A bad provider or rip off do receive credit, if activities took place and all other conditions met. Does not have to be a positive review.I think part of Devo's point is that rip off reviews should maybe be considered for credit even if no "activities" took place, particularly in an instance where there was some kind of representation (if perhaps oblique or indirect) that some "activities" would be made available, but none actually were.
It's hard to draw a solid line with these (and I understand that presents a problem for evaluating review approvals). But there is a certain type of "ripoff pseudo-provider" (or, usually, agency) that kind of makes it's fortune on leading potential clients to believe that certain types of services will be available, knowing full well they don't intend to do so. Like (to create a strawman example, that's actually similar to a service that is currently operating in the Pittsburgh area....), if there is a hypothetical service that charges clients $200 to have a lady visit them, and prior to the appointment won't discuss anything about the actual services other than something like, "Trust me, you'll be happy in the end..." - then the client makes the appointment, pays the money, and finds it only includes a no-touch striptease and nothing else.... Personally, I think that someone who TOFTT's and honestly reports the experience, potentially saving other members time, money, and disappointment, should be rewarded with PA credit for that.
In other words, I would advocate for a guideline that evaluates not only whether any activities took place, but whether (based on all the information available at the time) the hobbyist went into the session having been led to believe that activities would occur, or with a reasonable expectation that certain activities would be offered. (So, like, nobody should go into a legitimate spa or something, post a review that says "I paid my money, didn't get HR, and didn't even get to touch the girl! This is a ripoff!", and expect PA credit for that - because no reasonable person would expect that at a legit spa). I know it's not necessarily that simple, and a certain amount of discretion would need to be applied. But I think it's something that's worth revisiting at some point, and maybe thinking about whether to existing rules should change to account for this. Because without the possibility of PA credit, there's really no incentive for anyone to expose services that are truly 100%, "no activities available" ripoffs, other than just out of the goodness of their hearts.
