Whistle blowing

[Flunt]

This might seem a little bit of sword waving but it is with the best intentions. It doesn't relate to any recent reviews but in response to the Vice article which highlights the opposing views held by pro$$ies and punters regarding UKP. By adding a gesture of protection from pro$$ies being abused by UKP members the integrity of the site is enhanced?

There have been a few hints and suggestions regarding the integrity of some reviews/reviewers, punters who might have sufficient reputation which could be used unfairly against a pro$$ie to demand extra services or preferential treatment. I'm not pointing the finger and have no idea what is said between other punters and pro$$ies.

What I'm suggesting is a separate email for pro$$ies to name a member who would try to manipulate and bully, if the same name keeps cropping up in the inbox then surely that is in all of our interest to discover? It would be a private communication between pro$$ie and admin. If the pro$$ie sends numerous messages against the spirit of the idea then she loses the right to keep calling wolf but if ten pro$$ies name the same punter then we might have a problem.

A fake negative could lead to us missing out on a decent punt just as false positives and touting could result in a waste of time and money.

I'm sure admin would enjoy the extra burden. 

[Shearer1955]

What about protection for a punter - prossies speak with each other and what if for whatever reason they have an agenda against 1 individual - if they all report him do we accept he is guilty of something?

No doubt some punters attempt to get preferential treatment but not as simple as you suggest to name people - people are innocent until proven otherwise and fake messages from several people don't in themselves prove someone is untrustworthy and guilty of unspecified things

[Scotpunter]

I doubt it would be workable although in essence it is a good idea. I think most of us on here can read between the lines of positive fake reviews as well as negative. A girl with eg 25 good reviews and one bad wouldn't need to worry. Most of us appreciate you will get instances where either party hasn't been on their game that day.

[Brazilian Martian]

This is a site for punters I have no interest in helping prossies out on bit. Renegade punters always get caught out by their own lies, I'm not for this idea at all

[Flunt]

Agreed.

What I'm proposing is that the pro$$ie gets to complain before a review is posted that a punter has tried to manipulate his membership. Not the current situation where they come on here trying to disprove a review...

[PepeMAGA]

I would say generally that dishonest reviews stand out, when compared to reviews by other guys if nothing else. If a punter sends a message to a girl asking for preferential treatment for a good review, she should just forward it to admin.

[Brazilian Martian]

If it ain't broke dont fix it

Hidden Image/Members Only

[Shearer1955]

If it ain't broke dont fix it

Hidden Image/Members Only

Agreed

[Flunt]

If it ain't broke dont fix it

Hidden Image/Members Only

But if it's a little bit bent and it could be straightened then it benefits us all

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=profile;u=44722

[azrael]

If it ain't broke dont fix it

Hidden Image/Members Only

Agreed

Seconded

[Brazilian Martian]

But if it's a little bit bent and it could be straightened then it benefits us all

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=profile;u=44722

Who ever took his reviews serious really need to get their head checked out. This guy has always been a fluffy twat even when he was on UKE and then he got let back on UKP. Most people called out his bullshit ways.

I personally did not have any major issues with him as he was not punting in my region and when I was a member of UKE I had a few good discussions with him. But his actions showed most people, that he cared more about helping his favourite prossie out rather than helping other punters

[vw]

This is a site for punters I have no interest in helping prossies out on bit. Renegade punters always get caught out by their own lies, I'm not for this idea at all

+1

So many of these lowlifes have gone already, MM2 the bb black mailer for instance, the incestuous turpentine drinking couple from London Finch and his Uncle and even golfnut who touted and touted and praised and praised until he didn't get his own way then bitched and bitched.

Any suspects for the next one Flunt, most of the forum hated these for quite a while before bannings, prossies should look at who the forum hates for screening.

[Brazilian Martian]

+1

So many of these lowlifes have gone already, MM2 the bb black mailer for instance, the incestuous turpentine drinking couple from London Finch and his Uncle and even golfnut who touted and touted and praised and praised until he didn't get his own way then bitched and bitched.

Any suspects for the next one Flunt, most of the forum hated these for quite a while before bannings, prossies should look at who the forum hates for screening.

+ 1

[daviemac]

But if it's a little bit bent and it could be straightened then it benefits us all

https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?action=profile;u=44722

Dodgy punters tend to get found out eventually on here anyway and prossies have SAFFE and some blacklist they share  for things that don't directly effect punters.   

[vw]

Dodgy punters tend to get found out eventually on here anyway and prossies have SAFFE and some blacklist they share  for things that don't directly effect punters.   

They progress from attacking reviews to victimising prossies, a reason why everyone should hate white knights they are no good for anyone !

[mikexxlong]

This might seem a little bit of sword waving but it is with the best intentions. It doesn't relate to any recent reviews but in response to the Vice article which highlights the opposing views held by pro$$ies and punters regarding UKP. By adding a gesture of protection from pro$$ies being abused by UKP members the integrity of the site is enhanced?

There have been a few hints and suggestions regarding the integrity of some reviews/reviewers, punters who might have sufficient reputation which could be used unfairly against a pro$$ie to demand extra services or preferential treatment. I'm not pointing the finger and have no idea what is said between other punters and pro$$ies.

What I'm suggesting is a separate email for pro$$ies to name a member who would try to manipulate and bully, if the same name keeps cropping up in the inbox then surely that is in all of our interest to discover? It would be a private communication between pro$$ie and admin. If the pro$$ie sends numerous messages against the spirit of the idea then she loses the right to keep calling wolf but if ten pro$$ies name the same punter then we might have a problem.

A fake negative could lead to us missing out on a decent punt just as false positives and touting could result in a waste of time and money.

I'm sure admin would enjoy the extra burden. 

i get the idea and meaning behind the post, just that

unfortunately pro$$ie's are not the most honest  people on the planet and i wouldn't put it past some to use it as a tool against punters unjustly

besides the types who use their UKP/UKE membership to manipulate whores would be more crafty and subtle than just sending a message
with obvious evidence of 'favours for reviews' , threats of neg reviews etc unless they do this that and the other, and so on ,that could be traced back to them and linked to their membership
but would probably be more read between the lines and oral communication while on the "punt" etc and possibly  done over an period of time
 
and i would suspect a certain amount of the pro$$ie's are willing in their compliance, at least to begin with after all they get something out of it too
ie glowing positive reviews ,recommendations etc maybe a fluffy WK fan club, thereby more booking and money ,
 no doubt they would want their little deal/pact kept under wraps as it would reflect badly on them potentially affecting future bookings/income so they keep it quiet

only if these cunts get too blasé thinking they can get away with it or slip up, make a mistake and give the game away.
but it seems time plays a part in finding them out as suspicions  and that gut feeling about certain members is slowly justified by little crumbs of evidence building up,
 the dots start to get joined giving a picture and conclusion , leading to them being challenged /banned.

[Flunt]

Cheers Mike 

I don't really do subtlety, I'm a simple bloke who only sees things when they are explained. So long as the undesirables are shown the door, eventually, then integrity is maintained.

This site is unique in its ethos of punting for punters which is what unites the majority, the downside to a very loud voice is the inability to hear the whisper of innocence. As mentioned, a surprising reversal and dissenting voice on a new review usually raises questions.

[NigelF]

I would also add that there is a likely misconception that a negative review (even of a previously unreviewed WG) reduces the number of punters she gets. This is especially true when (as has been said) the girl has lots of positive reviews. Even if not, the increased publicity for a WG is often beneficial. More people will have a look at her profile, sure, many will be put off by the review but some may be willing to take a punt due to something that's piqued their interest. These are people who would have otherwise not seen or paid much attention to her profile. I'm sure there are some reviews that definitely have a negative effect though.

There are also many different types of negatives from poor comms and being stood up to bait & switch, misleading photos and shit service. Unless every aspect is poor, some people may not be put off.

Based on this, I believe the "harm" done by a negative review (particularly if malicious) is often more limited than we think. They're also likely to be "debunked" as time goes on and positive reviews emerge.

As has been said, malicious posters often get found out and/or trip themselves up eventually. I think Admin already does a good job at preventing this as much as he can - without going too much the other way - which would tip the power into the hands of the prossie's (particularly if they wanted to be manipulative) - which is not what this site is about. We realise we can never be perfect but unlike every other site, where there is doubt, we often side with the punter (or at least stand up for punters' interests). This more often than not turns out to be the right side.

[Steely Dan]

No different to now anyway. An escort can contact admin an report things.

Ok it is a bit tricky for an escort not already on this site but any with a real problem find a way.

[Bangers and Gash]

For a second I thought it was 1st April. 

[Desimonic]

If it ain't broke dont fix it

Hidden Image/Members Only

+1

Extra work for Admin and may even complicate matters that admin is already working on. 

[Midori]

As an escort, I already feel that if I had an issue with a review or a reviewer I could contact admin via UKE and it would be taken seriously with proof.
Also, if a fake bad review of me was put up, I could report it anyway and I would respond to it. Contrary to what is being spouted in the media, girls have challenged the validity or the content of reviews on here and not been banned, its generally the ones that lose their temper and don't respect that this is a punter centred site that end up banned. We are allowed limited membership on this site for that purpose really, to have the chance to respond respectfully to reviews if we need to and contribute if it benefits the punter rather than ourselves.

[vt]

As an escort, I already feel that if I had an issue with a review or a reviewer I could contact admin via UKE and it would be taken seriously with proof.
Also, if a fake bad review of me was put up, I could report it anyway and I would respond to it. Contrary to what is being spouted in the media, girls have challenged the validity or the content of reviews on here and not been banned, its generally the ones that lose their temper and don't respect that this is a punter centred site that end up banned. We are allowed limited membership on this site for that purpose really, to have the chance to respond respectfully to reviews if we need to and contribute if it benefits the punter rather than ourselves.

A sensible, unhysterical rebuttal of an inaccurate negative review would enhance my view of a girl, esp if she had other credible positives.

The loony ranters just show themselves up and are well avoided in my view. 

[Bud$]

A sensible, unhysterical rebuttal of an inaccurate negative review would enhance my view of a girl, esp if she had other credible positives.

The loony ranters just show themselves up and are well avoided in my view. 

Totally agree 

[The Owl]

Escorts have SAAFE, National Ugly Mugs and even a UKP/UKE sister site for dealing with dodgy punters.

Every review on UKP is just one persons perspective of a meet. Unless an escort is very unlucky she won't get her business hurt by one fake negative review on UKP. How have I figured this out? Because of the amount of negatively reviewed prostitutes who get more than one negative review by other forum users at a later date, sometimes only days later.

[Mansell]

Dodgy punters tend to get found out eventually on here anyway and prossies have SAFFE and some blacklist they share  for things that don't directly effect punters.   

Exactly, they now have UKE which seems to work pretty well.

It ain't broke and doesn't need fixing in my view.

[Malvolio]

You can tell dodgy punters after a while as what they post just lacks credibility - although I doubt if there's much of an issue with people leaving fake negative reviews.

[Flunt]

For a second I thought it was 1st April. 

Nope it was a serious suggestion based on the thought that those looking in from the outside can point and tut.

The two obvious flaws are: the headache for admin and the dishonesty of people in the game. Pro$$ies obviously, but also punters that could end up using a members name and causing all manner of grief...

As most have said, there is enough experience on here to call bullshit when it appears.

[Daffodil]

Prossies get butthurt and prossies are frequently dishonest. If a punter does a neg review that prossie is likely to complain/cry wolf/discredit. Also likely to make false profiles/emails to do the same.

Have your wits about you reading reviews and you don't need prossies to help (muddy waters) you make a judgement.

[cueball]

I've read flunts op a couple of times and I can't see anything in it that would benefit ukp and its punter membership.

I can see dishonest manipulation from prossies if such a system was in place though.

This is a punters site that allows the lasses to join and share their opinion.

They can respond on the review thread of they do wish.

The existing system works fine imo.

[Flunt]

I've read flunts op a couple of times and I can't see anything in it that would benefit ukp and its punter membership.

I can see dishonest manipulation from prossies if such a system was in place though.

This is a punters site that allows the lasses to join and share their opinion.

They can respond on the review thread of they do wish.

The existing system works fine imo.

The thoughts behind the OP was one of perception from the snipers looking in on quotes taken out of context and the poor dears having their livelihoods affected by our negative comments.

Ultimately, I think I agreed with this and certainly that, primarily, UKP is for punters. I take Midori's point that UKE is available to pro$$ies to discuss their concerns which doesn't take long to filter back here.

The reality of many negative reviews, which is often overlooked by the likes of Vice, is that they are justified. Some are not very well articulated but when read by a punter the complaints make sense...

[Brazilian Martian]

I've read flunts op a couple of times and I can't see anything in it that would benefit ukp and its punter membership.

I can see dishonest manipulation from prossies if such a system was in place though.

This is a punters site that allows the lasses to join and share their opinion.

They can respond on the review thread of they do wish.

The existing system works fine imo.

Exactly, this is a prime example of a deluded prossie that would misuse what ever Flunt wanted implemented.https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=140836.0

[Flunt]

Exactly, this is a prime example of a deluded prossie that would misuse what ever Flunt wanted implemented.https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=140836.0

That has nothing to do with what I was suggesting.

What I was suggesting is putting something in place to prevent a scenario where you could possibly ring a pro$$ie and say, "Hi, I'm BM from UKP. If you let me do a,b,c I will give you a good review if you don't I will give you a bad review."

Some will tell you where to go, the vulnerable will be forced into something they don't want to do. What can the pro$$ie do to defend herself in that scenario?

[Brazilian Martian]

That has nothing to do with what I was suggesting.

What I was suggesting is putting something in place to prevent a scenario where you could possibly ring a pro$$ie and say, "Hi, I'm BM from UKP. If you let me do a,b,c I will give you a good review if you don't I will give you a bad review."

Some will tell you where to go, the vulnerable will be forced into something they don't want to do. What can the pro$$ie do to defend herself in that scenario?

Oh ok my bad I got that one wrong, but I'm sure the prossie can post on saafe or uke or even come on here and dispute like others have said.

[Shearer1955]

Oh ok my bad I got that one wrong, but I'm sure the prossie can post on saafe or uke or even come on here and dispute like others have said.

I agree with BM

No system is infallible but there are enough reporting avenues available for the security of an escort to prevent this being a major issue. If a girl offers valid and reasoned arguments against Negative feedback on here then people will listen and take a favourable account of her views.

We all want safeguards for protection but they already exist here - BM has already said in a previous message that if it aint broke it doesn't need fixing

[sarahjayneleeds]

That has nothing to do with what I was suggesting.

What I was suggesting is putting something in place to prevent a scenario where you could possibly ring a pro$$ie and say, "Hi, I'm BM from UKP. If you let me do a,b,c I will give you a good review if you don't I will give you a bad review."

Some will tell you where to go, the vulnerable will be forced into something they don't want to do. What can the pro$$ie do to defend herself in that scenario?

Personally I think you are putting too much faith in that article being correct. I have been on AW for 7 years and in all that time I have never encountered the scenario you mention above.

As for what a WG can do to defend herself as already said we have things in place such as Saafe, UKE etc. If that scenario did arise the WG obviously she should tell him to do one and then she could post a warning on Saafe and UKE on the day it occurred.

Should a negative review appear in the future from that particular member, the girl could come on here and point people to the Saafe/ UKE post and  then would at least alert others to question  the validity of that review as the warning section on Saafe is visible to all without logging in.

As with anything this is open to abuse but most dodgy punters and SP's get found out on here and elsewhere  pretty quickly anyway.

[Flunt]

Personally I think you are putting too much faith in that article being correct.

The article was a pile of junk, written by someone wanting to impose their opinion about how bad we all are, blah, blah,blah! At least the Metro article had humour.

As I said in my reply to Cueball, I sit corrected. There are enough options available to you and admin has more than enough on his plate without me complicating things.