When a reviewer is inputting the max score, is the maximum limited automatically by the system if she has "No" or "Don't know" in the pertinent fields? If a provider has "Yes" at really bi, bbbj, and dfk, I assume the system allows for a 10. What if she has "YMMV" for one of those fields? Does the system/TER still allow for a max of 10?

... More than one guy counts for additional possible points above 7.  See below.

First, no the system doesn't automatically limit the score if the provider doesn't qualify for a score above 7 in performance. What happens is TER will reject you review because you rated her too high and expect you to fix it and resubmit. Sometimes they fix the score and post the review with the adjusted score they assigned which will be the highest score she does qualify for.

what you said in the part I've quoted below were true however it isn't. Well not always at least.

...these "extra services" are no longer a factor in determining a providers qualifying for a higher score.

... we live and write reviews in the present, so...

...and you pointed out another situation where though initial reviews of providers have gotten more scrutiny in my experience it seems not enough if you're having to report them. Everything we've said here supports my statement in the subject line of my reply to the OP. "Welcome to the confusion that is sometimes TER land..."

You disputed that what I said above is true. In fact, it is true. But like other rules enforced through manual processes, the enforcement is imperfect.  

I've the replies (7) so far and all of the loopholes, unprovables and errors are why some people are suggesting a revamp of the scoring system anyway.

Hopefully this kind of thing will continue. I'm simply more skeptical than you.  

10 in looks, she would have to be Christie Brinkley 35 years ago.  The most beautiful providers I've ever seen looks wise were exceptional 9's though, which is to say they were far beyond what I could expect or hope for in the real world.

Abd yes, I think you're being argumentative for argument's sake. And I think it's worn out.     This subject has been discussed before.  The reviews system isn't perfect--I pointed that out above a few times--but that doesn't mean that every time someone tries to help explain the rules they should be challenged ad nauseum until they give in or give up.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I still maintain that we should employ the grade school ✔️+, ✔️, ✔️- system. There'd be so much less drama and confusion. Subjectivity and arbitrary enforcement make the 1-10 scale much more convoluted than it needs to be.  

So the review rules now mandate that everything offered has to be performed in each session in order to be eligible for a higher score? Hypothetical: client A gets a BBBJ and tongue-kissing, but no anal (and obviously no demonstration of bisexuality or willingness to engage with more than one guy since it's a one-on-one date). Does that mean he can only rate his experience at a maximum of 9? Second hypothetical: client B is a bit of a germaphobe. During his date, he specifically requests that no kissing take place and that he receive a CBJ rather than the provider's standard BBBJ. It's the best session of his life and he's perfectly content with the measures he wanted to take to protect his health, but he can only rate her a 7 at maximum?  

Other than that, I am fine with the 1-10 scoring system. That is just how guys rate girls IRL so TER is just a further extension of that.

The only thing consistent about TER's enforcement about "some" rules is their inconsistency, and TER has been anything but consistent about enforcing this particular rule.

... there has to be some evidence other than the profile that the provider actually performs the services that count for extra scoring points, before review scores can include the extra points. The usual evidence is reviews.  Once it's established through review(s) or other evidence (e.g. for Greek, there's pricing for that on the provider's web site) that the extra services are actually offered, then reviews can include points for them.  And after that, those extra services don't have to be performed for a reviewer to add extra points.  

For instance, I know of some ladies who do duos but do not have a single review of a duo. Is someone going to come along and challenge their "10" max on some reviews because they need "Really bi" to get the max 10 (ie they do not do Greek)? Reviews of MFM are even less common.

As I noted, as long as there's some sort of evidence, which could just be a mention on the provider's web site (e.g. "I love couples!"), then reviewers can add the extra points.  That's been my experience when interacting with Admin on reviews I've reported.  

...that isn't a verifiable service. It is a sexual orientation that is hard to prove or disprove. The other 4 activities listed are either performed or they aren't. "Really bi" can't be. I strongly feel that it should be removed from that "List of 5" because it is not in of itself a sexual activity like the other 4 items are.

Enthusiastic duos would be a better description. The addition of sees women hobbyists might be much more useful to a female hobbyist.