'Beamerpushin' is writing fake reviews

Thank you for putting this out there for the other ladies. There are not many providers that would dispute a YES review even if they did know it was fake. I hope you get everything resolved soon.

Fake reviews along with fake profiles = LE?

Fake reviews along with fake profiles = LE? Originally Posted by Slitlikr

Exactly!

Good you caught that! By the way, you're very peeeerrrrty!!!! Originally Posted by LatinaMoxie

Thanks doll

Thank you for putting this out there for the other ladies. There are not many providers that would dispute a YES review even if they did know it was fake. I hope you get everything resolved soon. Originally Posted by Sexy Katrina

No problem girl. I thought both the guys & girls could find this info useful since guys read reviews but girls need to be the one to watch out for this guy once he has a few of these "reviews" under his belt

No problem girl. I thought both the guys & girls could find this info useful since guys read reviews but girls need to be the one to watch out for this guy once he has a few of these "reviews" under his belt Originally Posted by sweet.treat69

Ahh.. makes sense. Yeah, i saw that review he did of you. Ok, so it's fake.

sorry I went on a valley girl rant for a minute there. Originally Posted by sweet.treat69

Valley girls were like, fucking hot back in the day.....

Now we see what, if anything, the mods will do about it. Mods? Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

Mods are you taking this review down or no?? Originally Posted by sweet.treat69

What are they supposed to do about it? Trust her? Originally Posted by Wakeup

There is a protocol in place for investigating accusations of a fake review. It is being implemented regarding this session. You must understand though, the powers that be have very strict rules regarding removing content from this site. Moderators like myself are just volunteers following protocols that were set in place long before we arrived and will be here long after we are no longer mods. We're not running a fiefdom.

There's nothing worse than a message board that habitually deletes member's posts or entire threads, and stifles discussion rather than encourages it. I'm sure we'd all agree or at least I know I've always appreciated that this place does not follow that path. They let members decide for themselves if something smells fishy. Content is not just removed at the drop of a hat but only in select circumstances after careful consideration and a burden of proof has been met. If the burden of proof is met we are allowed to remove, but the standard is set rather high.

Wakeup is partially correct in that in some ways it's about trust, after all many of these issues are "he said, she said" scenarios in which the truth is extremely hard to discern from the perspective of a third party. The site allows rebuttal threads for a reason, so both sides can have their say and let the membership decide for themselves what's what instead of leaving it to a handful of volunteer mods to determine "truth".

More importantly though it's an issue of perception. Which is better? Knowing there may be a fake review out there or feeling like this site and its moderators censor content based upon their own whims, or worse to perhaps protect certain members? The same concepts apply to content "some" people find offensive, topics which provoke heated and angry debate, etc... Members are perfectly capable of deciding things on their own with open discussion instead of censorship.

I, for one, prefer it that way.

There's nothing worse than a message board that habitually deletes member's posts or entire threads, and stifles discussion rather than encourages it. I'm sure we'd all agree or at least I know I've always appreciated that this place does not follow that path. They let members decide for themselves if something smells fishy. Content is not just removed at the drop of a hat but only in select circumstances after careful consideration and a burden of proof has been met. If the burden of proof is met we are allowed to remove, but the standard is set rather high.
Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

Riiiiiiiggggghhhhhtttt.....

Well she posted an ad in Dallas indicating she was in that city the day the reviewer claims she saw him here in Houston.
http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1209877&highlight=
And his most recent review is of a provider based out of Alabama but she has not posted any ads in Austin where he claims he saw her.
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1225486
Same thing here with this provider who has not posted ads anywhere else but Dallas but claims to have seen her in San Antonio.
http://eccie.net/providers.php?do=view&id=191218
And his review of Angel eyes lacy on the 11th could potentially put her anywhere but Houston since all her ad posts are Dallas, Oklahoma city and Austin.
I think I see a trend here.....
http://eccie.net/member.php?u=123272

Fake reviews along with fake profiles = LE? Originally Posted by Slitlikr

........or somebody trying to get ROS rites.

........or somebody trying to get ROS rites. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

....which is a best case scenario

Amatuers, don't they know that's what BP, SC, and Other Reviews are for?

It seems like it's happening more and more. Maybe we need a section for the providers to review the clients. I can only imagine what the ROS would look like. Probably wouldn't have to worry about a lot of guy's getting services. They damn sure wouldn't have to worry about me trying to get the ROS. Nasty, I'm grossed out just thinking about that. It's probably already in the info share and powder room. Lmao

........or somebody trying to get ROS rites. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

That makes since. It could be a female writing YES reviews to get Premium access privilages because most providers will not dispute a YES review even if they have NO idea who it's from. How far are the reviews spaced out? Every six weeks?