Punishment for VPs that are running Scams?

Who cares if they say you should stick to VP's... Its your choice, see who you want.

There are some VP's around that wont rip you off, they are just not your cup of tea. Its just the way it is.

The requirements for obtaining VP status are publicly posted for everyone to see...

https://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p...83&postcount=1

OP, if you're looking to whine like a little girl, fine, you accomplished that. Don't delude yourself that you're accomplishing anything else...

It's that people use "stick with VPs" as their response anytime someone gets worked over by a non-VP. Yet it remains that VPs can (and are) just as unreliable at times. I've read reviews of current VPs who have had a window in time where they went downhill and people posted being ripped off. A few of those seem to have rebounded over the months/years and are legit providers presently, but there really is no guarantee that a VP isn't or won't be just as shady as someone else. Clearly we all take risks and I know that.

My point is that someone who's breaking the "code of ethics" (for lack of a better description) should be removed, so that we can work towards creating a community where VPs actually ARE going to be the smarter choice. At all times.


To someone else's comments. I said "frequency" of bad experiences, because a bad experience may only happen with 1 in 5 VPs. But that's the same as 4 out of 20 randoms from elsewhere. I've had VPs who advertise and discuss services pre-meet, who then try upcharging for that same thing when you meet. Like, you knew what I wanted and gave me a price, it shouldn't be announced as an add-on after we're together. I've scheduled appointments through a VP in advance only to show up (on multiple occasions) and have them be double booked and I'm left with a "maybe next time" text. Or just not responded to at all after driving out to a hotel. Yesterday was the second time they got the money and didn't provide services. Realistically, when seeing VPs, I've probably had some kind of nonsense happen close to 35% of the time. Definitely have had those types of issues happen less frequently with the dozens more girls I've met through other locations.

We get it. Keep grinding that axe and there won't be anything left.

If they're age verified, does that mean they have to show their real age?

I doubt it, but it's a thought.

If they're age verified, does that mean they have to show their real age?

I doubt it, but it's a thought. Originally Posted by jokacz

Probably just means they are over 18.

From the previously posted link...

You must submit proof to eccievp.verify@gmail.com that you are 18 or over to become a Verified Provider on Eccie. We require a photocopy of your Drivers License and/or state issued ID and your location. Your real name and address should be hidden, but your birth date and photo must be visible, along with your user name. We also need a close up picture of your face with you holding up the license or ID next to your face. Proof of age WILL be requested of ANYONE seeking VP status, regardless of their stated age.

You mean they don't do that over on the nirvana board???

From the previously posted link...



You mean they don't do that over on the nirvana board??? Originally Posted by Wakeup

Is that a tranny in your avatar, or just you in drag?

That's must be a no...you know, not having verifiable proof of age for the whores advertising sex opens the nirvana board up to a LOT of problems...

The percent of VPs that have been bullshit artists are easily just as high as the amount of rando girls found elsewhere that have been bullshit artists. Originally Posted by GSW

Either you have bad luck with VP's or really good luck with BP. I've found VP's, for the most part, to be much more reliable than taking chances with random BP gals.

As to whether a gal needs "reviews" to become a VP on here....that is pretty much just a box to check. If she has reviews ANYWHERE that seem like they are at all real, she gets a pass. It ain't no big deal. Not saying I agree...just the way it is. And now with this new thing that they must provide ID, maybe they don't even need them at all. Not cool.

. Originally Posted by rooster

Obviously that's not a good situation. The quality of new VP's will likely suffer as a result.

The procedure concerning verification hasn't hardly changed since its inception...except for age verification...why would a decrease in quality just happen now?

Sorry about your bad time GSW but I agree with cowboy. The overall quality is better with VPs. BP girls are hit and miss. Never had a bad time with VPs cant say the same with BP

Sorry about your bad time GSW but I agree with cowboy. The overall quality is better with VPs. BP girls are hit and miss. Never had a bad time with VPs cant say the same with BP Originally Posted by lilylivered

not from my view. both suck but both better than StreetMeat shopping
Ugh Hotel/Motel bars will never be good again.
hooker bars all dead
LOL the Roc Bar Rocking Horse is a fucking church now
but bit of the same divine profit

That's must be a no...you know, not having verifiable proof of age for the whores advertising sex opens the nirvana board up to a LOT of problems... Originally Posted by Wakeup

Go read the rules with your secret user there.

GBBG has a 21+ policy so stop running at the mouth and go back to your hole.