Bad Review Blackmail

[Regular Guy]

To conclude......

It happens and will continue to happen.

When I first became a member here and did not have any reviews a senior well respected poster (who has long since left the board) had asked me for a discount in exchange for a positive review.

I told him that my rates were already reasonable and that I would prefer an honest review than a bribed positive one. People will try to save money. Some people are vindictive. Other people are not. Some reviews are written too soon and there is the rose coloured glasses effect. Some are written so long after the memory of the details is less than perfect.

All reviews must be taken with a grain of salt.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady

Just to conclude the direction in my two posts above:

First let's deal with intent. Not all reviewers are as skilled or objective or what have you. Second there are those who are deliberately dishonest. I, for one, have never made the claim that the process is perfect but there are steps that can be taken to improve the situation. From time to time someone brings these ideas up in a thread. It's all about whether the will is there.

Discuss the issue and define the problem areas. I think this discussion is a good start. I don't pretend to have the answers but if there is enough will then something like the following might be a start:

Be prepared to ask MOD's to get on board with some ideas to at least curb some of the problems:
For example: greater assistance with making a review. Being more prescriptive about what qualifies as a review. Perhaps a form format might be an idea to help deal with the rose coloured glasses thing or the false memory issue. The only direction on any board comes from the top. Will you get all members on board. Probably not. But risking the wrath of the MOD's can give a person pause.

Second deal with transgression. The only true sanctions available here are banning(MOD's), shunning(membership) and exposure (loss of reputation and credibility). Dialogue is the key. Define and state the ethics concerning reviews. A board policy statement might be made in the strongest terms putting the emphasis on freedom from influence and that just may have to include the obligation to post or not post or whether to disclose merb identities to sp's in advance. At least the pitfalls should be examined. I did deliberately take a few liberties with interpreting the discussion in this thread but my point is that discussion can lead to new insights and direction. Also when the expectations are made clear it may just put that extra bit of pressure on the transgressors. I can think of a character or two who was drummed right off the board and we all know who they are. Don't expect this kind of thing to be taken seriously until the whole community does.

Or third? Do nothing! Accept it as part of doing business and every once in awhile start a thread like this one and bitch and complain. But I think you will find that after awhile people just stop reading.

 

[infanticide]

I've only been here around a year but I've seen some reviews get removed by mods for being blatantly derogatory or whatever, so there are safeguards in place. I haven't had a "bad" encounter in Montreal yet, I've had a few weird ones though, and I think that its possible to give constructive feedback in a review thread without making personal attacks or derogatory remarks.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Please provide details

[sic] I had few people &
clients telling me that they where getting blackmailled when reviewing
ladies from other agencies then the one(s) they where usually making
business with. Those situations are really happening. Not only when
reviewing for other agencies, but for other independant girls also.
Meaning that, yes clients can receive unpleasant comments from
an agency owner cause he hightly reviewed another girl then
one of his. Same for independants, he can receive not very
nice comment about the new reviewed girl cause she was
reviewed better then her. Also it happens in between
buddy-buddy on the board...almost like school yard !

At the end, possibly there is many people going around and around but,
because of the blackmailling, they don't feel free at all to review all
their encounters. It's not only a matter of having the right or not
to review all of them, it's about malicious limitation created by
few in the business. After all one of the main reason that is
said time after time, it's the final accomplishement of the
adventure. So why some, not all ? There is much more
then having the right to choose.

Jessy,

Can you elaborate on the cases you are referring to, specifically on the nature of the "unpleasant comments" agency owners addressed to targeted clients?

Here's a case that would qualify as blackmail:

agency owner forces client to review his girls exclusively by threatening to reveal (to wife, for instance) his dealings with escorts or other incriminating facts about him."

And a case that, although it perverts the review process, would not qualify as blackmail:

agency owner reprimands client (or threatens to cut privileges such as discounted pricing, booking priority, etc.) for having reviewed girls working for a competitor."

Going back to the subject of clients blackmailing escorts, I have yet to see, among the stories referred to on this thread, one that qualifies fully as blackmail, to cite one example:

To "threaten girls with bad reviews on MERB should they not hand out extra-special discounts", could as well qualify as coercion should the "bad review" include false information (i.e. "I met her" where, in fact, I haven't) whereas "should they not provide services they aren't comfortable with" translates into different scenarios, many of which would be based on the dynamics of provider's right to take exception to the service they advertise/don't advertise and client's right to review said providers accordingly.

Details are required otherwise there's not enough here to minimally make a case of blackmail. Whatever the case may be, the question remains: does blackmailing work or is it just another case of the stupids.

 

[eastender]

Board Legend

Whatever the case may be, the question remains: does blackmailing work or is it just another case of the stupids.

Or is it a board version of an urban legend?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Or is it a board version of an urban legend?

Either way, it gave the opportunity to reintroduce the word sleazeball into our culture.

 

[Regular Guy]

Okay Guys! Let's do this mother......!

Well there it is girls. They called it plain. Give them proof of the scope of the problem and you might just get them on board to discuss strategies for curbing this practise. Barring that, forget it. It falls into the realm of "urban legend". If you really feel this is a cause worthy of the efforts I described above then go for it.

 

[eastender]

Reviews Have Become Subverted

Well there it is girls. They called it plain. Give them proof of the scope of the problem and you might just get them on board to discuss strategies for curbing this practise. Barring that, forget it. It falls into the realm of "urban legend". If you really feel this is a cause worthy of the efforts I described above then go for it.

The issue goes beyond points aformentionned in this thread.

Basically the agencies and the Indies have subverted the review process by making it a marketing tool - evidenced by contests(agency and board sponsored) and the use of review extracts on their websites or in promos.

Now enticement may be the opposite end of coercion but it has the same impact on the review process.

 

[Dee]

How cum no one ever tries to corrupt me with kind offers? Sometimes life just isn't fair....

 

[eastender]

Profile

How cum no one ever tries to corrupt me with kind offers? Sometimes life just isn't fair....

You do not fit the marketing profile.

 

[French Girl]

There is a huge difference

So how do you call it when an Indy / agency owner offered discounts in return for positive reviews? a reversed blackmail?

That is bribery, not blackmail. You are really stretching the truth with that analogy.

 

[Dee]

You do not fit the marketing profile.

LOL...

You'd think someone would go after the old, overweight, sweaty, cheap, smelly, small penused, drugged out market....

 

[eastender]

Cheap

LOL...

You'd think someone would go after the old, overweight, sweaty, cheap, smelly, small penused, drugged out market....

Cheap kills the campaign.

 

[korbel]

I knew my english was bad, but not as much as what was conclude few posts above but pretty much what it says here above

So yes ZM, accordly to what I was told, this was exactely what I was trying to explain. Even if like you said, it's doesn't seem to be blackmailling clients, it is unfortunate when these occur or let's say if you prefer, not very pleasant.



Possibly not a constant practice but keep in mind that for whatever situation it applies, talking about urband legends always takes some guts !

However, take it or leave it, it's a free world. For me, the point is finally understood and I couldn't say it better then with the above example by ZM. By the way ZM, did it took you long to understand what I was trying to explain ?

One last thing:



Marketing tool, yes I give it to you. Everything that can be developp as a marketing tool will be in any business.

And we say in french: '' Et que le meilleur gagne ! ''

Hello Jessy,

It's amazing that anyone could claim there is anything wrong with a review being a marketing tool since that is essentially what it is, what it always was, and what it will inevitably always be. What was it supposed to be: a recipe for chicken soup. Good reviews are promotional devices by their nature, unavoidably. They point out one choice as being better than another possible choice. Of course it's a marketing tool. As long as it is written as honestly as possible there is nothing wrong with the marketing element...and there is certainly no connection to blackmail.

Really,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Blurring the Distinction

Hello Jessy,

It's amazing that anyone could claim there is anything wrong with a review being a marketing tool since that is essentially what it is, what it always was, and what it will inevitably always be. What was it supposed to be: a recipe for chicken soup. Good reviews are promotional devices by their nature, unavoidably. They point out one choice as being better than another possible choice. Of course it's a marketing tool. As long as it is written as honestly as possible there is nothing wrong with the marketing element...and there is certainly no connection to blackmail.

Really,

Korbel

Korbel,

Your definition effectively removes the distinction between a reviewer and a shill.

You are using the word review as you would use the word endorsement - where the spokes person indicates a preference, which more often than not is linked to a "quid pro quo" arrangement. Alternatively the poster may act as a spokesperson for an agency or an Indy. Again a consideration is part of such an arrangement. Regardless there is no expectation of objectivity. This is fine as under such circumstances since none is expected.

Conversely a review retains many elements of objectivity. A music review of Bob Dylan may compare his music from various eras, the word play within certain songs, versions of his songs with/without the harmonica, acoustic vs electric guitar.

 

[korbel]

Hello all,

If a client has an enjoyable meeting and writes a review about it, how does one avoid thus marketing, promoting, or endorsing. Are we now to be bound to satisfy those who have fears of these three elements and/or shilling by eliminating all reviews??? Can't a review just be a review. Does it really have to be some kind of subterfuge, coercion, subversion, or scam of one degree or another? Are we now to believe that the "honest no alterior motives review" is an impossibility??? Is the possibility of an honest review completely proscribed on this board? I think some people have begun to enjoy their pessimism and skepticism too much and are slipping deeper into a void known as..."The Silly".

Yeah, we all know what goes on, but let's not eliminate the possibility of honest people in this world and imply everyone is out for improper benefit or just plain lying.

Come on,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Simple and Straightforward

Hello all,

If a client has an enjoyable meeting and writes a review about it, how does one avoid thus marketing, promoting, or endorsing. Are we now to be bound to satisfy those who have fears of these three elements and/or shilling by eliminating all reviews??? Can't a review just be a review. Does it really have to be some kind of subterfuge, coercion, subversion, or scam of one degree or another? Are we now to believe that the "honest no alterior motives review" is an impossibility??? Is the possibility of an honest review completely proscribed on this board? I think some people have begun to enjoy their pessimism and skepticism too much and are slipping deeper into a void known as..."The Silly".

Yeah, we all know what goes on, but let's not eliminate the possibility of honest people in this world and imply everyone is out for improper benefit or just plain lying.

Come on,

Korbel

Korbel

No one has suggested any of the issues you raise or eliminating reviews. Rather a very simple and straightforward approach may work best.

Simply agencies that advertise on this board would be allowed to state on their website "Endorsed by x members of MERB" or "Endorsed by the following members of MERB" thereby building synergy and brand awareness that benefits all and is transparent.

Members wishing to expand on their endorsement can do so to their heart's content. Likewise members may endorse as many or few agencies or providers as they wish without any obligation.

Checks and balances would follow - a member would be allowed to withdraw an endorsement. Likewise an agency or a provider would be allowed to drop an endorsement.

 

[infanticide]

I once had an SP from an agency I was using for the very first time ask me to review her before we got to the action part of our encounter... When I feigned ignorance, she even spelled out https://merb.cc for me and encouraged me to join. I thought that was kind of creepy.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Just being polite..............

ZM, did it took you long to understand what I was trying to explain ?

Oh, an insult! I'm severed!

No, it didn't take me long to figure out this whole case of yours wasn't blackmail.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Ka-ching!

Simply agencies that advertise on this board would be allowed to state on their website "Endorsed by x members of MERB" or "Endorsed by the following members of MERB" thereby building synergy and brand awareness that benefits all and is transparent.

Great idea! Reviewers could then start charging SP's and agencies based on how they score on the Davie-Brown Index.

 

[Regular Guy]

The issue goes beyond points aformentionned in this thread.

Oh I totally agree with that. As I stated earlier a great deal more dialogue is needed

Basically the agencies and the Indies have subverted the review process by making it a marketing tool - evidenced by contests(agency and board sponsored) and the use of review extracts on their websites or in promos.

I would agree that that is the direction they are pushing it. Whether the effort is a 'fait accompli' or not is yet to be decided. You have suggested one possible course of action to make it so but we are not there yet:

No one has suggested any of the issues you raise or eliminating reviews. Rather a very simple and straightforward approach may work best.

Simply agencies that advertise on this board would be allowed to state on their website "Endorsed by x members of MERB" or "Endorsed by the following members of MERB" thereby building synergy and brand awareness that benefits all and is transparent.

Members wishing to expand on their endorsement can do so to their heart's content. Likewise members may endorse as many or few agencies or providers as they wish without any obligation.

Checks and balances would follow - a member would be allowed to withdraw an endorsement. Likewise an agency or a provider would be allowed to drop an endorsement.

I realize that you are putting this out just for the sake of discussion in answer to the point Korbel threw out there. I would like to add that I for one would not wish to see any type of subversion or commercializing of the review process. The original purpose of the board is to remove potential abuses in advertising. Reviews in the purest sense of the word, I believe, are the best way to counter the fact that since this activity operates essentially in the twilight zone standards and practices for advertising do not apply. Agencies are free to engage in all sorts of disreputable practices which the rest of the business community are for the most part not allowed by law. Bait and Switch and not providing the service advertised are two examples of practices which are definitely disreputable. The debate over GFE would essentially become a non issue were agencies allowed to subvert the review process.