Promoter Plan?

What really disgusted me about it is that I saw it a mile away and when I openly questioned one of the guys about it he denied and denied.

From a thread in the Welcome Section -

Wild Stallion: she is bright, funny and makes you feel very special. See her quickly, she might not last long around here.


ME: WS - just wondering what you relationship is to this girl. Are you her promoter? Her bf? What makes you think she won't last very long?


Wild Stallion: TM,

I am none of the above. Just an enthusiastic fan thats all. I realize that my statement requires some clarity now that you point it out. What I meant was that she is a fantastic women and that some well to do man might sweep her off of her feet. I want her stay around as long as possible.



Now it is one thing to write a review of a girl you like, but another thing to proclaim in a post welcoming someone that all of the guys should hurry up and see the girl. With all of the blatant promotion and over the top reviews that CF and WS has done, now are we supposed to sort out the crap from the truth? In the particular case of this girl being welcomed, I have SP's review that stands for itself and that is enough for me to want to see her.

I feel that any girl that accepted the offer of these guys should be held just as responsible as the two that were doing it. By accepting the offer they were being just as deceitful, manipulative, dishonest and misleading and because of the huge publicity and demand that was created from this promotion the rates of several of the girls jumped up quickly from where it was when they started, thus affecting ALL of us directly by making us pay higher rates when the rate increase likely wouldn't have happened if it weren't for these misleading reviews and promotions.

I will agree that we shouldn't judge a girl just because they were "promoted" heavily by CF and WS because they might not have agreed to the contract. But you have to wonder why CF and WS would put such effort into writing reviews, making comments, creating graphics and writing ads for girls that didn't accept the offer. And there are some girls that claim not to have accepted this offer that appear to have continued to use the lavish pictures and ads that so pointedly match the style of other ads from girls that were in cahoots with CF and WS.

I just want to find out which girls were accessories to this deception. Then I have a suggestion. As a way of earning our trust they should go back to the same rates as when they first started for a certain time period - let's say 3 months. Because without the dishonest and deceptive promotion that was going on they wouldn't have been busy enough to raise their rates. That will give every one of the guys a chance to see them that wanted to before the rate increases made that not possible.

TM

Match that response you got with (reported) intro he made to some women at the last HH that he was the "Dallas" promoter and they should let him show them how to increase their business.

As introuble and others have pointed out, disclosure is its own punishment.

Honestly, if some guy wants to go into business promoting escorts in exchange for some kind of compensation of money or service, then that is between him and the escort. However, when there is a premeditated effort to obfuscate the promotion by cloaking its nature in the form of a legitimate, independent review from an otherwise unconnected client; then I do have some serious heartburn.

The really sad part is that, based on my experience and the experiences of others, the vast majority of the reviews done under this contract were reasonably accurate. The girls who allowed themselves to be a part of this now face the fact that many of their best reviews will be circumspect, and worse, the girls who received reviews NOT as part of this scheme will also suffer.

I agree with Fox to an extent. Fortunately, guys dicks often take over the thinking and if they are attracted, they will see them anyway. The girls will survive if their service is good.

I think this is merely a case of some guys saw an opportunity and took it and it has cost him their reputations. I don't know that they are "bad guys". They may have just made a poor decision. As you pointed out elsewhere, being a "famous john" is not that attractive. In fact, it is down right stupid. But every decision I have made has not been the smartest, either.

I would like to comment Tbone and the staff at Eccie. I think they saw what the right thing to do was and did it. Doing what is "right" almost always workd out best in the end. I have no problem forgiving CF and WS. Pussy makes us do some screwed up things sometimes. I don't regret some of the screwed up things I have done, but then again, I haven't has any painful consequences to suffer, either.

I think we can all learn from this.

Kind of in line with what cpi posted, I, too, don’t have an issue with CF or WS as long as what they are doing/have done is known, posted and not gaming the system. For the first time in more than a year, I actually went over to ASPD and read what the folks over there in the Dallas forum had to write about this “scandal”… Made me LMA… OFF :-). (quip at OFF but in a fun way. )

Outrage and indignation and all the other things I read just were just too damn funny to me. This is the hooker world with people who are fuck-ups, the not so fucked-up, rational and irrational. We all have issues, some more major than others but like I wrote before, I don’t have an issue with this UNLESS the system was being gamed. So far, I don’t see any evidence that what CF or WS or the girls they had, either under contract or some other way invovled in their plan, were doing that.

Now the potential for breeches of security, problems with people taking retribution for a tit-for-tat deal… yeah, that is all over this and much worse. Seriously, I actually see what CF and WS were trying to do and that is capitalize on what they thought was an untapped market. Even though I commend them for their entrepreneurial spirit, I think the execution of their plan was very flawed and not well thought out. Otherwise, I find the plan a good, reasonable business one that benefits both sides of the fence. And forget about the calls of pimps/madams and not having them on the sites… madams/pimps go with the territory and always will.

The only issue I would have with any of this is if they had broken security of the Men’s Lounge, Powder Room, LR, GT or posted false/misleading reviews or other unnamed items, which will stay that way due to my trying for brevity with this post, then I think there is an issue. Only then should all concerned, male and female, be hung out to dry for a very, very long time. Other than that, in my opinion, there are way too many people who are protesting far too much about nothing and need to look at themselves before bitching about this and stop doing the following:


Indignation, disgust, outrage, being mad… too damn funny.

While maybe more blatant and obvious than other predecessors, this has been done before. This seems to be very aggressive and very ambitious as far as demands, numbers and perceived influence that it conveyed.
What guys will do to get laid. It's always the same. As one who believes honestly that the ladies deserve our respect, our admiration and our help with no strings attached, it flies against everything that I believe in the hobby and really in real life too. Taking advantage of someone who can't help themselves, or doesn't know the rules of the game happens all the time, though. It really muddies the value of the reviews you read when you see something like this. I agree with cpi though, that the girls who may have been affected seem for the most part to be doing their jobs right anyway and probably won't be hurt. And now that it's out there, we all will just have to judge the reviewer that much more and consider not only the girl but who is talking about her too. Nothing new really.
I'm glad that the board here has handled this very well and with firm and swift decision once the facts came out. Thanks, T-Bone, Becky and guys (and girls) on the staff. We as members should be grateful and appreciative of this great new place with the values in place here.
Thanks a lot!

I would have had no significant problem with the plan (although I would have found it personally distasteful) IF the details of the agreement had been fully disclosed in each such review or bump of another review. (Preferably in an area where all can see, not just those with BCD/VIP status.)

They weren't, thoughn as far as I know.

I find it interesting that some find nothing wrong with what CF, WS, et al did.

I guess perhaps it depends on whether one believes there is an implicit obligation on members to disclose information that might give the appearance of a possible conflict of interest, so that readers can judge for themselves. Personaly, I believe in such an obligation. Others perhaps believe that the poster, rather than the reader, is the one who gets to make the determination of whether there is any actual (positive) bias and the posts are misleading. If you don't think the arrangement affects your review or comment, we have to rely on your determination because we can't evaluate for ourselves, given the information you withhold.

Interesting difference in perspectives.

It may be funny but there are laws about disclosure that could be applied here! As this is a media. There’s a federal law that requires that the public be informed about the source of who is behind what goes on media. Failure to disclose that to the public is a violation of federal law and in fact can be subject to criminal penalties of up to a year in jail.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/4/6...g_vnrs_without

Also for a public company as I used to be a CEO of a company I took Public. We had to provide full disclosure in the form of a subscription agreement and full disclosure as to the relationship of the promoter and the business. It is the law in both cases!
A subscription agreement is a binding document which defines the business relationship between two parties, and it could also apply to transactions between businesses and individuals. Businesses both big and small engage in some form of joint or cooperative ventures. Often the best way to achieve this purpose is to document the business relationship in writing on paper. A subscription agreement form enables both parties to define the relationship, signed and dated. Email, forum post, and advertising must all have a disclosure attachment if the party posting the as a promoter has a financial relationship with the party being promoted!
MY FULL DISCLOSURE grin!
YES I ADMIT IT I AM A POLE DANCER CHASER
While I may of helped many ladies in the biz over the past 3 years, I missed out on the free Pussy, damn I never did a review unless I had been with the ladies, which has cost me a lot and In most cases just got the same discount they offer others with maybe some extra time added in free, posed as dinner or friendship.
This site has gained credibility by the admin's actions good job!
MAZ

MAZ - I am not sure you could consider this site a public site. Your example of taking a company "public" I would assume has to do with selling shares etc. The link has to do with video news releases which I believe is irrelevant in this discussion. This site to me (not a lawyer) is a private site which is by invitation only (or even paid membership) and I do not believe it pertains to public media laws. Maybe our resident lawyer can comment?

Others perhaps believe that the poster, rather than the reader, is the one who gets to make the determination of whether there is any actual (positive) bias and the posts are misleading. If you don't think the arrangement affects your review or comment, we have to rely on your determination because we can't evaluate for ourselves, given the information you withhold. Originally Posted by Chevalier

I happen to be one that believes that specific details between a client and a provider are confidential.

I also fall into the category mentioned above. If there is reason to believe that my reviews are anything but less than accurate, or they tend to fall outside the normal opinion others have of a provider, then call me out on it. For instance, Provider "A" has 10 negative reviews and I post a glowing ATF review.....then take issue with THAT. More importantly, if the provider has 10 positive reviews and mine is a negative review, in most cases I will admit that there was a YMMV issue, we did not click, or that the ten reviewers before me are all WK's and full of shit.

This goes back to when one of the Super Admins from the other site (either DJ or CK) tried to ram down my throat publicly that a review written as a result of a free session could NEVER be accurate or non-biased. That is simply NOT true and is 100% dependent upon the writer. Granted many would fail, but some members do have the ability to write accurately regardless of the compensation.

I am not saying that what these two did (as it pertains to this review board) was right as it was certainly questionable, but can anyone show me a review that they did of these "providers" that was inaccurate or misleading?

Sadly, what I get out of all of this is I wonder if ANY of the sessions actually happened at all. I don't doubt that the sessions themselves would not be exactly as described.

To clarify, what I described above is my personal code of conduct. It's not so much a question whether reviews are an honest reflection of the reviewer's subjective experience, as whether I am confident enough to believe that absent my own experience.

I wish most people followed it, but I'm not so naive as to believe they do. Which is one reason I give little or no weight to reviews on a P4P site. Might they be accurate? Sure, but how would I know that?

I also realize people may not trust my reviews either.

You would know I suppose by doing what many suggest doing. You find a few reviewers that you like, you experience THEIR experiences personally to the extent that you gain a small amount of trust in their reviews.

In other words, that member seems to have the same likes and dis-likes as I do, and since I have always had relatively the same experiences as he wrote about, then I "trust" his reviews.

For me, there are many members that I would never see a provider based upon their reviews simply because they have never written a bad review in their life hence they cannot be trusted. A member who has written 50, 100 or even 200 reviews none of which were bad sessions or contained any negative comments is a total bull shit artist and is not to be trusted......IMHO

Only found one so far. And he's not tremendously active, so it doesn't help much. It's mostly a leap of faith for me. And I don't have a lot of faith.

I wish that more P4P clients had sufficient integrity that you only had to discount reviews for WALDT/CASG. But I know that wish is a naive fantasy.

Yes you are most certainly right introuble those laws do not govern the HOBBY. What I was showing was one industry that had the problem and how laws were formed. the similarities is what makes it close!
One is promoting a subject on media but has reasons for gain. The other selling of stock there is the similarity that many people got in trouble using forums to pump and dump stock. Again a law was formed to protect the consumer.
I think the HOBBY should have a rule too! If you are a promoter it should be known. If you are an advertising agency it should be disclosed,
We have many like this in this business that are female promoters and they get away with it because they are not getting free pussy just their husbands grin. They pose as agents. Some are ladies who use to be in the business who do the screening and the posting of ads if the girl does not have the talent or the time! Some HIGH DOLLAR HOTTIES
have advertising agencies.

I am not standing up for the guys however in the very beginning of opening a site I thought wow the same thing at least a discount for promotional services. It was at first like advertising for a fee and the fee waved as a discount. I even suggested the girls give $-25.00 off the next session if they got a review. It was very biased reviews
It all got convoluted and some mods on my site were let go and some on other sites fell to the same disgrace.
It goes both ways where a site was saying if you do not sleep with me I will give you a bad review. This happened to agencies on other sites.
Then there is the innocent event that happens!
I had a girl who had been on the site for a year as just a companion!
I had met her at a social as MAZ not an Admin and she was real cute! I found her attractive wanted to see her and wrote for an appointment and was turned down not really sure why my first impressions did not move her!.
But because I had now met her and could verify her, as admin I moved her status to VIP free just like all others I had verified. Instead of a thank you I got this email!

"I really do not wish to get any of your AHC favors because you met me and found me attractive!"

(PS she is still VIP FREE)
So it is a very touchy subject and we all should have a code of conduct that is defined as a rule of the HOBBY just like other industry s have adopted such.
JUST MY THOUGHTS!
MAZ

MAZ - I am not sure you could consider this site a public site. Your example of taking a company "public" I would assume has to do with selling shares etc. The link has to do with video news releases which I believe is irrelevant in this discussion. This site to me (not a lawyer) is a private site which is by invitation only (or even paid membership) and I do not believe it pertains to public media laws. Maybe our resident lawyer can comment?

Originally Posted by Introuble

This goes back to when one of the Super Admins from the other site (either DJ or CK) tried to ram down my throat publicly that a review written as a result of a free session could NEVER be accurate or non-biased. That is simply NOT true and is 100% dependent upon the writer. Granted many would fail, but some members do have the ability to write accurately regardless of the compensation. Originally Posted by Introuble

One wonders, for those few who could and would write an unbiased review, even though they got a free session for the review, why they're not willing to disclose that arrangement in the review. Because I don't think I've ever seen such a disclosure.

You'd think if they were confident in their integrity in writing the review, they'd be willing to let people know that it was compensated.

In simple terms CF is a WK gone overboard, he thought he was helping young providers establish themselves in the community. Never realizing he was really doing more harm to them than good, let alone getting free or highly discounted pussy for himself. A prime example is the foursome review he did here and on aspd, I found out he actualy bragged about only paying 100 each but the review says 300 each which is what you'd expect. So harm was done financialy to the three young women, another harm is after the Flavor of the Month wears off or they're tossed out for new ones they are not equiped to handle the slow down in business.

What some are implying IMO is the WK vs BK of the hobby, my definition of a BK is one who is respectful of the women but is loyal to the men first. If he encounters a less than spectacular provider he reports such without slamming her or belittling her.

I agree that with expansion of Internet access the quality and worthiness of reviews has lessened. It's important to know who can be trusted or even better to have a wingman that has similar taste and the two can exchange info.