TER was contacted about the org, something might actually happen. What are the odds that a K-monger actually contacted TER regarding the org's violation of TER policy?
A million to one?
It is fairly unfortunate because this agency does bring some great talents and I think he made a wrong move for posting that.
-- Modified on 9/28/2023 12:59:35 PM
His wrong move wasn't posting it publicly, his wrong move was to have such policy in the first place. I know the booker texts people who left negative reviews. I know the booker had the same policy in introductory emails.
It's just this the first time I've seen it posted publicly so it can be used as proof.
(and despite what Jensen says, I don't need to "hack" sites. I know most passwords to sites including their sister site in oc)
Hell, csl and his mouth had mentioned it before on here. He just didn't mention which booker.
But it's clear that tim/Alex chose greenbacks and threats over honesty and truth and customer satisfaction.
They sometimes have a couple of good/decent talents however they are not worth all the GPS attitudes with ridiculous verification process and anti TER stance. With more competition in the scene with Japanese and NK girls I don't need them.
Everybody needs to relax and see the big picture in my opinion. I have been with SDAG since 2013 and they have been a class act every step of the way. Their post about poor reviews and it could hurt the girls may have been a slight misstep but when you really think about it, it makes sense. I have seen over 200 girls with them in the last 10 years and can count on 1 hand the ones that I did not think did not do a good job, give a good effort. I in turn told them immediately after the appointment the issues that I had with each particular girl and they were very appreciative for the feedback.
They do not ban anyone for feedback or even bad reviews, only guys that have attempted to harm the girls. The handful of girls that I did not like and gave feedback on I did notice that their reviews soon after were very good because they learned from their bad service that if they want to pay their bills they need to change and pickup their service. If I had gave them a bad review, they may not have had anymore customers at all. Instead they got their act together and everybody benefited. So here I agree with the boss of SDAG that the best way to fix it is give feedback to them so they can relay the info to the girls.
Cheers
Help it make sense please.
I say that each customer has a right to give PUBLIC feedback without fear of retaliation, as long as the review is honest. A customer can post it on any site and freely talk about their experience as it happened.
Sdag has removed this page; if you maintain that they are right in saying this, why not keep it? Why not proudly post what they (and you) seem to believe in?
Imagine youd see sdag reviews and in big red letters it would say, disclaimer: this org disallows negative reviews under penalty of bаn.
Theey wouldn't want that would they. Why not if they believe in it so much?
I'll tell you why. Because they want to manipulate public reception of reviews. They don't want for everyone to know they manipulate the review distribution and type.
Now, pease tell me how does feedback to po INSTEAD of public feedback make sense.
For example, nothing that po can ever tell me would change my mind about posting a negative review. Absolutely nothing. A girl had a bad day? Sure, but I'm posting my review because that was my experience. Don't silence my experience.
You want to give a discount? Sure I'll appreciate that... but I'm still posting a negative review. Publicly for everyone to hear.
You want to give discount for keeping my mouth shut? Well...let me know what it is I will decline but also mention in my review that you tried to buy my silence.
Once again, absolutely nothing the po could say or change my session experience, so I and every other customer have a right to make public feedback. When they threaten that right they insult me.
The best thing about the internet is receipts are kept.
On one hand we have someone with no direct experience with an agency questioning their stance towards customers based on some poor statement on their sight. On the other someone that seems to have a lengthy relationship with the agency who says they have been consistently good and have been receptive and responsive to negative feedback from him.
Wonder who I should think about listening to if I were to find myself in SD and looking for someone to see.
And also "some poor statement on their sight(sic)".... lol.
It's not some poor statement, it's their policy. Has always been the policy. They just got caught making it public.
Once again, the questions I posed are simple.
1) are mongers allowed to post negative PUBLIC reviews without repercussion?
2) what can the po possibly say that will make one NOT post a public negative review?
My point is very simple. I contend that each and every client have a right to freely post a public negative review without being harassed or threatened or retaliated against by any agency or provider in the world. Provided that the review is honest.
People on another site to tell me if they had any issues after posting negative reviews for sdag.
Multiple people replied, and I put up their responses here. I was told "hearsay".
"had the booker text me because i put up a negative review of a girl shortly after i left guess thats how he figured out who i was. i was "encouraged" to dеlete the review."
" A while back I posted a bad review of someone and it got back to SDAG. I got a text same day telling me if I ever did it again I would be blackballed. I've noticed anything negative about SDAG is immediately countered in that club by someone who posts a positive review or shuts the conversation down."
These are direct quotes from people who have used the agency before.
Now this org is caught RED HANDED stating their policy officially on their site. I believe it's very similar wording to the email they send out to newly verified clients.
But despite this obvious proof, it's called "poor statement". Lol. No matter how much proof I'll get people will defend these assclown agencies who bully and silence people, simply because they give pussy.
It's like people are pulling out every excuse in the book to try to clean up the pr image. Disgusting,pathetic and ugly.
People really are OK with reviews being an advertisement for seller to make money. People are really ok with the only PUBLIC feedback mechanism that helps every monger out here, being silenced. All for what? To get pussy? Disgusting. Pathetic. Lame.
At least according to NAsk7.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/k-girl-113/looks-like-the-hammer-dropped-35497?page=1
The agency has also pulled the webpage announcing that policy.
Is that what you wanted (girls profiles getting deleted) or was it just an unintended consequence?
I already stated my view on ter policy. It kinda sucks now that people won't see any reviews at all.
I also stated that them removing that page doesn't really do anything besides removing evidence. They didn't say that the are sorry. The only thing they're sorry about is they got caught with hard evidence. How about putting out a page that publicly states that you're welcome to leave any public review without feаr of retаliation? And then go through with it? Now that would be cool.
On here, I would have liked to see more people condemn the org and practice, especially the practice, publicly. Besides a tiny validаtion to my big ego 
I would at least be happy that people's hearts are in the right place and that they (people,not hearts) agree reviews are sacred to the customers. But that may be a tad too much to ask it seems.
-- Modified on 10/3/2023 11:10:57 AM
-- Modified on 10/3/2023 11:11:33 AM
-- Modified on 10/3/2023 11:12:06 AM
that the girls’ profiles have been deleted as a result of you dealing with this in such a public way?
I'm pretty sure I expressed my feelings succinctly in the post you replied to.
I only talked about anti-review and anti-consume policy. Ter decides how to deal with them.
Lol at such a public way. Again, I've been hampering on this issue for years and people have told me hearsay and nonsense like jousting with windmills.
This booker has been doing this shit for years and there was tons of people complaining about it. Did he stop? No he didn't. If he believes in this, why did he remove this public policy? He wants to have his cake and eat it too? If you have this policy embrace it. Have it follow everywhere you go. But no he just wants the optics.
He thought policy was just fine, until he made it public and he now will lose biz anyway?
Well boo hoo.
All these orgs care about is $. That's why you publicly deal with them, always. I know my right sand I know customer rights. That's why you write public reviews on ter.
but will phrase it a bit differently.
Given that the cost of the disclosure of information clearly internal to "students" was the removal of all the reviews, was it worth putting private information out in the public light? Does he think he has actually changed anything about how the agency will operate or how customers with interact with it?
This "private information" was well know by a lot of people. But certain people always tried to act like it's just rumors and hearsay.
But now, it is known to EVERYONE and there's hard proоf. The booker will wear it on his sleeve for the rest of his life. No matter how he rebrands his agencies.
If Bernie Madoff schemes were leaked publicly, would it be a bad thing? Did the world change when we're told he government is spying on us? Yes. The world needs more whistleblowers, not dudes who keep quiet on some "it doesn't concern me".
It's incredulous how you guys want to keep everything private and in-house. You're enablers for shitty tactics. You really think this is some privileged secret society in which the seller sets all the rules and you throw up your hands each time they abuse their customers and say "nothing we can do but they give us pussssy".
To quote a certain great whistleblower,
"In the context of this idea of whistleblowing, it’s really remarkable to me that people go through the day and they become so familiar with this sense of wrongdoing, with seeing things like I saw in the office and hoping that somebody else would do something about it, or turning a blind eye and going ‘it’s not my problem, these are not my people, it doesn’t impact me, you know I can get by with it’, that just let things happen. But I don’t do that anymore,”
And this nonsense of was it worth it talk. Short term it will not be great for customers. Long term it will hopefully promote honesty and be an example of other org who want to bully folks. And maybe more folks will step up and show how they were bullied into not stating their true experiences. Maybe this asswipe of a booker will rethink his shitty threat strategy and let people write reviews in peace on other platforms where they are still allowed.
Every once in a while a girl will ask me to review her, and I always tell them I don't do reviews. You should never let a girl or booker know who you are on these review sites. If they don't know your user name and can't figure out it was you from the details of the review, there is nothing to worry about.
it's an empty threat, and is especially empty if they don't know your TER username.
Many people have reported they've been texted, without exposing their ter username.
This means they have to go out of their way to delay their reviews, omit any particular details they can identified by, and so forth.
Calling it an empty threat is simply disingenuous.
Well I don't think you provided and 3rd party claims of having been banned. Only that they get complaints from the agency. Seems like a pretty empty threat when not actually carried out. One poster here seems to think they don't have a high quality and just "moved on". How effective is their threat in terms of his writing a sub 8 review? I would think it seems like an empty threat in that case as well.
So now to prove that it's not an empty threаt you want an instance of people actually being bаnned?
OK, well everyone on here who said it's an empty threаt, I haven't seen a single negative or less than 7 review for sdasiangirls on ter. Tell me, how can someone tell so definitively that's an empty threаt without actually doing what the threаt prohibited you to do?
Like here we have cdl says it's an empty threаt, he must have had a negative review posted for sdasiangirls right?
Wrong. He said himself he doesn't post less than 7. So how is he qualified to say if something is an empty threаt?
None of this makes sense. To prove it's an empty threat, I want to see a person who repeatedly has given low grades to their girls and who is a relatively new customer (we all know long time customers get preferential treatment) and who has prоof or at least a story of them knowing it's him and repeatedly making it slide.
THEN maybe I'll believe it.
And Ill say this, even empty threаts bully people horrendоusly. How many people actually go through a room that says "high voltаge may be fаtal" ?
How many people would be OK with "we don't serve minоritiеs" sign?
-- Modified on 10/3/2023 3:58:52 PM
Nowhere did I ask you to prove anything about the threat. I merely pointed out that we don't seem to have much in the way of evidence that they 1) actual have been acting on the threat and 2) have a meaningful threat if they are a bad agency that is not delivering value but just trying to force high grades as if so people just write the review and leave for a better option.
As for the false comparison to, say some retail store selling widgets or something, 1) the courts have been ruling that these types of personal services where the person and their values are directly part of the relationship have plenty of scope in saying who they we or will not conduct their services with and 2) we seen No AA often enough. Most people don't get upset about the no AA policies some providers have and think they have the right to make that rule. So, in this type of situation seems like a lot of people seem to find such limitations acceptable -- about the only ones that don't are those that are not getting what they think they have some entitlement to.
High voltages are fatal so that "threat" is clearly not empty. But since when did a warning sign for someone's own good become a threat in any form? At least pick a good example. How about "Trespassers will be shot on sight." signs. Yes, those tend to keep people out and you don't know if they are serious. Do you really think comparing a situation where someone is saying "we won't have further association with you" with a "we will kill you" situation? Enough with the mountains our of molehills and your absurd hyperbole.
Do you not agree that in order to conclude that the threаt is empty, we actually need to empirically have the following :
0. Have someone without much history with the agency (someone who like cdl has spent thousands of dollars will obviously be given a much longer leash than a newbie)
1. Have someone post a negative review
2. Have this someone identified by the org and warned
3. Have this someone not take any identity concealing measures and post another negative review, ignoring "last warning"
???
No one who posted in this thread that it's an empty threаt has even written two negative reviews.
My point here is that there is no way to tell if threаt is real or not without actually calling them and seeing if it's a bluff or they really do it.
But threаts themselves cause people to act a certain way. People don't want to test it out just to try it out again. They just either not post negative review or conceal their identity. They probably value their relationship with the agency.
Once again, whether or not the agency is good overall is completely and utterly irrelevant to the whole thing. It's like you don't understand the point of honesty and customer respect >>>> their overall quality.
The only thing that should matter is they bully people on suppressing their negative reviews if they have any. I guess I will never live to the day where you admit that it's an anti-consumer bullying tactic to manipulate a potential bad public review into something else.
Even moreso, if they are such good guys and it's just an empty threаt, what would prevent them from putting up a new page that says "don't worry you can write as many negative reviews as possible and we won't persecute you". That would be consumer friendly. But they value pride and rep and money too much. Their rep is already taking a hit thanks to this debacle. Good.
Yes, I like your trespassing analogy better. Thanks. As far as no AA policy, I asked whether or not people will like it. Not whether or not it's acceptable.
Oh, and if you think complaining and leveling an org for bullying people for writing honest reviews, is making a mountain out of a molehill on a REVIEW site whose purpose is honest reviews , it just says even more about you.
But I do remember you unable to name your bad experiences publicly. Same shit. I remember you asking whether truth important if quality of offerings is good.
Truth is of outmost importance. Even if 9999 out of 10000 pussies is amazing, that one pussy that isn't - the client has full rights to rate it whatever he feels like the product/service deserved. And the seller will take it and swallow slow. And I will fight for this right.
Some people don't trade their soul for no skins and no material bullshit. Some people think that no matter how good quality is, any client has an inherent RIGHT to post a negative review freely without any repercussions or fear.
You think because boo boo gives pee pee they can do whatever the fuck they want and customers only choose to visit or not visit. They fuck they don't. So fucking disgusting. No orgs have any rights to tell clients how to write public reviews. To quote Lavar Ball, stay in your fucking lane.
Lol. Just three years ago you were telling me about how many people you knew got bld because of low reviews. Now suddenly it's an empty threаt.
But I get it. Back then you were trying to make a case as to why not to write lower rated reviews. Now you're trying to clean up the org image.
-- Modified on 10/4/2023 9:57:03 AM
you made this thread about for writing low reviews that I know of. Many were BL'd from THIS agency for rough treatment of the girls and stealthing, which is fine with me. You got a link to where I said I knew guys who got BL'd from THIS agency. There is no end to your dishonest posting, is there? You are trying to connect a statement made by THIS agency a long time ago to things that happened at other agencies. Why not ask the board if ANYONE here got BL'd from THIS SD agency for writing a low review? I'll wait for the crickets. Lol
why rocket posted this information other than to post it. It seems he thinks we cannot assess if the threat was effective or empty based on what we currently know. All we really know is:
1. there was some text on the site that was bad looking
2. seems to be the case that there was some followup but no indication of the actions taken other than a text sent
3. the offending text was removed, but we have no idea if an behavior changed
4. TER has (it's claimed, I never actually looked at the reviews so don't personally know) now removed the collection of reviews
5. The removal does indicate that TER did find the situation one that violated its rules.
But I don't really know where that leaves most people here, and particularly, what it means for the SD based guys that use TER.
-- Modified on 10/5/2023 5:43:30 PM
Lmao, dishonest?
I'm taking your information from back when you were trying to convince me that we shouldnt give girls low grades, and using it against you.
Oh right, conveniently this org sends empty threats while others don't. Why don't you name the orgs that DID bl for low reviews then? You do agree they were engaging in foul behavior?
Lol at asking someone on the board. I already said we'd need to find someone who is new to the org, ie isn't a long time customer so they're not afraid to lose this customer biz, and we'd have to have someone calling their bluff. Obviously no one here even qualifies. Because like yourself, most people are too pussy to even grade their girl below a seven, much less call their supposed bluff when they catch you and tell you don't do that again or else you're b@nned.
Once you name the orgs that did bl for low reviews, we will also ask on the board. Because that's your way to tell if it was an empty threat or not, right?
One more question then. How do YOU know it's empty threat? Do we have someone who have written multiple negative reviews while being warned by the org? Do tell.
threatening to black list someone and actually doing it. Granted, some bookers like to use threats to keep unruly assholes in line, but they never follow through and actually do it. It's counter-intuitive that they would shit where they eat unless the offense was stealthing, roughing up a girl, or something of similar gravity. So I will ask you again . . . .
DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW OF A SINGLE REVIEWER THAT WAS BANNED FROM SDASIAN FOR WRITING A BAD REVIEW? Just give us the username so we can read the review. You like to quote reviews but you never provide a link so we can read the whole review. Is that because you are taking reviewer comments out of context, or putting words into a reviewer's mouth?
I would love to be as angry about this as you, but only if it's true. In 15 years, I have never seen a post or read a review from a guy who said he was blacklisted from SDAsian because of the review he wrote. If they are really doing that as you claim, then give us the smoking gun. It's time to put up or shut up. That's why I say it's an empty threat, because I don't think they have actually ever done it. Because you read something that suggested they MIGHT do it (the empty threat), you are making another one of your famous assumptions.
One more time, I'm quoting verbatim
"If the booker knows your TER handle, and you are low-scoring his/her girls, there's a good chance they will stop responding to you. It always makes me laugh when guys post on discussion boards that they were BL'd and don't know why. Low scores is one of the possible reasons"
There was one booker in SoCal that, after you passed the screening, he would tell you that the girls always appreciate positive reviews, but if you score lower than a 7, you might not be invited back. That's about as in-your-face as it gets.
Other bookers are more subtle, but if they don't think you're getting the message, they will word it a little more strongly before BL'ing you. "
You yourself have claimed, in your words, that bookers do bl for bad reviews. Why would you bring up Tim/Alex (the socal booker) in the first place if they been known to only issue empty threats?
Your whole point of that post was to convince me that mongers should often be expected to be bld for negative reviews, and that mongers often don't even know that themselves but you do.
Note that you didn't post any proof that you now want from me. You didn't post which reviews or which mongers. You simply said that negative review is a common reason mongers get bld. And that they might be warned before bl. Not before not doing anything, but before bl'ing.
Now you're attempting to change your tune. I hear sdаg is also doing damage control in their little hx club.
Wait you want what? Link to a review? Lol
I didn't quote any review here, I've quoted posts from another board.
No one shared with me what review they wrote that caused threats. And likely that review doesn't exist anymore because most sdag girls reviews besides maybe cuban Betty got removed.
It seems you still don't get it.
Everyone I've talked to never tried calling sdag threat because (understandably) they didn't want to be banned. Ie the threat was working.
That doesn't mean their threаts were empty. It means that they were in this case untested. All the mongers complied with the policy because they didn't want to be banned.
You on other hand, claim that threats were empty. This means you know someone who have posted negative reviews, received a warning and then wrote more negative reviews and they weren't bаnned? Hopefully it isn't someone who spent thousands of dollars on the org but more of a regular Joe.
If you don't have evidence of threats being empty you cannot possibly ever say that the threat was empty. Period. About the most you can say is that it's inconclusive
One more time, it is you who is making a claim of threat being empty, why don't you give some evidence? Lack of people who tested out these threats doesn't logically mean the threats were empty. We need someone who actually ignored sdag warning and posted negative reviews. Which - I might add - would eliminate every person in this thread who claims the threat was empty, including yourself
there has ever been a follow through where a guy WAS BL'd for what he wrote in a review. I told you I don't know of anyone, and I have read thousands of reviews over the years from this agency. If you can name a monger who was BL'd by THIS org that you are attacking for writing a review, then let's have the name. Even if it's hearsay and some guy told you he was blacklisted, let's have the username so we can look up the allegedly offending review. Otherwise, the language you are talking about is, by definition, an empty threat. It was reckless of you to make this claim in the first place if you didn't know of a single guy who was actually blacklisted for a review, but's it's consistent with your general lack of cred on the things the post here.
It sounds like you are admitting that you were just speculating about whether they would really do it. Your assumption that it is because they were scared is only one of the possibilities why there are not very many bad reviews. Another more likely reason is that this org is well-known for having some of the elite Kgirls in the business, and they just don't get bad reviews (some other posters have already spoken of the quality). A few years ago, this agency had the largest number of top tier girls that ever worked at the same time in one place before. You couldn't go wrong no matter who you picked. Your binary thinking is getting the best of you again. You believe there is only ONE explanation for a lack of bad reviews. I say there is a more likely explanation. I can point to names all day that were legends and top tier girls that worked there over the years, and at the same time, you can't come up with a SINGLE username that got blacklisted for writing a bad review. If you provide a list of usernames that support your contention that there has been blacklisting, I will provide a list of Kgirls that support my contention that legends don't usually get bad reviews. and I'm willing to bet most of the SoCal guys will agree that the list I post makes up the best of the best in Kgirls. Furthermore, the occasional bad reviews there are from guys for some of these girls were still seeing other girls at this agency AFTER the bad review. You should remember that a bad review for "lack of connection" is personal to that reviewer, and not likely to keep other mongers from seeing her.
One more time because you aren't getting it..
When you say it's an empty threat it's in you to prove it. Find me someone who had written many negative reviews, who was warned personally by the booker, and who then ignored the plea and wrote a review. And had nothing done to him.
Only then will you have proved that the threat is indeed empty.
Once again, the only people in this thread saying it's empty threats are the same people who never wrote one negative review for sdag on here, much less several negative reviews. Hence it can be them since they haven't written a negative review. Is that so hard to understand?
So you have zero evidence to say it's an empty threat.
All mongers I know complied with the threat once they received it, which is what makes this threat tactic so effective in suppressing opinions that aren't liked by the booker.
Last but not least, there is nothing binary in being indignant at threat tactics.
Whats so hard to understand about letting your product sell itself and not policing your clients reviews "like a hawk"? The boomer will take a bad review and like it.
The policy is a piece of shit policy regardless of whether or not they will go thru with their threats.
If not,why did they remove it from public view? Why can't this piece of shit org embrace it if it's OK to threaten customers? Ah I get it, they want their reviews back. Ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun eh?
And I find it extremely ironic that you were so focused on constructing this bogeyman (you knew mongers who got bld because of bad reviews you said) to say why we should not grade kgirls low, only to then turn around and call it empty threat. Why am I not surprised you conveniently take the side that is beneficial to the org in each case? Lol
I'm going to make another thread about whether sdаg sister org in oc should get the same treatment by ter. This booker will always wear this shit on his sleeve, Ill make sure of it.
we all know your argument is finished. Once again, you made the claim so the burden is on you to provide the proof. You can't name a single username who has been banned for writing a bad review for a girl at this agency, so you are shifting gears, but the same question applies. Name ONE reviewer who wrote a bad review and then was specifically threatened. I'm guessing you don't have any of those either. You want to argue that where there is smoke, there is ALWAYS fire, but oftentimes, it's just some guy vaping. You have zero evidence that the threat has ever been followed through on and is NOT an empty threat. If you have no names, I will accept your complete surrender on your false claim that guys WERE blacklisted for reviews by this agency.
One more time, you have zero evidence of it being an empty threаt. You are the one who made the claim, the onus is on you to prove it. You have never written a negative review for this agency yourself, so clearly you're operating on pure hearsay, something you have accused me of doing a million of times. But sure, your hearsay is great and mine is bad. Lol.
I already said all mongers I know have complied with the threat, so obviously this threat was effective in dealing with unfavorable reviews. I do not know a monger who was bld because they all complied or had to completely change their name and stay hidden and omit details in next reviews.
You yourself have claimed that bookers bl people for low reviews. Why don't you name them then? You asking me to name names, why don't you name those mongers and bookers?
You and the bookers really have no shame. You really think that a threat is fine because that's their rules, huh.
Sounds like it's time to teach tim/alex/threatening piece of crap name that doesn't deserve capitalization another lesson. Him or anyone else threatening a monger over a review, it's on. No pussy in the world can bring me the joy of seeing a threatening piece of crap who persecutes honest reviews, punched in the face for each threаt they made for an honest negative review. Coward.
So you're saying all these pussy-whipped guys got scared of being blacklisted for writing the review they thought should be written so either wrote inflated reviews or didn't review at all? And we should all get upset that they lack the balls to stand up for themselves?
Sorry rocket but they won't get much sympathy from me for whining about being abused and then going right back and giving this terrible agency their hard earned money. Sounds like they need to be labeled a big a coward as anyone in this thread -- but you won't do that. Why not? The shoe definitely fits.
Most customers don't want to be bld. That's just a fact. A fact why these threats actually work. They're either forced to lay low, do general details or never write bad reviews. Because they fear being bld.
It doesn't help guys like cdl chirp all about being bld if you write a negative review, to discourage people from writing negative reviews for girls. Never mentioning agencies who pose supposedly empty threats... never saying we could write negative review up till now. Nooo, his point was to discourage negative reviews of kgirls. But now when this agency is doing damage control and trying to clean up their image, suddenly all of this is empty threats. Lmao. Isn't it super convenient? Why would he bring up booker Tim/Alex in his stories if their threats were empty? Shouldn't he have said those bookers have empty threats so you could write reviews of seven and below?
I know you won't ever feel bad for customers as you think threats to be banned or any threats is fine with you. Because for some dumbfuck reason you really think the seller is fine to do whatever threats they please. And even policing reviews that have nothing to do with them - they are written for us (mongers) by us (mongers) - seems like a fine policy to you.
And I love how you shift the burden here to the mongers instead of shitty tactics, as usual. Yes of course let's blame the mongers for trash policy. Is that why you've always declined to write a public negative review or discuss a bad experience publicly? Flat out refused many times when I challenged you to?
What's sad s this pos booker won't learn his lesson. His lesson from this is that he simply got caught stating this policy publicly not that his policy was oppressive bullshit that abused position of power. Gargamel ass booker.
I know booker might read this post so I'll state this again. There is no way to atone for this but to get on your knees and post a public apology in which you claim that all reviews including negative ones, are welcome without any repercussion . And follow up on that promise.
It's hilarious how escorts and agencies grabbed something that is owned by mongers - reviews - and suddenly made it about them. None of your fucking business, if someone thinks a provider deserves a three, she deserves a fucking three. Feel grateful someone reviewed you well, don't use it as advertising. Not only are they using reviews as spiffed up ads, they also trying to police bad reviews. Get the fuck outta here.
One need not be bold at all. Just spend your money somewhere else. Pretty simple. I could write more with other scenarios but why.
But by all means, keep making excuses for people that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and where they spend their money by saying other are fooling or threatening them. Keep trying to make the bad actors (agency or independent) do what you want them to rather than accept some will be bad actors and doubly so when they face no financial consequences for the behavior. They don't care what you say but do care if people pay them even when they say bad things and complain about not getting what they want.
Keep support those that enable the shit you complain about while trying to claim those that see the reality and try to find ways to deal with the real world better, making better choices and enjoying themselves as the one's that are supporting the bad behavior as you've been doing for the past 3 years.
Yes yes, keep blaming the mongers for being threatened and call them cowards. Whereas you cant even give any label or admit that it's anti-consumer and bully behavior for seller to monitors reviews and threaten anyone who dares to post negative ones. Not a single public condemnation from you. Oh is it because it's in SD and not in NoVa? Well I know soke folks in klients group got banned from some orgs in your neck of the woods, but I didnt see even a peep publicly.
What part of the monger has the right to post a honest truthful negative review without any retaliation, harassment, threat or bullying from the seller" are you having problems with?
Your idea is not deal with the problem at all but just pretend it doesnt exist publicly. And you're part of the problem. Because in your eyes seller doesn't deserve a public tarring and feathering, or even a verbal "this is bad and antimonger" condemnation. You're even on record saying that you think reviews shouldn't have scores, so I shouldn't be surprised you never condemn sellers going after negative reviews. You seem to really think this whole biz should not be public. I don't know why you're on ter though. Because ter is about public reviews that are honest and not padded or inflated.
"What part of the monger has the right to post a honest truthful negative review without any retaliation, harassment, threat or bullying from the seller" are you having problems with? "
The part that claims such a right exists. None of us have a right to see any of these women. It's called the right of free association -- which means we all get to say who it is that we allow to associated with us, not who must allow us to associated with them.
Once you get past the false premise it is actually pretty easy to understand why at least some of us don't see such claims about these as the terms for seeing "me", or "the providers we represent" if an agency, as threats that actually have any meaningful force. If I don't like the terms I just move on. If other want to comply with the terms I'll say nothing really about them.
But you claim these guys can define the terms they want when seeing these women. In short you largely advocate a form of sexual slavery by claiming somehow we're living in some unfair world just because you want to be able to access some very personal service and say they have no right to deny the service in the future. It's bull shit and cowardly. Any of the people that hold your position, and who you are clearly defending, are just a bit a coward. Or highly immature wanting to have their cake and eat it too. So wither grow a pair or growup.
So you don't think the buyer has the right to write a review of service they're buying? Smh.
Lol at the association nonsense. People buy services, whether sexual or non-sexual services don't change this one iota. And have a right to review the service publicly. Just like people review on yelp, just like people review jobs on glassdoor and so forth.
"If I don't like the terms I just move on. If other want to comply with the terms I'll say nothing really about them."
So you view treating customers like shit and watching negative reviews and then bullying and threatening people who write them, as "terms"?
Am I getting this right? If you want to stay with them but want to write a negative review, your logic means you will never write a negative review, correct?
This is anti-consumer and you know it. This is anti-ter rules and you know it.
Public reviews is something that every buyer is entitled to, and it is the only public voice that mongers have. But go ahead and stifle it, sure.
And if you don't want anything to do with them, will you say something about them publicly or you also think people need to keep quiet?
Why not go ahead and if you don't agree with how they treat customers, expose their policies and let it be known? But to you it's some fucking privilege of being a secret society member instead of transactional sex for money.
All you had to say was that you think this clown booker did nothing wrong and it's absolutely fine and ok to persecute any monger as they see fit. Should've started with that instead saying oh but they say you can contact them first. Because if you believe in the former, why does it matter? Yet you always try to save their face for some reasons and argue that hat they're doing is not wrong. According yo you they can do whatever they like. And the only choice a buyer has is either take and leave it.
Now that is a shitty premise.
How about keeping track of shitty behavior by listing shitty practices publicly so that others know about them? How about posting shitty practices publicly, just like people do with companies they often work for and sellers they deal with.
Speaking of absurd hyperboles, you really compared thus to sexual slavery?
Well shit, I guess if I review my job at glass door it's some kind of professional slavery if they don't want to associate with me anymore?
Oh wait they actually cannot do that.
I defend people's rights to write negative reviews on this and every other platform. You call people cowards because they don't want to burn bridges (something you yourself have claimed is a bad thing) due to some bad experiences. Maybe. But you fail to call booker a coward. Not once have you named him a coward for threats. But just as usual, you never call the agencies anything. It's always the buyers fault, uh huh. Regardless of whether or not shitty behavior was accepted, you can never condemn such behavior.
An agency or any provider is a COWARD for making such threats in position of power.
A agency or any provider is a COWARD if they run from negative reviews. Not only coward but they want to trick people. Make money like conmen used to and once the news reaches that it's a rebrand, go to another city.
We need another course on how negative reviews are paramount for mongers.
Those SD reviews were incredibly inflated. Same bora girl that elcopypasterinoinsd writes copy pasted review for, is getting 4s and 5s in the bay area.
why you're letting agencies and providers have "power" over you? Are you that fucking weak? As Jensen says, if you don't like the agency, go to a different one. It's not complicated. It sounds like your attitude is, just because you have the money, you should be able to fuck any provider you want. You want to have that power for yourself, but you don't want the provider to have the same power to decide who she DOESN'T want to fuck. Do you see the irony in that?
-- Modified on 10/19/2023 11:19:41 PM
It seems you have problems grasping concepts.
The booker/org is in position of power because he/she decides your status with the org.
And because people don't want to get bld, they comply with rudeness, assymetric treatment (you can't cancel on a girl but a girl can cancel on you without explanation or sorry)
Think of soup nazi in Seinfeld. People liked his soup and they were willing to undergo humiliation and inhumane behavior.
Elaine put an end to this after getting his recipe. After all, if soup is the same, why go to someone who is rude and demeaning?
But I see what you're doing. Instead of talking about how what sdаg did was bad - you now are blaming the customers. I've seen these tendencies of yours the moment I've joined.
You and your ilk never go out of your way to state that what the booker is doing is bad, publicly. All you cna do is criticize mongers.
I was hoping maybe youd for once stand up for mongers, given you're cornered and there's evidence in writing of the agency threatening to blacklist whoever writes a lower review.
But it never happened. You still do the cop out of "if you don't like it why not go somewhere else" just like Jensen.
I don't like it AND I will put up bad policies for public discussion. You won't see me go quietly about bs tactics, I broadcast them as loudly as I can.
TER would be one example. All private clubs, most public businesses, say a restaurant enforcing either a dress code or some behavioral norm (quiet, for example) as well as Monger's themselves, and customers in general, also have that very same power.
The only difference is you don't want to accept some having that power because you want the right to force yourself on them merely because you're able to pay. Yawn. Hardly some extreme power differential originating with the agency. The source is the desire of the customers that cannot just say "I'll move on to something else." Or say "I won't support such businesses even if I have to do without."
So who is it that is not getting it?
Lol. Way to twist my words around.
I never want to force myself on anyone. I never said just because I pay I have the right to see every girl and do whatever I want.
I said, we have a right to evaluate a service we buy publicly...without facing retaliation for such reviews.
Imagine if I buy a new iPhone and leave a bad review, and now I can't buy any apple products I actually like. This is nonsense.
"The source is the desire of the customers that cannot just say "I'll move on to something else." "
Why would you move to something else if you like some of what you see and don't like some other offerings?
If a menu has four items and you think two are garbo and tow are great, why can't you say two items are garbo and two are great?
You always accuse me if being binary, yet here you are telling people they need to move on.
You have this dichotomy of either mongers stfu and keep going or move on (and also stfu it seems).
Why can't mongers criticize some products the seller is putting out. People criticize ter on this very site all the time. On the other hand, you and others have never been able to publicly
Just as usual, orgs and escorts want to reap all the benefits of public reviews (aka advertising via positive ones) without all the downsides (negative reviews). Fuck off. You're gonna get both or none at all.
block or BL you for rudeness or being an asshole in general. They can also block a customer for grabbing their hair or head and face-fucking them or giving them a "pounding", irrespective of whether you have the money to see them.
All Bookers are not bad in my opinion. I have only met a few that I couldn't do business with. They are gatekeepers to heaven and keep me safe from LE.
As far as status goes, your employer also decides your status within his org. Are you going to try to put him out of business because of it? I never met a guy who could shoot himself in the foot like you can.
I will admit that you are the master of concepts, but you completely ignore reality. Why not start your own org and become the booker, then you can run it the way you want? Maybe that would be a wake-up call about how far out-to-lunch you are about the Kgirl biz.
If you tell me it's not an act, I will give you a pass. You should know you cannot prove a negative. Do you really expect me to list all of the guys who HAVEN'T been BL'd? Why don't you just list a few who have. YOU made THAT claim.
Three years ago cdl, in the very similar topic - my first one on ter btw - somehow didn't mention the empty threats. Gee I wonder why. On the contrary, he was trying his hardest to convince me that "it's them rules" and that he knows many a guys banned by bookers or whom bookers stopped talking to.
Never mentioned anything about empty threats ever. Oooh I wonder who that socal booker was. Do you guys know?
"
Its their game, so its their rules." It doesn't matter if WE think its a good practice of not. If the booker knows your TER handle, and you are low-scoring his/her girls, there's a good chance they will stop responding to you. It always makes me laugh when guys post on discussion boards that they were BL'd and don't know why. Low scores is one of the possible reasons. There was one booker in SoCal that, after you passed the screening, he would tell you that the girls always appreciate positive reviews, but if you score lower than a 7, you might not be invited back. That's about as in-your-face as it gets. Other bookers are more subtle, but if they don't think you're getting the message, they will word it a little more strongly before BL'ing you.
"
But now it's "empty threats" huh. Let me ask you, which post were you lying in?
It's actually quite good to go back and read that topic. Amazingly, I see Jensen back then also artfully dodging a direct question of whether it's OK to buy good standing with reviews or silence.
K orgs used to be the best game in town but after getting burned even after reading glowing reviews, I just gave up. Now seeing this type of stuff on threatening reviews it totally makes sense why they were inflated
Just don’t have the patience to keep going through a dozen providers to find the one or two gems that might be worth repeating. It turns out to end up more expensive eventually and a worse value proposition than properly vetted independents or even sugar dating
review by no other than macho "everygirl is a 9 in service" gabacho! Expectations must be extremely low so for the same few or they have a stake in the game. This whole kgirl scene is becoming a fucking joke. Stolen fake pics, photo shopping, every girl is 20 something with a minimum D cup! What a circus!
From another site.
"But all [bookers at sdag] have been less than friendly and basically interested in getting as much money out of patrons as they can. Never once was an underwhelming session compensated for with a discount, money back or a genuine promise of better service next time.
And they are not above banning guys who dare to write honest reviews."
Well shit sounds like the" contact us first" thing was useless for this guy. Whowouldathought?
Good to hear from you sir. You are a long time contributor and valued reviewer. Yes there are no threats, only feedback requests.
Cheers
They definitely have been polite and helpful to me over the last year. My gut tells me that they may have been trying to emphasize to follow up with them if you have an issue. Ive only had one bad session with a very popular girl (who is known to be extremely quirky) We exchanged messages after the session and all was resolved. It would be unfortunate if anyone gets BL'd....
Just skimming through reviews, not even loading them into my dbs yet... I noticed a pattern
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/detail/bora-review-by-elduderinoinsd-2522334
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/detail/kai-review-by-elduderinoinsd-2438191
http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/detail/mcc-review-by-elduderinoinsd-2451431
Same review copy pasted pretty much word for word, for two different girls and one rebranded girl (Bora)
Why would we trust anything you say if you are so lazy you copy paste your reviews word for word and give 9/9 scores?
But of course people would rather trust you than uncle rocket.
Yes boring is amazing, unfortunately you would never be able to even get a taste because you're not even eligible to any of those Korean organizations
from an UNNAMED site. Don't you ever get tired of making shit up? How about a link to someone on TER who made a comment like this about the SDA org? So far, it seems the TER members here are overwhelmingly speaking positively about this org, and you have to go somewhere else to find someone who doesn't like this org. Why is that?
You keep repeating yourself about guys being banned, but you have yet to name a single one. I think I've asked about a half-dozen times if you have an example of anyone being banned, and you don't. You just quote anonymous other sites with any links of info so that we can verify what you are claiming. In this quote you have used, this guy doesn't claim HE was banned for writing an honest review. I'm sure if he did, you would have included it. I think your lack of proof to back up your claims of banning militates strongly in favor of TER taking another look at removing all of the girls' reviews from this org. It's not like you haven't made shit up before on this board that you had to walk back or tap dance around afterward. Lol
Geez Rocket
You guys debate this shit like it’s important.
All I want to do is fuck KGirls.
Go figure…
No one is stopping you from fucking kgirls as far as I can tell.
But, people are actively stopped and discouraged from putting up honest reviews if they are 7 and lower.
Last time I checked this is a review site. Integrity of reviews and manipulation of reviews by orgs matter in contest of the website.
Given that you as well are quick to swing on those mongers who wrote negative reviews, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Integrity of reviews is held in much higher regard by me than kgirl or org biz.
There's a special place for org people and workers who can't take honest negative reviews and who have to resort to bullying and threatening of customers instead of taking and swallowing a review.
Quite stating your opinions as facts. So far the only fact we really have here regarding the reviews is that your efforts have removed ALL the review for the agency.
The rest of your post is nothing more than your biased diatribe against all other mongers who dare to hold a different view and interpretation (which you mostly misunderstand and mischaracterize) about things.
Please show them.
Fact : many people have complained about sdаg policies and dozens of people have said that booker texted them after they posted an anonymous review, to remove a review, chided them for it, and told them to not ever do it again or they would be banned.
Fact: this unspoken policy showed up on their website, and it was captured in all of its glory and this thread was made.
Fact: this policy is anti-ter and anti-review, as it attempts to leverage threat of bl to manipulate reviews and silence Lowe scored reviews.
Fact: rgh550 has directly attacked mongers inside his own reviews for what he perceived was lower scores of girls he liked. One instance of this was resolved as there was a confusion between some people and the wrong named girl was reviewed. In another instance he said reviewers who gave a girl low scores had "dirty assholes".
These are all facts. Not my opinion, but facts.
So far, you have pointed to one unnamed individual on an unnamed site by providing an unverified quote. Could you possibly be any further out on a limb? Lol
Screening is tough at this org you are targeting, and the only complaints I have seen are from guys who said they could not pass the screening. Did this happen to you and that's why you are targeting this org for destruction with unsupported claims of blacklisting and threats? When screening is tough, that's what keeps the girls and customers safe from LE. Don't you think that is a good thing?
I don't recall rgh550 naming any other reviewers by name in his reviews. I also don't remember him reviewing any Kgirls from the agency you are TARGETING. Do you see the duplicity in bringing up his comments out of context when you have been talking about a different agency? One more example of your intellectual dishonesty. It sounds like your point is that it okay for a monger to blast other reviewers by saying "I don't get where these high scores are coming from", but no one can say, "I don't get where these low scores are coming from." Do you see the irony here in you two-faced approach to reviewing?
Yes, many people have complained on the other site that deals with extensively San Diego escorts. Publicly. Privately, several people pmd me their stories as well and I've offered to share them with anyone. Only one guy from this board asked me to share and I have with him.
"Did this happen to you and that's why you are targeting this org for destruction with unsupported claims of blacklisting and threats? "
This is pure nonsense. I'm not targeting any org or anyone for any "destruction". I haven't ever spoken to this booker in my life. I'm criticizing any and every entitity who thinks they can monitor and manipulate their clients reviews in a way they see fit and profitable. You know this well as I've harped on this for well over three years bow, and yet you now are making dumb statements that make no sense.
No, I do not see any duplicity. My original post said that rgh550 wouldn't understand the angst I'm feeling of lower review scores being threatened, because he himself attacked mongers who gave lower scores to the girl he's reviewed in his own reviews. He did not respect the mongers opinion to rate a girl low, how would anyone expect him to care about another mongers right to rate a girl whom he likes a three?
Just like I don't expect you or Jensen, for example, to feel so. Because each of you clearly go out of their way to not write reviews lower than a seven.
"It sounds like your point is that it okay for a monger to blast other reviewers by saying "I don't get where these high scores are coming from", but no one can say, "I don't get where these low scores are coming from." Do you see the irony here in you two-faced approach to reviewing? "
It sounds like you're making assumptions as usual. If we're takin about rgh he literally attacked reviewers in his own review, sating they had dirty assholes and asked the girl to rim them. Whereas there was no proof of this.
On the other hand, please tell me a single review of mine where I'd criticize other mongers opinions.
So no, there's no duplicity here. All I'm asking is that a monger has a right to express his scores in peace, without an ass lown booker texting back and asking why he gave this review and threatening him. This is what the gist of this thread is and the agency doesn't seem to understand that the more they attempt to damage control, the more stupid they look.
One final note. A review with a low opinion shouldn't be bought, sold or used as leverage. The very last thing I want is a booker contacting me about a review I wrote anonymously. Reviews are sacred and is the main reason people go to review sites. Silencing peoples voices is something I don't take lightly.
When you first came here you spent a couple of years bragging that you are known on another site for taking down orgs. you finally bagged one on TER and you seem to be walking it back. You should be bragging about it.
Did you ever pass screening yourself to see girls at this agency you have targeted? If you did, which girls did you see?
After all of this hyperbole, you still haven't NAMED a single monger that was blacklisted for a review he wrote, nor have you been able to name a single monger who was threatened after writing a review. You keep referring to "another site" but you have never named it here. You checked my PM to see if you are still on ignore, and you are not. Why don't you send me the name of this site privately if you are afraid to do it publicly with links to posts by guys who say they were blacklisted after writing a bad review? What are you hiding?
I havent done any 180
I only said that on the other site, when I and othes presented evidence of fake reviews, the admin got mad and removed all of the reviews and bаnned many members who made shill or fake reviews.
"Did you ever pass screening yourself to see girls at this agency you have targeted? If you did, which girls did you see? "
I don't know which agency I targeted. If you're talking about sdаg, no I havent spoken to the booker in my life. I've said it multiple times already. Please read.
" Why don't you send me the name of this site privately if you are afraid to do it publicly with links to posts by guys who say they were blacklisted after writing a bad review? What are you hiding? "
Sure thing, I should get vip back soon. The pms I got from another site I will black out their names. The public posts I can just send to you verbatim.
you five days of VIP. Let's see what you have in way of the "evidence" you have been talking about. I'll watch for your PM with the links. Thanks.
Ive sent you the links to some pm images and public posts. Ive included couple of members in cc who may not be willing to have to do anything with it, but I have to do this to ensure you play fair. Many times youve claimed my links didnt work because you couldnt figure it out.
I dont really need anything from you, but since I cant refuse these vip days, Ill give them back to you once I have some.
Truth, Fairness and Treatment of customers >>>>>>>>
Truth, Justice and the American Way^^!
Oh wait, that's Superman^^!
your efforts in providing some links to what you're claiming, i.e., that guys who write bad reviews of Kgirls at this agency are being blacklisted. I note that your PM lifted certain posts from the thread that you pasted to emphasize that I should read THOSE, but I read ALL of the posts by everyone on the thread to give me some context to the discussion. Here is my take away . . . .
1. Blacklisting: There were no posters on that board that claimed to have been blacklisted. You even specifically pressed one guy who had a negative post, and he admitted he had never been blacklisted, but claimed that "others" had been. This guy is a lot like you when it comes to advancing hearsay as fact. He provided no usernames of who these "others" were, no time frames for when these alleged BL's took place, and no information on whether there were aggravating factors like stealthing or rough sex (which are not allowed at this agency) that may have contributed to a decision to blacklist someone. In order to accept that there has been a blacklisting, we have to accept this guy's allegation that there were unnamed "others" who were blacklisted. This hardly proves your point. If we didn't believe YOUR hearsay, why should we believe his? It just means you continue to have a lack of corroboration that there was even a SINGLE blacklist over a written review, but now it's on TWO forums rather than just one.
2. Threats: This issue is a little murky. There were posters that claimed that they received text messages about negative reviews, but NONE of them say they were blacklisted. ONE poster out of everyone said he agreed to take down a review, from THAT site, not TER, where he had given low scores in the heat of the moment. He even said he wrote the review sitting in his car immediately after the session. That is the worst time to write a review. There is too much of a chance you will score too high or too low because the adrenalin is still flowing through your veins. Interestingly, the few guys who claimed to have been threatened have not provided any screenshots of text messages showing they were, indeed, threatened. At least you provided a third-party archive screen-shot which may have been real or may be a hoax. We may never know.
Just like happened on this board, the number of positive posts about this agency from the members exceeded the number of negative comments. Some of the negative comments were from guys who hated this agency already because they say could not pass the screening, Of course, when they can't pass screening, it has to be the agency's fault, right?
It looks like you went way out on a limb with your claim that guys were being blacklisted at this place for negative reviews. So far, not a single guy claims to have been blacklisted. You do yourself a disservice when you make claims like this that cannot be substantiated. We all know you are anti-org and have been since you got here, but as the support from the membership on two forums clearly shows, this org is well-liked by K-mongers, and you have stabbed the happy customers here in the back with your spurious claims of blacklisting that you have not been able to prove over two different forums.
Look at you being dishonest and disingenuous again. It's so disgusting I have to engage with your lying ass.
1. The archive website is as legit as wikipedia. Even more legit since wikipedia can be edited by some people. Archive site cannot, and is legit to anyone with two brain cells. You arguing that it isn't evidence when people SAW the same thing plastered on the org site proves you will go out of your way to lie about truth. The quote was on the site and many mongers, including THIS ONE, saw it. You trying to act like it didn't exist might be the most piece of shit thing I've seen you do on this forum, and I've seen you do many things. You straight up want to LIE in order to protect the agency. Despicable and vile. "may be hoax". Piece of shit.
2. I already stated multiple times that I have not heard anyone say that they have been bld, because every single person decided to comply with the threat. This doesnt mean the threat wasnt there. That doens't mean I claimed that people were bld. Go ahead and reread my op. It says "sdg says dont give reviews 7 or less or ELSE". This is a threat done to MANIPULATE reviews in a way that is favorable to org.
THIS IS THE SAME as offering money for favorable reviews. THE SAME. Do you agree agencies who offer money for positive reviews are pieces of shit who go against TER policies ? Well its the same exact shit. Do you have any proof that a single guy got his money from writing positive reviews ? No ? Then by your logic this agency did nothing wrong, huh ?
Offering any reinforcement - whether positive (money for positive reviews) or negative (threat to bl) is manipulating reviews. This is against TER and - most importantly to me - against customers
"ONE poster out of everyone said he agreed to take down a review, from THAT site, not TER,"
so ? see this is the problem. instead of treating it like anti-monger practice, all youre interested in - same as tim/alex - is restoring their grace in eyes of TER. who cares which site it is on ? this is anti-monger you goofy. whether its on H_X, TER, sg or any other mongering site, it doesn't matter. mongers all deserve non-retaliation to negative reviews.
"That is the worst time to write a review. There is too much of a chance you will score too high or too low because the adrenalin is still flowing through your veins."
Here's the amount of fucks I give about what YOU think the best time to write reviews are: ZERO. You have not written a single review below 7, so I dont care in the slightest when you start lecturing about what you dont do. Write some low score reviews then get back to me when your balls drop to write a negative review. Go consult your bud regencyhobbyist, he actually HAS balls to call spade a spade in reviews.
Here's the simple point: we have the right to write review, as long as they are truthful, WITHOUT BEING HARASSED BY THE BOOKER - at any time WE want. Nothing - and I mean - NOTHING AT ALL - changes this. If the provider went and hung herself because of that review - NOT A MONGER PROBLEM. If the org lost all biz - NOT A MONGER PROBLEM. A monger's pact with booker ends at sessions end provided he behaved himself within certain confines during a session. What a monger decides to rate a session and WHEN is irrelevant.
"Just like happened on this board, the number of positive posts about this agency from the members exceeded the number of negative comments."
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
what the fuck does that prove ? you hiding behind majority as usual ? that elduderinoinsd who COPY AND PASTES his reviews decided to defend the agency ? seemingly the same dude who was bnned on sg for being a shill ? LOL.
once again, the agency clearly posted on their website that they will BL anyone - and they will go out of their way to figure out who the reviewers are - for a low score reviews. This is a FACT. Booker will wear it for the rest of his life. The lesson here is NOT that they shouldnt post it on their website. The lesson here - hopefully - is to let mongers to rate accordingly without being scared of booker angrily sending texts.
Here's a question from me you havent answered - how come when you claimed that the oc booker (booker TIm) threatens to BL people for writing lower reviews, you didnt say it was an "empty threat" ? surely you have known it by now. but NO, you chose to write that we shouldnt write low reviews because of that. Go to hell cdl. It's very clear what youre doing. You dont care and never cared about mongers rights to write review, you jsut care that this agency supplies you pussy and people dont rock the boat. You get what you deserve.
and no, Im not ANTI agency. Im ANTI anti-consumer tactics. If I rate an iphone a low review and then apple founds out who I am and tells me I cant buy their macbooks, I will go to reddit and make a post going at them EXACTLY the same as I made here. And I will pour gasoline on their pr flames. And I will do it here the more tim/alex and you try to save face, I will take that face off like Castor Troy.
because to me, customer rights >>>> all girls biz and org biz combined.
"If you choose to give reviews that are negative, then we will
have to sever our partnership and you will not get to visit others.
We will do our best to figure out who you are"
This is what the agency said to its own customers - in plain text, you will be bld if you rate their product below 8
But CDL will jump through the hoops to prove something that the agency actually never followed through.
Why does it matter ? The agency clearly attempts to manipulate reviews for their own good.
Who the fuck wants the agency to manipulate USER-DRIVEN reviews on a review site ? Those who relentlessly suck the agency's dick, can't think of anyone else.
Reviews and user feedback is sacred to me. This is the ONLY public voice mongers have. And scum is trying to manipulate it ? Fuck outta here.
Spoken like calm, objective, reasoned mind that considered available facts. LOL your returning to your fanatic mode.
I don't think CDL was trying to defend the agency for that type of policy (but have not read all the BS here) but I think he was attempting to refute all the hoops you've been jumping through to try and justify your claims that the policy was a real threat that did in fact have a meaningful impact on distorting the reviews for the agency that the girls. Doesn't really seem to be a supported position since it seems people did write such reviews and were not banished from the agency.
As often seems the case, people are not really disputing the limited facts you point out but all the BS your build up around it to make it something we need to care about. It was a while ago but I think most of this discussion derived from my claim that it was largely an empty threat in my opinion. That take seems to be supported by all the ensuing discussion. Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that *even if* the intent was to make everyone give 8s or higher in a review that effort seems to have failed. Do you even know how many of their customers ever saw that page?
I never claimed I'm CALM on this subject. On the contrary, this shit makes my blood boil.
"I don't think CDL was trying to defend the agency for that type of policy (but have not read all the BS here)"
so how about you try reading it or refrain from speaking on it ? why are you speaking for CDL ?
"all the hoops you've been jumping through to try and justify your claims that the policy was a real threat "
the only person here who have jumped through hoops is CDL trying to downplay the shitty policy and discredit me. if you want to join him, you can do so. get in line. dont think I dont remember how you argued against negative/mediocre public reviews.
it's very simple. the policy existed, and Ive mentioned it many times years ago. I didnt have proof in writing. Now I do. It'd be great if other orgs who do this silently to also post this on their site, so I can have proof of them doing this too. And I will air them out too. I dont have a problem with airing out ANY provider about shitty practices, have you noticed that ?
on the other hand, CDL has also mentioned that policy without naming the org (cowards do what cowards do) and used THAT as bogeyman as to WHY we need to NOT give negative reviews to kgirls. so, he was a part of manipulating reviews tactics. why ? if this was an empty thret like he says why didnt he say so ? No, it was clear that he wanted US (mongers) to not give low reviews to kgirls. And this was pure bullshit. Why would a fellow monger want to silence real negative reviews ? if you put girls biz or orgs biz over mongers freedom of expression, then say so. Ive been asking you to say this for ages, and you still cant do it.
"
As often seems the case, people are not really disputing the limited facts you point out "
actually NO - CDL has repeatedly disputed the facts Ive presented. once again, why dont you try reading the thread ?
1. he is questioning the legitimacy of the archive link, even though the archive link reads EXACTLY what was posted on the booker's site. It's a snapshot site for a reason. But you ignore CDL doing this, of course.
2. he questioned me saying that multiple people have complained about a booker being angry contacting them after those people wrote bad reviews. he even requested I would provide the examples, and I have. now he is changing his tune because he cant play that card anymore. I know how to play this game. Im good at it. And I wont let go of some org who thinks they can bully people for real honest reviews. I dont care what the org is called, I dont care what type of providers are there, I dont even care about the business sector theyre in.
"That take seems to be supported by all the ensuing discussion."
appeal to majority fallacy. not only that, it is irrelevant even IF that threat was empty. If I make a threat to kill you, I will still be arrested even if my threat is empty. the threat itself has helped the agency to manipulate reviews. this is a threat to real reviews.
"that effort seems to have failed"
how has that failed ? if it stopped at least one person from writing a negative review in a spot where he wouldve otherwise, it worked. what is there to acknowledge ? and I certainly wont take "empty threat" statements from agency shills and longtime friends like CDL. they have vested interest in that agency.
"Do you even know how many of their customers ever saw that page?"
who the FUCK cares ? the page was PROOF of that policy. now everywhere they go all I have to do is point to the PROOF so their rep follows them.
now the org is scrambling because their policy is publicly known and theres proof. Guess what ? if they didnt have this policy in the first place, there would be no pushback from me. It's very simple. Don't FUCK with customers right to post reviews if they are honest.
now this agency has created another website. ironically it has rocket in the title. they think they can rebrand like kgirls and start anew or something ? no, thats not how it works.
is in debunking Jensen's original point that it is an empty threat. There is no indication from anyone that reviews have been taken down on TER in order to knuckle under to some kind of threat, and you have already conceded that you can't find a single monger who has ever been blacklisted for a review. There were reviews from guys who gave 7's and still reviewed other girls after that, proving they were not blacklisted, which supports Jensen's claim that it was an empty threat, and debunks YOUR claim that every single guy gave in and removed their reviews.
I don't care about mongers? Bwahahahahaha!!! I'm feeling a lot of empathy now for all of the OC customers who will have to go somewhere else to find reviews for Kgirls from this agency because of your heavy-handed approach to this. You should have contacted the booker and talked to him about your concerns and something might have been worked out that would save the reviews for hundreds of Kgirls and keep TER as a place that Kgirl mongers can go to find reviews in OC. As an OC resident myself, I'm one of hundreds of guys that will have to join another site to see the reviews for this agency when I have always found everything I needed to know right here on TER. Even, arguendo, if your claims had some basis in fact as you seem to believe, why kill the chicken when it can still give you eggs? You are as ignorant as you are short-sighted. Your reckless approach to this whole topic has made life more difficult for hundreds, if not thousands, of SoCal mongers who have no beef with this agency. So much for YOU being the guy who is looking out for us mongers. Everything you touch seems to turn to shit. Have you noticed? It must really suck to be you.
I have not failed at all, in fact you have no proof that it is an empty threat.
You claim some mongers have repeatedly written low reviews for girls and were still reviewing them after ? Prove it. Find me at least 2 mongers with scores of 6 and below for this agency.
I dont know how you would do it since reviews are now removed, but until you do that you have no proof.
Unlike you, I have proof. I have proof of many things.
Lol at blaming me. Blame the org for instituting a shitty policy and policing them like a hawk. But you knew that already havent you ? And you havent said shit, the only time you said shit was when you needed a bogeyman to show that mongers shouldnt write negative reviews. You are in the cahoots with the booker.
I simply posted their policy here, just like I do with any provider org or entity that sells products and services, which I consider anti-consumer. You should be mad at the booker for being a "hawk" (in your own words) and an asshole who watches anonymous reviews and then contacts people like a little bitch with his threats.
Why arent you mad at him ?
Oh I get it you think its ok. Just like you and Jensen refuse to give lower grade publicly. You never gave a shit about truthful reviews, otherwise if you really thought they are "empty threats", you WOULD SAY SO. Instead, you dangled a bogeyman scare in front of mongers as to why they shouldnt grade someone who they feel should be negatively graded.
You care more about bookers and girls biz than you do about mongers' rights to read PUBLIC unmanipulated reviews and write them. You always have. So does Jensen. Embrace it. Just like your booker tim/alex should embrace their philosophy and the CONSEQUENCES behind the philosophy. Reap what you have sewn. And EAT IT too.
"You should have contacted the booker and talked to him about your concerns and something might have been worked out"
I dont negotiate with terrorists. I already said what the booker can do to alleviate this situation. Put up a PUBLIC apology and say that he will NEVER contact a monger about a review, no matter how scathing it was.
Everything I touch turn to shit ? Show me where I touched you then.
prove a negative. Can't be done. I backed Jensen's claim that it was an empty threat. You say it isn't, and yet, you can't produce a single link on either this forum or the other one that anyone has claimed to be blacklisted by this agency over a review. As far as proof of lower scores, you are the one that had the reviews removed, but I read almost every OC Kgirl review, so I know they are there, just like other OC mongers know they are there. Nice try to put your baggage on me, but if you want the proof, you can ask TER to put the reviews back up and I will be happy to point them out for you. Feeling lucky? Lol
I didn't like the way Booker gray was operating, so I posted about it here, and talked to him about his business practices. I did not try to "take him down", nor did I give him an ultimatum. I just told him what he had to change in in order to get MY business. That's what adults do. You are acting like a petulant child. Despite my own experience, many mongers have said they get along fine with Gray, so who am I to ruin the experience for them by trying to put him out of business?
Do you see the irony in saying you are pro-monger, and then you go and remove reviews that can help mongers decide which girls are a good fit for them? This is not about other mongers. It's all about you and your inflated ego that you are some kind of superhero and the bookers and orgs are the evil empire. Without the orgs and bookers, whatever Kgirls we had would be indies charging $500+ for the same pussy we now get for $320. Tell us how you think this did not turn to shit due to your actions for the mongers who depend on TER for the reviews of Kgirls in OC? OC Kgirl lovers can thank you for the inevitable reduction in Kgirl choices in OC.
I haven't had any of my reviews removed for this booker, what the hell are you even talking about ? I've never seen a single girl via that agency and I've never even talked to anyone running that agency. What are you on about ?
To prove a threat was empty, I already said what must be done:
We must
a) find a monger who wrote a low review
b) have proof that he was found out by the booker
c) booker threatened him
d) monger ignored the threat and wrote another low scoring review
e) monger was not blacklisted from the org
only then will you empirically prove that threats were empty. and to be honest, sample size of one is way too small too.
you yourself obviously dont qualify because you never even got to point a. no one in this thread qualifies.
Regardless of whether the threat was empty or not, the behavior of trying to find out who is behind an anonymous review of their own girl, and then THREATEN them is anti-consumer behavior. Why are you mad TER also considered it anti-consumer ? You clowns keep saying "everyone here agrees". Hello ? TER apparently didn't agree with you.
Once again, I haven't reported anyone or anything. All I have done is written this thread with proof of their actions and what they really think of their customers. I haven't written anything untruthful at all. Are you mad that Im telling everyone this PUBLICLY? Well guess what, some people have balls to mention behavior of SPECIFIC girls and orgs PUBLICLY.
I havent tried taking ANYONE down. In the neighboring thread I tell everyone to not talk to police and I hope everyone keeps their mouths shut.
All I have done - just like I have done for three years I've been on here- is post a lot of issues I consider anti-consumer and put them up for discussion PUBLICLY. All I have endured over these years is laughs in my face, lies about me that weren't true in the slightest, lies about me lying when I was telling the truth, and telling me to go complain to BBB.
If you haven't noticed, I have no issue at talking about a bad experience/girl publicly. Not just abstract girl, but specific girls. Similarly I have no issues talking about specific bookers and their policies.
I haven't given anyone an ultimatum. I said that in my eyes that would be the only way to atone for anti-consumer behavior. That's what I hope they do and one way for ME to have any kind of trust towards them. Im not actually asking for anything nor do I want anything. The presence of the reviews on TER is solely at TER discretion and I don't control them, obviously.
I haven't removed any reviews. All I did was post a - TRUTHFUL - policy of an org off their site. Whats the matter ? You don't like the org's policies ? Or you didnt like that I publicly put it up ? You don't like hearing the ugly truth ? You don't like TER agreeing with me (apparently) ? What exactly have I done wrong here for you to accuse me of anything ?
I simply relayed the orgs policy that was posted on their official site. You have been GLOATING about this policy for years telling people to not rate girls negatively. And now it's "empty threat" all of a sudden. Either you were lying then or you are lying now.
Quit your crying. The org is operational and is doing just fine. You and the org owner are more concerned with optics than ethically treating mongers the right way and staying out of the fucking way when a low scoring review is written.
And I'm concerned with doing the right thing for the customer. Customers deserve the right to write any reviews they like without repercussions. I like to consolidate the grievances and air them out. Publicly. What's the matter ? Don't like truth being told publicly ? Well too bad, the most ugly truth beats the most beautiful lie.
to just find a monger that wrote a low-score review and was blacklisted, and then you wouldn't have to twist yourself into a pretzel to try to prove a negative. The problem is, you admit you can't find ANYONE who was ever blacklisted from this org for writing a review. You're beating a dead horse.
You're the one who is saying itd an empty threat because thats the only defense left, because the org policy plastered over their website proved that they will go out if their way to identify and "deassociate" from their clients. So no there is no hoops. The booker used a threat as a tool to manipulate reviews.
You haven't answered why are you mad at the truth and why you want to suppress the truth. You haven't answered why you're blaming ME for simply communicating what the org itself has written, which is completely consistent with their policy. Even you yourself have mentioned this booker has done this.
You are not mad at the org for making anti-honest review manipulation, you're mad at me posting it publicly. Yet another instance where you care about biz over truth and mistreatment of customers.
Unlike you, I care about the way org treats the customers. And just like I maintain negative reviews must stay negative an must be posted regardless of any consequences to providers, I believe posters have a right to disclose practices they find anti-monger, regardless of consequences for their biz. It's great that even though booker gray has fucked you, you take pride in getting other guys get fucked by protecting his biz. I don't want any guy from any org write an anonymous review and then get contacted by the booker about the review. The review is nunya biz. Bookers get indirect revenue from them when they positive, that's where it ends.
You then say I'm anti-monger for my actions only because TER decided to remove the reviews. And I know if/when the reviews are restored, you'll be doing a victory lap. You don't give a single shit about customers who got harassed by the booker, getting contacted when they anonymously made the review.
Unlike you I don't give exceptions if the org has good pussy or whatever. It could be the best lineup in history but if they start manipulating reviews and threatening customers I will talk about them. Everyone is equal before the law so to speak.
You mentioned recently how an org promising money for positive reviews should be reported to the ter. This is the same shit. But this time you blamed me for saying this (not even reporting) because how guys in oc have less choice?
So if this San Diego org offered money for reviews, you wouldn't report them because they have good offerings?
Get out of here. I treat all orgs the same. And yes, if orgs try to run and hide from rep they've earned - just like providers who run from bad reviews - I will make sure that everyone knows what they did. It's not superhero shit. It's letting public and fellow mongers and review sites know that this org does this. Precisely because BBB does not exist I want to at least help out.
You said I should've contacted the booker. Why? If I see an org offering money for reviews would I contact a booker if I don't know them. Why would I? I'd just post it online for other mongers to read. I don't do money under the table shit. I don't make treaties. Just like there is nothing that booker can say or do to convince me to not publicly post a negative review - and I'll only get even mote pissed if they offer to buy me - there is nothing they can do to stop me from talking when shit treatment if mongers happen.
Treating mongers right to review anonymously in peace as a right is paramount..deal with it.
probably doesn't contain anything new that you haven't already said on this topic. Do you see the irony in having to write an essay to try to justify why you have no proof to back your claims? Your five-step process to try to prove a negative is laughable when you consider it's only ONE step for you to prove a positive, and you can't do it.
-- Modified on 11/13/2023 10:07:25 AM
Here's the readers digest version:
Truth and broadcasting org wrongdoings >>>>>> kgirls and org biz, and the latter's entire existence. And that's not a hyperbole. Reviews are sacred.
Threatening clients with bl and contacting them after they wrote an anonymous review is cowardly shit.
You are willing to twist and withhold the truth in order to make the org and girls appear better than.
For anyone like that I have two words for you : fuck you. And I hope you never write any review on a review site. You put girls feelings/biz and orgs biz over other fellow mongers. Fuck you.
All mongers deserve to read truthful, unmanipulated reviews; all mongers so have a right to write one without harassment from coward booker threatening them.
I will continue to expose orgs wrondogings on public forums PUBLICLY. Just like I continue to write negative public reviews of girls. It's pitiful you trying to discredit me.
If anyone knows of any wrongdoings by any org or agency (isn't limited to Asian) send them to me. I'll ensure they are heard loud and clear. Many sellers in this industry think they're the only ones running shit and can issue threats to customers. Fuck off. Everybody a snake that's why I keep the grass cut/so I see them when they comin then I heat their ass up.
discredit you. You do a fine job on your own. Exactly how many orgs have you been BL'd from? You have a serious chip on your shoulder. Have you tried to book a session lately? I wouldn't be surprised if every booker in the country is looking out for you now. It probably doesn't matter to you. If you can't afford to pay for VIP, you can't afford a Kgirl. Lol
Cdl accused me of speculation when I speak facts.
And then he speculates about me. Around a year ago he claimed I was bld from a bay area org and when I asked him to name he couldn't.
You know why he couldn't? Because I'm not fucking bld from any org. Period. And yet he claims that. Cdl is not beyond spreading lies.
Just like he claims I can't afford vip. And yes I've booked a few sessions lately. And I've reviewed them too. Say, why did you stop writing reviews?
But you see, he has to make up a reason I'm "targeting" orgs. Which is nonsense. There IS no underlying reason. I just ride for my mongers and publicize every transgression against them. The same mongers that cdl laughs at and says "visit bbb". My fellow mongers reading the reviews, guys I've never met >>> all my atfs combined and orgs combined. And that's not a hyperbole.
I believe you said somewhere in this thread or another one in reference to this agency, that the agency has blacklisted guys for disrespecting girls. Can you prove that? Or is it just hearsay?
I said that. I think you are misquoting me. You got a link?