Originally this post started this a response to a previous thread but as it runs long I chose to start a new thread.

What was questioned is all the 8, 9 and 10’s and speculation as to the honesty behind or validity to such scores.

Scoring as it relates to TER is a minefield.  What needs to be understood about any scoring system is it a construct of the possibilities.  The problem stems from what it is perceived we are scoring or more correctly what baseline we are scoring from.

When you apply the effect of market dynamics it is reasonable that better looking and better service individuals would stand the test of time.  Anyone that is truly an appearance “4” as “OK, If you are drunk” is not likely to last beyond the first review.  It is far more likely that someone who is at minimum a “7” as “She was attractive” is who you would encounter.   The guidelines also state “save the 8 and 9 appearance ratings for ultra-special ladies”.  If the likely hood is she will be attractive as based from all women this eliminates any possibility in discretional scoring where 7 is the de facto base.

The same problem exists in ranging of performance as scaled between “4” as “She just laid there” and “7” as “It was really hot” with “8 and 9 ranks for situations where out of the ordinary services are provided”.  Most likely the minimum “6” as “It was a nice time” is all the market will allow even if she is peaking the appearance scale.

You probably noticed I left the “10” out of the discussion until now.  Although in a broader scale I would argue it is purely theoretical but within the confines of remnant scale it is used to distinguish those of exceptional skill and beauty.  Although I feel a lady would need to be flawless to achieve an appearance 10, I have experienced scored performance 10’s.
 
The fact that the Review Rating System guidelines makes reference to “your most powerful fantasy” would suggest that we as judges should consider all possible encounters and not just the those individuals available to us in the business.  The descriptions associated with the scores would also suggest that this is the case if you assume the market will eliminate the lesser individuals as previously illustrated.  So what we are left with is an ineffective scoring range to assess our experiences.

Within general population of women IMHO the ladies that survive and thrive in the business here locally truly are the cream of the crop and deserve at minimum a 7 baseline.  I don’t think many of our ladies here are below average and this isn’t unusual if you keep in mind that in scientific scoring and testing methods 68% of 100% is the likely average for the central group.  However from within this subset group of the general population there probably is a wider variance to the mean but our reviewer scale isn’t finite enough to capture it.

One final point is the inconsistency of the judging.  That is the same judge or method isn't applied to assess every event and NO I don’t want a TER certified scorekeeper accompanying me to my next outing.  I’ll do my own scoring thank you!!!

So we have it as it stands an imperfect system to assess a subjective experience.  Where I empowered to change it, I probably would.  For all the reasons outlined I think the 8, 9 and 10’s are valid, I know mine are.  Even with all its flaws the scoring as it stands is still better than flying blind into a situation you’d live to regret later!!!