Encounter : Issues with Asian_Emily

It wasn't a NCNS so it stays here sir. We saw it and moderated it on 6-24. Originally Posted by CryptKicker

It wasn't an encounter, either, and as such, should not be listed under the provider's encounters.

I respectfully disagree with your decision to link it to the provider's encounter list. It's contrary to the purpose and spirit of the forum and opens the door to abuse and misuse of the encounters forum. I encourage you to reconsider.

It wasn't a NCNS so it stays here sir. We saw it and moderated it on 6-24. Originally Posted by CryptKicker

So a non encounter goes in the in the encounter section of the forum. Is that what the Mods decided?

But the report stays on the provider's profile for all to see that she got a NO for not fault of her own and for an encounter that never took place.

I've heard of hooker logic before. I guess this is Mod Logic and no disrespect intended.

Completely agree with Bandido!! How can this "no" review of something that never happened be allowed?
So can I do a review of someone that don't exist, never met, and get credit?
This will truly open a can of shit worms if allowed.

Hell, every time I get a response from a provider via message, even if I never saw her, I'll write up an encounter report. I'll have premium access for the next 20 years! [/sarcasm]

The encounter section has been riddled with some really subpar submissions lately as is. Why are you encouraging it by approving and preserving a post like this?

By linking this post to the provider, you're doing her a disservice. I doubt that this will sit well with other providers either.

This post, useless as I find it to be personally, belongs elsewhere, just like NCNS reports.

It wasn't a NCNS so it stays here sir. We saw it and moderated it on 6-24. Originally Posted by CryptKicker

Disappointing to say the least. I’m unable to grasp the concept of a no review on an encounter that never took place because the OP, in his own admission, failed to properly follow the normal screening required by the provider.

Sorry for the non experience with her. she is well worth the time and effort

I agree with OP. Never have i ever had such a difficult time to setup an appt with her. I finally got "screened with references" and when i show up to her place she cancels. I will be posting my review as well. thank you mods for allowing this. We should put out more negative reviews on providers. Dont necessarily have to experience them. We risk just as much, if not way more, as they do. Screening should go both ways.

Hell, every time I get a response from a provider via message, even if I never saw her, I'll write up an encounter report. I'll have premium access for the next 20 years! [/sarcasm] Originally Posted by ElBandido

On the bright side the OP did not get PA for this NonEncounter Encounter.

So you didn't have references and couldn't get screened....hardly calls for a "No" review. I agree, this does not belong in the review section

I will be posting my review as well. thank you mods for allowing this. We should put out more negative reviews on providers. Dont necessarily have to experience them. Originally Posted by Daddy44

Well, that didn't take long. Just as I predicted, users are emboldened to start posting encounter "reviews" without even having had an actual encounter. You've had places to discuss your issues, like the Men's Lounge, Daddy44. Why haven't you done that?

There are other spaces available to discuss providers NCNS and otherwise. In fact, anyone posting NCNS here previously, were scolded for posting it here. Why the change? What good comes of this? A sudden negative policy change to fix something that wasn't broken, and only to accommodate one user is going to have very negative effects.

I agree with OP. Never have i ever had such a difficult time to setup an appt with her. I finally got "screened with references" and when i show up to her place she cancels. I will be posting my review as well. thank you mods for allowing this. We should put out more negative reviews on providers. Dont necessarily have to experience them. We risk just as much, if not way more, as they do. Screening should go both ways. Originally Posted by Daddy44

Why don't you use the New Thread button here in this section and write about your experience since you actually did not have a personal encounter with her and you can't report activities BCD.

This thread has been moved to co-ed. Just to clarify- NCNS reviews still belong in co-ed and there has been no change in policy. And NCNS encounters are not attched to the proviser. Was just an oversight on this thread/review and it has been rectified.

Thank you.

Nice to see the move.

Nice to see the move. Originally Posted by Chief62

Agreed. Justice is served.

Well, that didn't take long. Just as I predicted, users are emboldened to start posting encounter "reviews" without even having had an actual encounter. You've had places to discuss your issues, like the Men's Lounge, Daddy44. Why haven't you done that?

There are other spaces available to discuss providers NCNS and otherwise. In fact, anyone posting NCNS here previously, were scolded for posting it here. Why the change? What good comes of this? A sudden negative policy change to fix something that wasn't broken, and only to accommodate one user is going to have very negative effects. Originally Posted by ElBandido

Certainly, the potential is there. But I think this thread is representative of our user population. Most guys are fair, decent, and reasonable. Only a few aren’t. What amazes me is that their negative attitude is clearly the reason for their negative experience yet they constantly fail to realize it and adjust.