Would you support a board that deletes reviews for paid advertisers?

[Jasmine Raine]

Very few negative reviews. Tons of shill reviews. Tons of reviews that have been bell curved. Lots of 10’s being handed out. I’ve even seen some marks greater than 10/10 this year. It’s very hard to filter out the legit reviews lately.

You can't blame the board for that. You need to address that with your fellow reviewers.

However, you also have to understand that men who have had good sex are often quite excited. It makes sense. They just blew a good load. So for them maybe it was an 11/10. Who are you tell them they didn't have an experience like that. Maybe they think the girl is a 10/10. You may not, but they do.

You find the reviewers that share your taste and go with that. Leave the others to their over hyped reviews and move past it.

 

[lynn_ha]

I can certainly understand from the guys point of view it can be difficult to find enough research to come to a conclusion if the SP will be what was promised in her ads or by other guys who have posted reviews. One way is to see how long she has been a member on any of the review boards. In most cases if the SP has been on the board for a number of years then she must be providing good service in most cases. You guys can also make use of the private message system in place here on TERB. You guys have friends here so chat with each other in private chat, that works. Another way to get an idea of an SP's personality is how she conducts herself here in the Lounge, if she participates in threads. Hopefully you will be pleased how she interacts with others. There's 3 ideas that may help, I'm sure there are more that would be considered helpful to make a decent decision in setting up a date with a new SP.

 

[yomero5]

Just like when reading reviews of hotels, resorts or restaurants, I ignore all the good ones and the bad ones. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Raging Light]

One SP told me that the blue board charges a fee to have negative reviews deleted, she use to advertise there but has since retired. I can't remember if it is one time or monthly.

As a result these practices, horrible SP's can have a false online perception and plenty of first timers will have wasted their money. I will admit that I have seen an SP who was terrible, just for the gossip. Those days are done now.

This is very illegal. They could be reported to the police. Asking money to delete a bad review is considered extortion. It’s part the protection of bill C36. SW’s should report those incidents to their local vice department if it ever happens.

 

[IRIS]

I got offer from someone through mail (a lady ) and I told if I pay 200 $ for her she will post 10 positive reviews / 1-2 per month as I wish / here or the biggest site, what's name is almost same than this. She has 30 different user name, good writing skills... etc. as she told me. Fortunately under the past 10 years I build my reputation, and I got many real, positive reviews ( a few negative of course. You can't make everybody happy. ) so I can decline the offer, but I'm understand the girls who starting now and try to build their business desperately, will take the offer. Their clients just too lazy to write a review to help them, and I'm sure they afraid a little bit about negative reviews, what these lady can post any time.( you can call it blackmailing )
I have advantage, because I'm here for long time already, but if you are new and you will get 3-4 negative reviews after you starting , it can kill your future business immediately . Sad but true! :sorry:

 

[Jasmine Raine]

This is very illegal. They could be reported to the police. Asking money to delete a bad review is considered extortion. It’s part the protection of bill C36. SW’s should report those incidents to their local vice department if it ever happens.

May need a lawyers opinion on the legality issue. Since the board is not advertising or selling sexual services of a third party, and the "fee" could be deemed an administrative service cost, I don't know if it can be consider extortion.

Webmasters charge for site updates all the time, at the request of the SP. This would fall under the same branch, no?

The SP does not have to the pay, the board does not have to remove. Removing is a service option that costs. However, if she claims her income, it would be written off as an expense.

I do wish it would be illegal because it is a horrible practice but I don't know if technically it is.

I got offer from someone through mail (a lady ) and I told if I pay 200 $ for her she will post 10 positive reviews / 1-2 per month as I wish / here or the biggest site, what's name is almost same than this. She has 30 different user name, good writing skills... etc. as she told me. Fortunately under the past 10 years I build my reputation, and I got many real, positive reviews ( a few negative of course. You can't make everybody happy. ) so I can decline the offer, but I'm understand the girls who starting now and try to build their business desperately, will take the offer. Their clients just too lazy to write a review to help them, and I'm sure they afraid a little bit about negative reviews, what these lady can post any time.( you can call it blackmailing )
I have advantage, because I'm here for long time already, but if you are new and you will get 3-4 negative reviews after you starting , it can kill your future business immediately . Sad but true! :sorry:

There was a guy who sent out emails a few months ago for the same thing. Except it was for reviews on TER.

I wrote briefly about it on my blog. It has the email there for reference. LOL

It is sad, but some women must take them up on this because if not, they would not bother with mass emails.

 

[mandrill]

Extortion

346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
Marginal note:Extortion

(1.1) Every person who commits extortion is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
Marginal note:Subsequent offences

(1.2) In determining, for the purpose of paragraph (1.1)(a), whether a convicted person has committed a second or subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:

(a) an offence under this section;

(b) an offence under subsection 85(1) or (2) or section 244 or 244.2; or

(c) an offence under section 220, 236, 239, 272 or 273, subsection 279(1) or section 279.1 or 344 if a firearm was used in the commission of the offence.

However, an earlier offence shall not be taken into account if 10 years have elapsed between the day on which the person was convicted of the earlier offence and the day on which the person was convicted of the offence for which sentence is being imposed, not taking into account any time in custody.
Marginal note:Sequence of convictions only

(1.3) For the purposes of subsection (1.2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction.
Marginal note:Saving

(2) A threat to institute civil proceedings is not a threat for the purposes of this section.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 346; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 46; 1995, c. 39, s. 150; 2008, c. 6, s. 33; 2009, c. 22, s. 15.

Previous Version

I am not seeing it from reading through the section in the Criminal Code.

 

[Jasmine Raine]

I am not seeing it from reading through the section in the Criminal Code.

Would there be something in the new Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act? Regarding this. Maybe extortion is not the right "term" based on the law/act?

 

[Raging Light]

May need a lawyers opinion on the legality issue. Since the board is not advertising or selling sexual services of a third party, and the "fee" could be deemed an administrative service cost, I don't know if it can be consider extortion.

Webmasters charge for site updates all the time, at the request of the SP. This would fall under the same branch, no?

The SP does not have to the pay, the board does not have to remove. Removing is a service option that costs. However, if she claims her income, it would be written off as an expense.

I do wish it would be illegal because it is a horrible practice but I don't know if technically it is.





There was a guy who sent out emails a few months ago for the same thing. Except it was for reviews on TER.

I wrote briefly about it on my blog. It has the email there for reference. LOL

It is sad, but some women must take them up on this because if not, they would not bother with mass emails.

It would depend on how much your asking and if the act is done under duress. Reviews boards are illegal under C36. It would be different if it was a legal registered business. Whether you agree with the laws are not, they are designed to protect SW’s from being exploited. When the business you’re running is considered illegal, you don’t have much of leg to stand-on.

 

[Jasmine Raine]

It would depend on how much your asking and if the act is done under duress. Reviews boards are illegal under C36. It would be different if it was a legal registered business. The laws whether you agree with them are designed to protect SW’s from being exploited. When the business you’re running is considered illegal, you don’t have much of leg to stand-on.

Oh I agree there. I don't understand why many places on the net have not been shut down yet.

I am just curious as to what that would actually be. There are plenty of people who would be willing to have that board shut down legally, but how do you actually go about doing that? Under what charge? Clearly not extortion by the sounds of it, even though it kind of is. It is internet based, so does that not have laws governing it as well.

If this is so black and white with respect to legality, then why it is still operating? Should be easy peasy, no?

 

[Raging Light]

Oh I agree there. I don't understand why many places on the net have not been shut down yet.

I am just curious as to what that would actually be. There are plenty of people who would be willing to have that board shut down legally, but how do you actually go about doing that? Under what charge? Clearly not extortion by the sounds of it, even though it kind of is. It is internet based, so does that not have laws governing it as well.

If this is so black and white with respect to legality, then why it is still operating? Should be easy peasy, no?

The ladies would have to file compliants with the police themselves. They have to seize the servers from a foreign county like the Netherlands to build their case. It’s easier to obtain an international warrant if the complaint is coming from a sex worker.

Charging a fee to delete a review under duress is illegal in the Netherlands. That would give the RCMP everything they need to seize the server under Dutch Law.

 

[mandrill]

It would depend on how much your asking and if the act is done under duress. Reviews boards are illegal under C36. It would be different if it was a legal registered business. Whether you agree with the laws are not, they are designed to protect SW’s from being exploited. When the business you’re running is considered illegal, you don’t have much of leg to stand-on.

Can you quote a section there?

 

[Raging Light]

Can you quote a section there?

I can’t highlight. Read this article. All 3rd party advertising was made illegal under C36.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-everything-you-need-to-know/article19610318/

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Would you support a board that deletes reviews for paid advertisers?

Do you ask a lot of stupid questions??!!

 

[essguy_]

I voted yes, simply because I'm a creature of habit so would probably still use and support this board. It would take blatant and habitual manipulation of reviews before I'd consider this board useless.

My 2 cents: I've seen bad reviews for paid advertisers disappear. I don't know the reasoning, maybe one of the later posts crossed a line, but I have definitely seen entire threads disappear even when the original bad review was respectful. Hell, I've had a couple of my reviews disappear - and the worst I'll usually say is that the pictures were misleading or the service was not up to X's standards. An easy example was for the MPA "Ivana" who worked for various spas - all paid advertisers - people could not say a negative word about her without the post disappearing (eg: my criticism in a post was that she was always late and not worth it (IMO) if you valued your time. That was the only negative). I think that post stayed up for less than a day! Again, I don't know the reasoning and maybe a subsequent post crossed a line - but to say that bad reviews for paid advertisers never disappear is simply not accurate, imo. The same thing has happened in the In-call section.

Another thing I have noticed is the increase in what I would call obvious shill reviews for paid advertisers (a minority but it does happen and more often now than in the past). And the pattern is pretty obvious - a brand new or extremely low post-count member will post an over-the top glowing review, then within an hour or so, the provider will post a followup, thanking the reviewer for the "great time".. Later, the review will be linked to the website or twitter feed. Weeks will pass and the "reviewer" won't post another thing. Now I realize that some of these might be real - but c'mon...

Anyway the board has changed, that's for sure - it wasn't too long ago that they asked for a poll of whether non-advertisers could be reviewed, so there are obvious pressures from the people who directly pay the bills. At least that didn't go through because there was a recognition that the actual sources of revenue ultimately comes from our pockets.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Jeezus Christ.......... 44 to 1

LOL

 

[essguy_]

Jeezus Christ.......... 44 to 1

LOL

Yeah - that was me. Most of the other 44 will still hang around too, I was just being honest. LOL!

 

[Jasmine Raine]

Yeah - that was me. Most of the other 44 will still hang around too, I was just being honest. LOL!

Hahaha, I love how you raise your hand for class.

Yup! That was me! LOL :high5:

 

[Raging Light]

Do you ask a lot of stupid questions??!!

You’re absolutely 100% right Phil. It is a very stupid question. That’s what makes it so fusturing. It is the reality in Alberta in 2017. People continue to support CAF even when it’s blantantly obvious they don’t care about the integrity of the reviews anymore.

It’s even more embarrassing when you have a 2nd review board like PERB that does care about the integrity of their reviews and only a handful of guys are lifting a finger to support it.

My best answer is, a lot guys are extremely addicted to seeing escorts on a regular basis. That’s the reason why they’re willing to ignore the problem.

 

[mandrill]

I can’t highlight. Read this article. All 3rd party advertising was made illegal under C36.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-everything-you-need-to-know/article19610318/

This is a key plank of the bill, which makes it a crime to “knowingly advertise an offer to provide sexual services for consideration,” or money.

The discussion forum isn't an advertisement. The ads themselves might be. But afaik no government agency has been bold enough to risk a Charter free speech defence by attempting to charge any advertising venue.