I posted questions on the general board to try to discuss
the ethics of exchanging discounts/freebies for reviews.
Please check them out if you wish - search on 'ethics'.
One post (and recap) dealt with providers, the other dealt
with agencies.

Staff weighed in a said that a PROVIDER could not do this and
would be banned if caught.  For agencies, he said that they
could not "require" (just hope for) a review in exchange for a
freebie and had talked to the agency about this (that would be
NY Confidential if anyone has been on Mars).

Now, I find this somewhat less than ideal and here's why.
People have been submitting reviews because the precedent of
previously requiring them has been set.  I find it highly
likely that anyone who has won a freebie is going to be
upwardly biased in their review.  That is, the review is
going to be better than it would have been had the freebie
not been offered.  Bottom line, this taints the review pool.

I fail to see the effective difference between requiring and
not requiring a review.  The exchange has taken place and any
review that may be submitted is likely to be tainted.

Your views please.

I know people are going to flame me but hey let's try to keep
it civil .

fr


-- Modified on 4/9/2004 11:25:50 AM

Only the mutts getting a break wouldn't agree

Freebies---no.  Never. Whether required or not. No.  Separately, good for you.  A good moderator.

It was Staff himself, not the moderator of the board who
replied to my posts.

fr

I would like to bring up a subject I don't understand.
I had a threesome with the girls from An Affair to Remember.
See my review from Rachel.
I did not get any discount (I left a heafty tip) and had a really good time with these great girls.
Why were they Booted from TER?
These are sweet girls and although I don't know the whole story, I for one would like to see them back on TER. I think it's a shame and a loss for our Long Island TER members.
Us Long Island guys are the one missing out........

Your encounter had nothing to do with them being banned.
Why would you think it did?

They were in cohoots (did I spell that correctly?) with the
former moderator of this board.  That's why they both got
banned.  They broke the rules, they got banned, end of story.

fr

It's a win-win scenario for both the hobbyist and the provider involved; he gets cheap services, she gets free advertising.  I don't see either giving TER any needed evidence under any circumstances.

Guys make their decisions based on the reviews. If reviews are inacurate due to deal making guys will begin to rely less on the reviews and it will hurt the reputation and effectiveness of this site. NY Confidential should be banned if what you say is true.

Another problem is that the people who run this site need to pay stricter attention to the rating rules. There are people getting massages rating performance a 9 when the rules say that a girl needs to provide BBBJ, DFK, be into girls or provide Greek to be rated above a 7. The site needs to adjust ratings down if the necessary services are not provided.

You say "NY Confidential should be banned if what you say is
true."  The only thing I said they do is run these contests.
It's completely out in the open and is allowed by moderator
and staff.

Massages are rated on a different scale than escorts.  Read
the rules.

fr

A contest is a contest and the rewards and rules are up to the contest giver.  A review of the reward is only fair if it is clearly stated as a review of a reward.  Thus, such a review should only appear on this board and not in the provider review section unless otherwise noted. There is no doubt that both the provider and the reviewer will give and get extra attention above and beyond the norm when a contest that is to be reviewed is at the heart of the matter.  The provider services may well be very different than normal (probably better, but potentially worse as she may not care as much since she's not getting paid).

In my opinion, the only fair solution is for the review to only appear on the board where the contest was posted and not be included in the general provider reviews section.

That's my 4 cents.
- CD