I've been banned!

Reading your reviews, I'm thinking fat ugly fucker.  

I also have read their screening is quite intrusive.  If I was going to use an agency, it wouldn't be them.

... your being banned had nothing to do with what you wrote about Catherine but rather about the personal information you gave about someone else... which was totally unnecessary IMO.

Dude, did you even look at the other reviews? Or are you the kind of banger that sees a pretty picture and can't think straight? And are you familiar with the term "Russian attitude?" Your experience could have easily been predicted. Even just her numeric scores tell the story: attractive but performance is going to be YMMV. Next time, read the reviews.  
And if you're looking for GFE, a Russian agency girl is a very poor choice.

You said in the review it was your first time???   And you have multiple reviews??  Am I missing something???

Restaurant review: the food was awful, and such small portions.

... He said it was his first time with an escort.  Since TER uses that term to (usually) refer to providers who offer FS, vs. massage-type providers, I figured that's what he meant since all of his prior reviews were with massage providers.

http://www.theeroticreview.com/reviews/detail/catherine-review-by-viper2-2032592

-- Modified on 5/18/2017 6:18:11 PM

Nailed it...couldn't agree more!

Yep, they banned me too just for being honest in my review.  

To add, for all the White Knights that want to make excuses for XO, go read my review, the session was a hot mess and when I refused their discount BRIBE to not post my bad review, they banned me.

Which is too bad because if all the lower score reviews are from alias reviewers it might tend to lessen their cred.

What personal info are you referring to? Perhaps I missed it despite reading that review a couple of times.  I didn't read anything in his review that would out her or that I haven't read in dozens, if not hundreds, of other reviews.  Some of those details might be "personal" but not identifying, and I think there's a big difference.  Seems to me the review was merely his notation of the experience and good info for fellow hobbyists.  But I would like to know what you deemed to be too personal.  Feel free to PM me if you don't want to make it public.  I really would like to know... not being argumentative- just inquisitive.  

... that you are being inquisitive, not argumentative.  Since it's in the General section of the review, I can post it here:
.
"I was supposed to see Steffany, but she decided to head back back to Russia (not happy with her career choice - and she hadn't even seen me yet!)."
.
This is personal information about another provider. As I said above, it wasn't necessary for the review of Catherine and thus there was no reason to include it.  A simple "I was supposed to see a different provider, but she became unavailable" would have sufficed.  
.
You and others may not think this is any kind of problem. I disagree. While it's not outing anyone, it exhibits a lack of discretion about the private life of a specific provider.  I think one of the most important qualities of anyone involved in this "hobby" is to be discreet.  It's something everyone who writes reviews, everyone who posts here, and everyone who communicates with others in any way about this p4p world needs to keep in mind at all times.

Hardly a lack of discretion.  The agency CLEARLY advertised Steffany (or whoever) knowing she was not available.  The review stated nothing other than she was no longer here.  Seems almost bait-n-switch to me.  This is not really personal information, is it? A Russian girl going back to Russia?  (A California girl here who's gone back to CA? See that frequently.)

All of this is speculation, but to say a provider was "not happy with her career choice" could have been the tipping point.  That is personal, and goes beyond a provider simply not being available.  Unfortunately, he mentioned more than just that she was going home and that might have made all the difference.

You've got to be kidding me.  Good grief!!  Hardly a major indiscretion.  Especially one to ban someone.  But at least the comments posted here show readers where people align and place their allegiance.  If you consider that a faux pas, you must walk on egg shells.

Oh, and it is speculation, as you wrote, so it is the OP's opinion.  I.e., he was not stating a fact, so how can something that is clearly his opinion be inferred to be personal information?  Not really much different than half the stuff I read in many reviews.

We don't know what the interaction between him and the Agency was.