Spice--Maybe they were giving themselves an out......in case the batshitcrazy whore is playing them like a fiddle.
So if a ban is sometimes warranted for "extenuating circumstances" and it has been determined that the review in question is fake-- why would the member not be banned under this notion? The contention is that he wrote the review in retaliation of a conflict between himself and Natalia-- I would think that an attempt at coercion would certainly be an extenuating circumstance-- particularly since the "fake review" was written against a third party.
Not arguing with mod decisions or anything-- but I am curious as to what would classify one for a banning vs. what we have here. When rules are ambiguous like this one-- it would be helpful to know what does and doesn't qualify. Originally Posted by GracePreston
Maybe, the session did happen. But, it happened months ago and is only being written now as a way to attack the whores manager. Thus, making the ROS a lie while the review did actually happen. Only, not as described.
Maybe when a fucktard communicates with Evelyn Cruz he is actually communicating with Natalia.
Maybe this will teach the next fucktard not to write that "no" review. Lest, he join the bonfire like cordwood.
Maybe this is all a pimp war over a whore. Maybe ECCIE2NDAVE did see Evelyn Cruz months ago and has been trying to steal her away from Natalia for his own stable. When he saw the announcement that EC was leaving, he knew that ECs pimp was moving her out of his reach, and the review is retaliation.
If ECCIE2NDAVE did write a fake review with the deliberate intent to harm Natalia's little whoredom. That deserves a ban if a fake review ever deserved a ban.
maybe maybe maybe the goal post is not so clear as stated.
The winner is...........ECCIE2NDAVE...... ...by a mile..........ijs