Feedback conspiracy

[OutForJustice80]

Just wanted to give this its own thread as I think it's a discussion worth having.

As I said above, Adele gave it as the reason for not giving me a booking.

I am going to treat this as a genuine question but I should tell you that your premise makes me doubt the sincerity of your intention.  I think the girls involved keep an eye on this board, chat with each, and with pet punters, as a way of checking punters before booking them.
.

Because Adele told me it was, and the pattern is the same with a number of other WG's.

I should also say that, to me, what I am saying looks obvious. Read the back catalogue of reviews - starting with Beano. Look at the girls he has reviewed (multiple times) and then the other punters who have written multiple reviews on these same girls, and then the other girls they review multiple times.  Look also at the girls who work together.

You will find the same names keep coming up.

Can I "prove" it - obviously not. But we are not in a court of law here.

When I read yet another blandly positive review, of one of the same girls, from one of the same group of punters, I smell bullshit.  I am not an investigative journalist, I do not have time, resource or inclination to try and "prove" I am right and nor do I think I need to.  All I am saying is that I think it is a good thing if punters on here are aware that these patterns may exist and able to draw their own conclusions. And if this is all just a figment of my imagination I am sure they will see through it and punt accordingly.

Dave

I'm really not trying to be facetious but I don't understand how this business with Adele occurred. I should preface by saying I've never seen Adele, booked her once and she cancelled fairly last minute due to illness so I have no "loyalty" to her. I just don't understand how the possibility of her receiving a negative review came up in the booking process? Did you mention it?

I think the issue of punters doing multiple reviews of their favourites is a separate one. Fluffys will be fluffys and people take different things from this site. I personally don't have a problem with it (to a point - ass juice etc) but I can understand why some do.

[vw]

I tend to see girls that punter i have identified are like me and know some cases of vice versa, maybe a case of similar punters reviewing the same girls in the same manner as they are similar sort of punters.

Maybe an element of McFlys trigger for his insanity "Standing in the punting community"  some people do like their standing and many new guys could be sucked into thinking this is how to get forum respect, rather than the traditional preferred way of honesty.  Personally I hold those who TOFTT in higher regard across all regions, but that's me.

For me a common punt is a point of reference when comparing girls in discussion, makes sense that the more popular options are used to compare other less well known options.

Would be interested to delve further to girls and guys involved in this scheme, is is a case of just name dropping in a clique ? or malicious manipulation of reviews ?

I read with interest, maybe MrHappyPants could leave more clues and show us a few of the patterns he has spotted !

[smiths]

As I said on the KDD review thread unclesnideheart was banned for sharing a computer with Atticus Finch/Sylvester and being a fanboy if I recall correctly so there is some evidence as I see it of punters conspiring.

And I don't believe this was a one-off, I believe and its my opinion only that there are some others who are conspiring and conspiring with WGs and pimps to try to undermine the honesty of UKP by doing dodgy reviews and posts. For the WG/pimp involved the goal is getting more business off here, for a punter it could be because he is besotted with a WG/s and/or he gets something from the WG, a free punt for example.

[mrhappypants]

Just wanted to give this its own thread as I think it's a discussion worth having.

I just don't understand how the possibility of her receiving a negative review came up in the booking process? Did you mention it?

OFJ - at the risk creating a really boring thread here goes. I had a *32* email exchange with Adele over 8 months trying to get a booking, starting on 29/4/14. 

The first message reads    

" Hello Adele we have spoken before , but I recently had a bad accident (deleted for the sake my anonymity) and am just recovering. I have several references from friends on AW. Can you let me know if you are available next week and how best to book/ contact you? Many thanks and hope to meet you. Dave"

We then exchange 32 emails over the next 8 months before I get the following from her on 12/12/2014:

"Hi,

its me again, after i`ve read couple of your post, i`ll cancel our possible meeting.

Merry Christmas"

Now OFJ I do not expect you or anyone else to read all my posts and be able to tell WHY Adele sent that message - but this was shortly after I wrote what I thought was a mildly critical review on Dee that got a strong reaction on the board and led to Dee naming me on her AW page.
 
https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=36769.0

So I would ask any punter reading this, do you think that this is the usual reaction of board members or of a WG to a critical review?  Do you think Adele's reaction is usual in your experience?  Have you had a WG decline a booking and tell you it was because she read your posts?

To your specific point

Q: Can  I prove to you beyond any doubt that it was my review of Dee that caused Adele to cancel?   

A: Of course not.

Am I certain that Adele, and Dee, and others keep an eye on the board, chat with each other, listen to pet punters when taking bookings, and screen out those that might write a critical review?  Yep I am sure.

I will point out to you also that this thread is also unusual.  It is the first time I have asked about the detail of a conversation with a WG in the 2 years I have been on board. 

So I would say to anyone reading this - what do you think it means?

Dave

[hendrix]

As I said on the KDD review thread unclesnideheart was banned for sharing a computer with Atticus Finch/Sylvester and being a fanboy if I recall correctly so there is some evidence as I see it of punters conspiring.

And I don't believe this was a one-off, I believe and its my opinion only that there are some others who are conspiring and conspiring with WGs and pimps to try to undermine the honesty of UKP by doing dodgy reviews and posts. For the WG/pimp involved the goal is getting more business off here, for a punter it could be because he is besotted with a WG/s and/or he gets something from the WG, a free punt for example.

We've certainly seen that a prossie has joined up/responded in record time to a negative because a fluffy has immediately pointed her to it.

I've had good/very good punts with the forum darlings I've seen though, so I'd take it on a case by case basis if I thought something dodgy was going on.

[vw]

Sounds very stage managed, I thought these superstars were meant to be good, sounds like they are more like the ball tamperers in cricket.

Shows again best not to join up phone numbers, UKP names and AW names if you use it !

[mrhappypants]

I read with interest, maybe MrHappyPants could leave more clues and show us a few of the patterns he has spotted !

Already addressed:

I should also say that, to me, what I am saying looks obvious. Read the back catalogue of reviews - starting with Beano. Look at the girls he has reviewed (multiple times) and then the other punters who have written multiple reviews on these same girls, and then the other girls they review multiple times.  Look also at the girls who work together.

You will find the same names keep coming up.

Dave

[hendrix]

Sounds very stage managed, I thought these superstars were meant to be good, sounds like they are more like the ball tamperers in cricket.

Shows again best not to join up phone numbers, UKP names and AW names if you use it !

But that's the thing.. The superstars I've seen have been consistently good. Ultimately, is this about them seeing who they want to see? And screening punters in every way they choose?.. Including colluding with fluffies.  And if they do that, does it mean that all their UKP reviews are worthless? I don't think so, based on my "superstar" experience.

[smiths]

We've certainly seen that a prossie has joined up/responded in record time to a negative because a fluffy has immediately pointed her to it.

I've had good/very good punts with the forum darlings I've seen though, so I'd take it on a case by case basis if I thought something dodgy was going on.

And that's fair enough of course, the point is none of this means forum darlings offer a bad service to the punters they see, they could well mainly offer a good service, but that doesn't mean they don't want to do all they can to continue to get great reviews as they are worth their weight in gold to them. Then add some white knight fanboys and off we go. I have also had good punts with a small number of forum darlings on here myself, Hot Ameera as she was then called is one. Last time I looked she charged more and her rimming was an extra, great for her, no advantage whatsoever to me.

[smiths]

But that's the thing.. The superstars I've seen have been consistently good. Ultimately, is this about them seeing who they want to see? And screening punters in every way they choose?.. Including colluding with fluffies.  And if they do that, does it mean that all their UKP reviews are worthless? I don't think so, based on my "superstar" experience.

I view reviews by "punters" I see as well dodgy as worthless. To take one example that KDD WG, I have no doubt she offers a generally good service to punters as per her reviews but some of her reviews have been done by punters I dont trust so their reviews are of zero interest to me but there are enough by punters I do trust to believe she does offer a generally good service.

If it was a question only about WGs choosing who to see and who not to see I would see that as their business.

[Silver Birch]

OFJ - at the risk creating a really boring thread here goes. I had a *32* email exchange with Adele over 8 months trying to get a booking, starting on 29/4/14. 

The first message reads    

" Hello Adele we have spoken before , but I recently had a bad accident (deleted for the sake my anonymity) and am just recovering. I have several references from friends on AW. Can you let me know if you are available next week and how best to book/ contact you? Many thanks and hope to meet you. Dave"

We then exchange 32 emails over the next 8 months before I get the following from her on 12/12/2014:

I would not exchange 32 emails with anyone trying to get a booking. WTF can be said in 32 emails, seriously WTF??? I would move on after 3 or 4!

I contacted Adele trying for a booking a couple of days later and she said I needed to plan 10 days ahead. I realise that won't be possible or suit everyone, but that's what I did, and the whole thing was arranged with 2 emails. 

I'm sure the wgs read ukp for exactly the same reason we do, to find out who we want to see, and who to avoid.

[hendrix]

And that's fair enough of course, the point is none of this means forum darlings offer a bad service to the punters they see, they could well mainly offer a good service, but that doesn't mean they don't want to do all they can to continue to get great reviews as they are worth their weight in gold to them. Then add some white knight fanboys and off we go. I have also had good punts with a small number of forum darlings on here myself, Hot Ameera as she was then called is one. Last time I looked she charged more and her rimming was an extra, great for her, no advantage whatsoever to me.

That's actually why I haven't bothered to see her despite her apparently being one I should see.. Can't be doing with extras. Instant turn off for me.

[vw]

But that's the thing.. The superstars I've seen have been consistently good. Ultimately, is this about them seeing who they want to see? And screening punters in every way they choose?.. Including colluding with fluffies.  And if they do that, does it mean that all their UKP reviews are worthless? I don't think so, based on my "superstar" experience.

Because you know what you like, i expect there are popular options that do nothing for you.  I personally would rather if they didn't like my postings here not book me as that would probably lead to a tense meet ! 

Of course their reviews are not worthless, they only ever go to the pre tested by the knuckle dragging TOFTT people that they seem to dislike !  Just make more to read if you are interested in that particular girl.

I would not exchange 32 emails with anyone trying to get a booking. WTF can be said in 32 emails, seriously WTF??? I would move on after 3 or 4!

I contacted Adele trying for a booking a couple of days later and she said I needed to plan 10 days ahead. I realise that won't be possible or suit everyone, but that's what I did, and the whole thing was arranged with 2 emails. 

I'm sure the wgs read ukp for exactly the same reason we do, to find out who we want to see, and who to avoid.

Agree nobody is that special should never take that many emails.

[OutForJustice80]

To your specific point

Q: Can  I prove to you beyond any doubt that it was my review of Dee that caused Adele to cancel?   

A: Of course not.

Am I certain that Adele, and Dee, and others keep an eye on the board, chat with each other, listen to pet punters when taking bookings, and screen out those that might write a critical review?  Yep I am sure.

That makes things a lot clearer, though it makes me think her motives were more along the lines of "you slagged off my mate, I won't see you" which is kind of her prerogative I suppose. Unfortunate for you but not overly sinister. Punters colluding with them is far more problematic and cosying up to girls by slagging off other members is just pathetic.

I didn't read the original Dee review Armageddon until I glanced at it just now. It looks like at least it resulted in a large purge of shit members.

[mrhappypants]

We are starting to agree.

Unfortunate for you but not overly sinister.

Agreed. I bare no ill will toward Adele, or Dee for that matter.  If you read what I wrote about Dee you will see that i say she is really attractive and can offer fantastic service.  On the day she was sloppy and careless and gave me a shit punt as a result.  It is a balanced review - the reaction was just bonkers, not just from her but from some punters on the board.

Punters colluding with them is far more problematic and cosying up to girls by slagging off other members is just pathetic.

And this is where you and I line up. Girls can play their games.  My concern is the bland one-sided adverts that pose as reviews.  They need to be called out and that is the reason why I have drawn attention to a review that I think requires closer scrutiny.

Dave

[vw]

And this is where you and I line up. Girls can play their games.  My concern is the bland one-sided adverts that pose as reviews.  They need to be called out and that is the reason why I have drawn attention to a review that I think requires closer scrutiny.

Dave

So beano the step-incest role play guy requires watching along with unnamed others !

[mrhappypants]

So beano the step-incest role play guy requires watching along with unnamed others !

I am starting to understand your user name..........

[The Beano]

So beano the step-incest role play guy requires watching along with unnamed others !

Thanks VW, not sure why you chose that particular fantasy out of all the other ones I have included in my reviews, but each to their own.

Like most conspiracy theories there's nothing to see here, I'm just a kinky sod that enjoys filthy sex and writing about it on here. All the better if fellow punters enjoy it too and find it useful.

Oh, and Mr Happypants, I'm struggling to understand your user name, I think I would have changed it to Mr unhappypants after the 23rd unproductive email exchange with Adele.
TB

[vw]

Thanks VW, not sure why you chose that particular fantasy out of all the other ones I have included in my reviews, but each to their own.

Like most conspiracy theories there's nothing to see here, I'm just a kinky sod that enjoys filthy sex and writing about it on here. All the better if fellow punters enjoy it too and find it useful.

Oh, and Mr Happypants, I'm struggling to understand your user name, I think I would have changed it to Mr unhappypants after the 23rd unproductive email exchange with Adele.
TB

Just one that stood out to me as odd , but as punters we are all odd some with the appropriate usernames some with the wrong one as highlighted by you.   

Could be a conspiracy could be something else, but always best to be mindful of things that could be going on behind the scenes !

[SamLP]

My 2 cents on this topic. I've seen a few of the more popular girls and despite having had some good punts with some of them, I can't understand the furore that surrounds them. Not only do they charge a premium, but their service isn't any better than the many other WG's I've seen. What they excel in is the hospitality treatment and in a few cases the complimentary treatment. I can see why some punters can develop EAS, and it's not from the service that has just been rendered. Many of these girls are good at flicking the switch button in a man's head, and their service is good at the same time. However, I've had much better punts with other WG's who's service has been miles better, but their hospitality service has been next to nothing. I personally don't agree with writing multiple reviews of the same girl. I may update my review. I've done a second review when a girl previously reviewed as positive gave me a bad service or wasted my time and thus a negative review was written.