Brooke Cumsalot, Rip Off

I think the fact that ECCIE continues to want NCNS to not be linked to a providers profile, shows bias toward providers, and against consumers.
Originally Posted by 69er

Was this technically a NC/NS per Bubba's sticky?

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=265739

The two people actually met, agreed to reschedule, then the provider chose to ignore the hobbyist for two weeks.

amazing that so much conversation surrounds such a typical drama ridden girl....if im not mistaken don't half the guys that she sees BB her anyways?

sorry...prolly the scotch ive been drinking....but theres far better on this board....and if not then damn, we are fucked as hobbyists....

But, But, But....

She's an ECCIE verified provider with reviews AND on P411!

Aren't people posting all the time to ONLY see ECCIE providers and use P411 to avoid this sort of thing?

This bullshit by her is exactly why so many guys choose to find new talent on Backpage rather than put up with this sort of crap.

You can bet your ass the OP would not have left her the cash and departed with a promise from her if this was a BP girl, he would have picked up his cash and left. Originally Posted by LazurusLong

+1 But, whats the solution? If you do a search with her handle, it don't even show this thread.

I think that there is a structural problem with the board on where to put negative provider threads. Since reviews are now gatherered and put on the providers' profiles, it is common, one presumes, for potential customers to click on the "Provider Reviews" link and scan for the proportion of "Yes" to "No" recommendations.

It seems that No Shows and negative posts like this should likewise be linked to that list. I don't care what section that they are in, but they should appear on the page linked to the Provider's Reviews button. It is a disservice to those providers who have all "Yes" reviews on no No Shows and no drama threads not to do so. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

ALERTS/SCAMS/NO SHOWS/RIP-OFF should be lumped together since threads like this get moved to co-ed and LOST in the shuffle after 30-days or so. Unless you read it, have a good memory, the average hobbyist will never know. this needs to be corrected somehow.

Absolutely!!!

I think the fact that ECCIE continues to want NCNS to not be linked to a providers profile, shows bias toward providers, and against consumers. Originally Posted by 69er

+1 even though this is NOT a NCNS, Hobbyists need to know about providers like this when doing a search on her, or reading reviews on her. Maybe search needs to be modified to find threads like this when searching her handle, or have a link on her review section, would make it very easy for hobbyists to find before choosing her. This type of behavior has been going on to damn long from many providers, looking to rip us off. Same thing goes for Hobbyists that don't follow the rules because I sure don't want to associate myself with any hobbyist that treats women badly. If this is NOT possible because it will only create more Drama, can we at least have a STICKY in the ML of threads that fall into Co-ed alerts/scam/ncns/rip-off catogory, Once these threads are officialy Closed???

CG

+1. Thank for the info. She is off my list make up session or not.
At the rate she expects she should be a premium reliable provider.

I think that there is a structural problem with the board on where to put negative provider threads.
Originally Posted by TexTushHog

There are structural problems regarding how negative information is treated in general. NCNS not being allowed in the review section; no negative remarks allowed in W&I (where I bet the majority of ads aren't even posted by the women themselves)...someone really needs to rethink the rules to make it easier to find Information, which is what this site is supposed to be about.

Just to clarify, the description of the Alerts forum reads:

Issues which could endanger the safety of a member or members of our community go here. Please reserve this space for legitimate alerts, and not general FYI material.

Hence, Alerts are for safety concerns, not business ones, like bad service, NCNS, etc.

Should we have a forum for such things? Maybe. I agree that Co-ed doesn't seem the best location for them, since items like this can be critical in making buying decisions. By the same logic, the co-ed description reads:

Hobby-related discussions belong here. Let's keep these discussions on-topic, thought-provoking, and more importantly...entertaining!

I'm pretty sure the entertainment value is low, depending on how snarky folks get.

And as CG said, a lump of the overall "bad service experience that isn't a review because no services happened" posts in one location facilitates use for both sides: hobbyists that have issues, and providers too.

Alternately, the definition of Alerts might be broadened to cover this.

How about the safety of our hard earned money?

Getting ripped off doesn't always require a gun or a big thug pimp. For those that have been around for years doing this, upsell, ripoffs, taking money and not providing services or misrepresenting themselves were grounds for an alert.

Now we have to wait to be pummeled before it is "alert worthy"?

I agree with Tinman.

There are structural problems regarding how negative information is treated in general. NCNS not being allowed in the review section; no negative remarks allowed in W&I (where I bet the majority of ads aren't even posted by the women themselves)...someone really needs to rethink the rules to make it easier to find Information, which is what this site is supposed to be about. Originally Posted by TinMan

I think shoving one guy out the door and having another walk in at the same time IS a safety risk.

Just seems like the "alert" forum needs a wider description to me so these issues of "technicality" don't come up again.

Alerts should encompass safety risks, rip-offs, questionable ads, NCNS, etc. Furthermore, NCNS reports should be linked to a woman's profile along with reviews. It would be great if a NCNS template could be created much like the review template, although the comments should be public and the provider should be able to respond to the accusation.

Alerts should encompass safety risks, rip-offs, questionable ads, NCNS, etc. Furthermore, NCNS reports should be linked to a woman's profile along with reviews. It would be great if a NCNS template could be created much like the review template, although the comments should be public and the provider should be able to respond to the accusation. Originally Posted by TinMan

I agree except for NCNS's being alert worthy, especially given the broad range of what some guys consider a NCNS. Hell, I saw one recently where the guy never even had an appointment, he just asked if the girl would be available later and then drove out to her incall area.

That being said, I do believe they should be linked to a girl's profile.

And to suggest that a girl stealing a guy's money isn't alert worthy is pretty foolish, IMO.

I'm sorry, if I'm walking in as the last guy is coming out then I'm going to turn around and walk away to. This tells me the girl does not clean up very good between guys. Sorry but that is so wrong in many ways, I'm out of there.

As for the makeup session take your loss and move on, she just hurt her business and will loss customers and it's her own fault.

To me the way she booted you out the door to get a laptop or whatever it was tells me in her mind it's piss on the service just give me the money.

Wow, guys. I can't believe a girl with a handle like brooke CUMSALOT isn't a classy lady.

I had similar trouble with Brooke as well ($500.00). I just took the loss and moved on. Out of the blue, about two months ago, she contacts me and is apologizing her for behavior. She seemed very sincere and admitted to going through a rough patch, which was influencing her bad decisions. I thought she had turned a new leaf; I guess not.

I had similar trouble with Brooke as well ($500.00). I just took the loss and moved on. Out of the blue, about two months ago, she contacts me and is apologizing her for behavior. She seemed very sincere and admitted to going through a rough patch, which was influencing her bad decisions. I thought she had turned a new leaf; I guess not. Originally Posted by Jasser

Did she follow-up her apology with any meaningful attempt to settle the obligation?

As a relatively new guy I do find it discouraging that this type of totally unacceptable Provider behavior is not readily searchable through Provider reviews. Rough patch or not, any company treating clients in this fashion would be forced to close shop pronto.

I know that P411 has some disciplinary measures for both Hobbyists and Providers but unless we consumers ban together we're always prey to the Providers who only view us as wallets with a scrotum. Or perhaps I'm delusional in thinking that some of them don't view us as such.