Don't understand review standards!

So, I just did a second review of Abigail Rosaland. She is fantastic and was better after each meet. I do a review and the mod says that I didn't put anything new in! WTF! Just because a girrl fucks just as good everytime I get penalized! I thought it was to be informative and give honest review. The difference is that she is moving to Euless in Sept. Thought that would give some of the Dallas guys who don't travel to Ft.Worth a heads up and plan ahead to see her. RANT OVER!

I'm not sure what you are asking but I will give it a try. For reviews of the same provider to count toward Premium Access, the sessions have to be at least 90 days apart. Going by the dates on your two reviews of AR, the sessions occurred only 71 days apart if my math is correct. Hope this helps.

Above is correct unless you have something significant or new information to add about the provider. And that would be at the discretion of a mod to decide if it is enough to warrant credit

I didn't get credit when I reviewed cynsantana twice over about 6 weeks.. I'm sure lots of guys have experienced something similar.

of course I don't write reviews for PA credit.. I write for myself, as a pseudo journal entry, and if other guys get value, it's nice to know.. I've certainly benefiited from other guys' reviews, hopefully I can give back a little.

The significant part was that she signed a lease and is moving closer to Dallas. Not sure if that counts, but for me cutting my drive in half is SIGNIFICANT!

Either the mod didn't realize that that was a significant piece of information, he deemed it not as significant as you, or he decided it was old news. Her pending move has been mentioned at least twice that I know of, although there's no way to tell how many people read the posts.

Those Vermont modtards are sticklers for the rules.

Notifying the public that she signed a lease and is moving which will cut your drive in half is not a BCD activity. It is a PSA. If the Activities in the session were the same as the previous review other than you advertising her move, then that does not qualify for credit.

I found the relevant post here:

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=24105

The official guidance is:


*Repetitive reviews of the same provider by the same author are discouraged and may be subject to rejection unless there are new significant details to add (new menu items, major improvement or decline in service level from last visit, etc)

I understand why you'd want to not grant PA to guys who see the same provider regularly, but that's still a pretty amorphous statement. Note that there's no time limit (90 days or otherwise) and that rejection is totally up to the reviewing moderator ("may be subject to rejection," rather than "will be rejected," suggests "may not be subject to rejection" is also possible).

And while the two criteria specified in the "new significant details" clause do deal with BCD activities, the guideline doesn't state that the new information must relate to BCD activities, and the "etc" doesn't provide any help in that regard.

While I do think a provider moving her incall 30 miles might be considered new and significant information, the real problem is that, although the moderator who looked at the OP's review decided it didn't meet the guidelines, there's enough wiggle room that another moderator might have decided differently. I'm pretty sure that if the guideline were strictly applied, a lot of guys, me included, would not have gotten PA credit for some of their reviews.

As I said, I understand the reason for the rule. OTOH, it discourages the exchange of information. In an industry where providers enter, leave, and return with great frequency, it's always helpful to a guy who's window shopping to be reminded that a woman is still active, especially if she doesn't do a lot of advertising.

I see your point SL.. but the Admiral is right, that piece of information about a move to Euless is advertising.. nothing wrong with that, but it's not PA worthy. I think it is significant to the decision, that the move is 6 weeks away, and for all we know may never occur.

I see your point SL.. but the Admiral is right, that piece of information about a move to Euless is advertising.. nothing wrong with that, but it's not PA worthy. I think it is significant to the decision, that the move is 6 weeks away, and for all we know may never occur. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Chung, we'll have to disagree. I think it's a significant piece of information that probably the most highly regarded provider southwest of I-30 and I-35W is departing that area for somewhere else. But that's the problem: If you were a mod, you'd look at the guidelines and disallow PA; I'd look at them and say, "Yeah, that's new and important information" and probably grant it. Stepping away from the trees to look at the forest again, the guidelines are applied inconsistently and, as strictly applied or as applied by some moderators, provide a disincentive to provide information. Do we want to do that?

Hahaha.. yeah, we'll just have to disagree.. I suspect your position is jaundiced by the fact that you are probably the most vocal proponent of giving Tarrant County more of a presence on this Board. I agree that news of a big-name Dallas Provider heading to Tarrant is significant, it's just outside the realm of PA award.

... you are probably the most vocal proponent of giving Tarrant County more of a presence on this Board. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Epic fail, that.

I agree that news of a big-name Dallas Provider heading to Tarrant is significant, it's just outside the realm of PA award.

Says you. And that's my point, and the problem. BTW, it's a big-name Fort Worth provider staying in Tarrant County but moving closer to the airport.

Side Note. I was not the Mod who rejected. If I had reviewed it for approval and/or rejection and it did not meet the criteria based on activities within the 90 day window I'd have rejected as well.

Now, if he had said he was helping her move to her new incall after she signed her lease which cut half the time off his drive and she was giving him car head while he drove the moving van after he loaded it, then yes, I'd have accepted it.

There's a line drawn between being "Objective & Subjective".

Side Note. I was not the Mod who rejected. If I had reviewed it for approval and/or rejection and it did not meet the criteria based on activities within the 90 day window I'd have rejected as well. Originally Posted by Admiral Giggle

The "90-day window" isn't in the guidelines. What is in the guidelines is a blanket discouragement of any repeat repeat reviews by the same guy, subject to the "unless" clause. The "90-day-window" is something that either you made up, or someone else made up and you picked up on, is in the Super-secret Moderator Handbook of things you don't tell the peasants.

And the "unless" clause doesn't specify that the new information has to relate to sexual actvities. It just says "etc." Based on all that, I think the OP's consternation is justified.

There's a line drawn between being "Objective & Subjective".

An ECCIE member provider moving her incall location is something that's objective.

But, again, you're missing the larger point. The guideline as written is so vague as to be useless. A guy who has seen and reviewed a provider who's been around for a long time and who offers a menu that hasn't deviated in years -- maybe Reese Foster or Lily in Benbrook or TerraLyn or Spikebaby or any of many more -- "may" have a current review disqualified from PA credit based in the combination of "repeat visits" and "no new information" clauses. Or, since the word "may" is used, maybe he won't.

Either way, the guideline as written and enforced in some cases (including, in my opinion, this case) discourages some people from providing information. Is that what we want?

I could think of a way or two to address this,. But since this is pretty much the only game in town, it's run pretty like a monopoly. So nothing's going to come of this. I think I've made my points, so I'll move on.