New Here - Help?

[Nickp]

Next time I'll count to 30 and be polite in putting ,y thoughts foward

[daviemac]

Next time I'll count to 30 and be polite in putting ,y thoughts foward

In the mean time I'll give you a couple of weeks to reflect on the best way forward.

[daviemac]

It's tempting to not dignify this with a response, but sod that. Where exactly did I, in any which way, shape or form, say or even imply anything demeaning about anyone?

I don't know you, so for the time being I'll just assume you're having a very, very bad day. I hope it improves.

Generally speaking, is this what I can expect from this place?

No, that is not what you can expect from this place, that type of thing is something we are clamping down on.

[Ghost89]

No. The vast majority of us are polite and are here to share reviews and information. Like all things there is occasionally a small minority that act like what you were accused of being. Just rise above it and enjoy the site for what it’s intended. 

[Charlie Chalk]

Generally speaking, is this what I can expect from this place?

Welcome, Chas 🙂
As per the other responses, generally “no”. The site was a bit more “robust” (or “intolerant” TBH) in the past and some members still post in that fashion. Where this is spotted by a mod, well, you can see the response. Quick & decisive. Generally we’re a friendly bunch as long as you are seen to contribute to the forum, primarily through reviews but also by answering questions from members, etc. As an example, I’m an infrequent punter but I chip in when I can and as such have had no issues in my 7 years on here.

Not too many reviews of WG’s in the £300+ bracket on here but maybe you’re someone who can help with that? Any and all reviews all help us to punt better, whether it’s a first review of a WG or her hundredth.

[Fuzzyduck]

Welcome, Chas 🙂
As per the other responses, generally “no”. The site was a bit more “robust” (or “intolerant” TBH) in the past and some members still post in that fashion. Where this is spotted by a mod, well, you can see the response. Quick & decisive. Generally we’re a friendly bunch as long as you are seen to contribute to the forum, primarily through reviews but also by answering questions from members, etc. As an example, I’m an infrequent punter but I chip in when I can and as such have had no issues in my 7 years on here.

Not too many reviews of WG’s in the £300+ bracket on here but maybe you’re someone who can help with that? Any and all reviews all help us to punt better, whether it’s a fist review of a WG or her hundredth.

Definitely a shortage of those

[LLPunting]

OP clearly has a good command of English and has been around the Internet a long time.
If he genuinely took the extras seconds to read all the text based options on the forum interface for the boards, posts and reviews and tried them out and considered what they said and happened (as he seems to have done to limited extent in observing how his search for Caroline turned out) then navigating this site (including reading the obvious advisory sticky topics) should have made it very clear how this works.

If he had thought for a moment longer about what asking "Show me reviews for Caroline in London" would elicit from any human assistant or search engine he would not only realise the fault lay with him but should understand what that fault is, it is not technological.
If you want to find women at a given price point what terms could you use to search that might more reliably collect them together? The price?  The agency(ies) they work for?
Where might you first find them before referring here for a review?

FYI OP:  Aside from anything else about any given SP a (useful) review should contain (a) current working link(s) to her offering.  If she repeatedly changes where she advertises, creates new ads on these various platforms over time, changes the name she uses then how is any one person meant to accumulate a history for her?  So unless an SP persists in the use of consistent contact details and advertising no automation could readily cope with compiling a faultless listing.

You pay the subscription to UKP to join a collaborative effort to accumulate the most useful knowledgebase on SPs.  It is made clear by the rules that active contribution is what adds to the value on this site;  Punters helping each other in a reciprocal appreciation of improving everyone's punting odds.
The helpers and admins are not under paid employ and are not here to act as your concierges, fixers or pimps.

[Charlie Chalk]

Definitely a shortage of those

You got in before my edit! Was tempted to leave it in for comedy value…

[PilotMan]

It's tempting to not dignify this with a response, but sod that. Where exactly did I, in any which way, shape or form, say or even imply anything demeaning about anyone?

I don't know you, so for the time being I'll just assume you're having a very, very bad day. I hope it improves.

Generally speaking, is this what I can expect from this place?

Definitely doesn't deserve a response - totally out of order, he must be having a bad day  . Davie has sorted that and put him in the sin bin, where he belongs.

The vast majority of us on here will try to help you with what you're looking for.

The great thing about UKP is you will find reviews on girls at all price breaks. The amount you pay doesn't always mean that you'll receive better service. What I would say is get the money factor out of your head, read the reviews on here to find what you're looking for.

This site is powered by punters for punters, we all look forward to reading your reviews and contributions.

[LLPunting]

...The vast majority of us are polite and are here to share reviews and information. Like all things there is occasionally a small minority that act like what you were accused of being. Just rise above it and enjoy the site for what it’s intended. 

Sadly this is not strictly true.  The VAST majority of members here are silent non-contributors, the fact they don't participate in the manner expected is not "polite".  The few thousand minority who do enter into the spirit of collaboration and participate do, as a sample of humanity, understandably have a range of personality types that respond to (mis)perceived behaviour in a variety of ways from overly brusque to overly indulgent.  DM's various responses here exemplify a varying degree of warmth as he tried to suss out OP's intent.
The observable "politeness" is somewhat forced by the recent policy being enforced by moderators, most people choose to bite their tongue.

Pendant point (quel surprise) is this site isn't here to be passively "enjoyed" it is here to be usefully contributed to not just exploited to lesser or greater degree.

[Fuzzyduck]

Definitely doesn't deserve a response - totally out of order, he must be having a bad day  . Davie has sorted that and put him in the sin bin, where he belongs.

The vast majority of us on here will try to help you with what you're looking for.

The great thing about UKP is you will find reviews on girls at all price breaks. The amount you pay doesn't always mean that you'll receive better service. What I would say is get the money factor out of your head, read the reviews on here to find what you're looking for.

This site is powered by punters for punters, we all look forward to reading your reviews and contributions.

Wholeheartedly agree but there is also some expectation around self-reliance as well as contribution. Also agree on that dickhead. It's one thing going old school, and OP does need more guidance than many new members, but misreading the room so badly with an unprovoked assault is quite shocking. Lucky not to get the full red card IMO.

[Doc Holliday]

The observable "politeness" is somewhat forced by the recent policy being enforced by moderators, most people choose to bite their tongue.

So you don't agree with the policy?

[Gentleman Charlie]

What's 'OP' please?

[Gentleman Charlie]

Ignore, found it.

See, I can do my own research after all 

[daviemac]

Ignore, found it.

See, I can do my own research after all 

External Link/Members Only

[scutty brown]

What's 'OP' please?

Old Possum 

[Gentleman Charlie]

Old Possum 

Thanks again

[PilotMan]

What's 'OP' please?

Original Poster 

[Iloveoral]

What's 'OP' please?

Just to add, should you feel another member is out of place with a comment on any thread, even one you aren’t engaging in, there’s a button at the end of each comment you can hit to report to us to check out matey.

Apologies for the abuse you have received I can guarantee the rest of the guys here are much better than than. 



Hidden Image/Members Only

[Thephoenix]

Apologies for the abuse you have received I can guarantee the rest of the guys here are much better than than. 

Hidden Image/Members Only

[mr.bluesky]

It's tempting to not dignify this with a response, but sod that. Where exactly did I, in any which way, shape or form, say or even imply anything demeaning about anyone?

I don't know you, so for the time being I'll just assume you're having a very, very bad day. I hope it improves.

Generally speaking, is this what I can expect from this place?

When you've been here long enough you will find there are all sorts on this site. Some will try and be be helpful , others are just itching for a verbal spat . The latter ones are best ignored, As long as you contribute with reviews you will be well received .  As the saying goes  "opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one"
 

[PilotMan]

When you've been here long enough you will find there are all sorts on this site. Some will try and be be helpful , others are just itching for a verbal spat . The latter ones are best ignored, As long as you contribute with reviews you will be well received

+1

[Watts.E.Dunn]

It's tempting to not dignify this with a response, but sod that. Where exactly did I, in any which way, shape or form, say or even imply anything demeaning about anyone?

I don't know you, so for the time being I'll just assume you're having a very, very bad day. I hope it improves.

Generally speaking, is this what I can expect from this place?

Well sometimes, but the sherrif Daviemac is doing his best to keep the peace!

I'd suggest you stick around, its an interesting forum anyway for the dire practice of Pussy hunting;)!

[LLPunting]

So you don't agree with the policy?

I think that the above culprit deserved a correction but that the policy of scolding or excluding those who take umbrage or robustly challenge others who may have said something controversial has been wielded with an unevenly heavy hand at times, even challenging that risks being "disciplined".
 
It's very easy to slap the few errant voices for being mouthy even by the very few allowed to dispense judgement but when there are (tens of) thousands of silent ones taking advantage to greater or lesser degree by refusing to obey the law of the land, ignoring the "moniteurs" checking their watches in expectation, what's the real priority? 

What proportion of punters are borderline personalities so easily quailed into fuming, irrational, spiteful silence by a few angry or harsh words that they may have triggered through their own ill-judgement or deliberate act? 
If when their miss-steps are indulgently explained by others and authorities they decide to withdraw to eternal silence or possible reasonable self-reflection are they a great (temporary) loss?  Meanwhile the offender, who was a (good) contributor, is excluded, perhaps "permanently" to consider their next actions consequent to their sense of disproportionate (in)justice.  Perhaps they join the silent majority?  A greater loss?   

Do we really all need to be protected from taking the slightest offense?

There's a live thread debating the appropriate suspensions or banishments for those contributors who most of the time were thankful, tolerant and sharing but happened to lose their rag or otherwise break the rules to a forgivable degree.  And yet we are told to silently tolerate perpetual offenders and frustrating behaviour that's anathema to the primary requirement of this site.   

[PilotMan]

but when there are (tens of) thousands of silent ones taking advantage to greater or lesser degree by refusing to obey the law of the land.........


And yet we are told to silently tolerate perpetual offenders and frustrating behaviour that's anathema to the primary requirement of this site.   

Alleluia

+1

[daviemac]

And yet we are told to silently tolerate perpetual offenders and frustrating behaviour that's anathema to the primary requirement of this site.   

No, you aren't told to tolerate perpetual offenders, you are told to report it so the mods can look into it. They are the ones who can see how often members have logged on and used the site.

It's the calling new members cunts and bastards type of posts that we are trying to get away from.

Do you think someone who has been a member for 2 years but only logged on 4 or 5 times in total should be treated the same as someone who has used the site on a regular basis over the same 2 year period.   

[PilotMan]

It's the calling new members cunts and bastards type of posts that we are trying to get away from.

Nobody wants that, it's really toxic.

It doesn't matter how much he contributed, sending him to the sin bin was right.

[southcoastpunter]

It's the calling new members cunts and bastards type of posts that we are trying to get away from.

i hope that is not just to NEW members but to ALL members. There really is no need for it at all.

[daviemac]

i hope that is not just to NEW members but to ALL members. There really is no need for it at all.

Of course it means all members, it's just quite often it's the new members or even new posters who get the most stick. 

[LLPunting]

No, you aren't told to tolerate perpetual offenders, you are told to report it so the mods can look into it. They are the ones who can see how often members have logged on and used the site.

...

Do you think someone who has been a member for 2 years but only logged on 4 or 5 times in total should be treated the same as someone who has used the site on a regular basis over the same 2 year period.   

I'm not referring to the occasional few who might put their head above their parapet and get noticed.  I'm pretty sure that's clearly implied in my post.  So your response is not directly to my point.

To your point, I'm fully aware of the report to mod approach as you advised me some while ago and I have been doing just that and supporting Mods by posting similar instructions when general members get wound up. 
Note that reports don't always result in a visible intervention and no pm is sent to the reporter to say "checked, no action needed" and we get no indication if the report has even been read so unless we chase up for a response there's no knowing what's happened. 
I'm not minded to chase up given I've been previously told that the mods are plenty busy anyways and I have plenty else I'd rather be doing.  I don't read every thread and review so I only report those I stumble across and have time/mind to check into posting history (no short task if they've posted a lot) so a reasonable suspicion is reported and an apposite summation given, not a kneejerk "Uh! No reviews!  Uh! Joined so long ago!".  And even those challenged, only seem to get one prod and then nowt much might happen for a while, especially if they don't respond.  Perhaps because indeed the mods are plenty busy with other things (and other reports) and may take quite a while to circle back around.  So that's the current process in play as I've experienced.

But as I said this isn't what I was speaking to.  There is a systemic issue, but bashing it out on this thread isn't the proper place.  Happy to discuss offline.

[Doc Holliday]

I'm not referring to the occasional few who might put their head above their parapet and get noticed.  I'm pretty sure that's clearly implied in my post.  So your response is not directly to my point.

To your point, I'm fully aware of the report to mod approach as you advised me some while ago and I have been doing just that and supporting Mods by posting similar instructions when general members get wound up. 
Note that reports don't always result in a visible intervention and no pm is sent to the reporter to say "checked, no action needed" and we get no indication if the report has even been read so unless we chase up for a response there's no knowing what's happened. 
I'm not minded to chase up given I've been previously told that the mods are plenty busy anyways and I have plenty else I'd rather be doing.  I don't read every thread and review so I only report those I stumble across and have time/mind to check into posting history (no short task if they've posted a lot) so a reasonable suspicion is reported and an apposite summation given, not a kneejerk "Uh! No reviews!  Uh! Joined so long ago!".  And even those challenged, only seem to get one prod and then nowt much might happen for a while, especially if they don't respond.  Perhaps because indeed the mods are plenty busy with other things (and other reports) and may take quite a while to circle back around.  So that's the current process in play as I've experienced.

But as I said this isn't what I was speaking to.  There is a systemic issue, but bashing it out on this thread isn't the proper place.  Happy to discuss offline.

So, in short, are you saying you don't think the Mods are banning enough people that yourself (and others) report on grounds of lack of reviews/contribution? You are also frustrated that you are not kept in the loop about your reports? I suggest that is not only because Mods and Admin don't have the time, but frankly it is not our business how they make decisions 

[daviemac]

Note that reports don't always result in a visible intervention and no pm is sent to the reporter to say "checked, no action needed" and we get no indication if the report has even been read so unless we chase up for a response there's no knowing what's happened. 

  And even those challenged, only seem to get one prod and then nowt much might happen for a while, especially if they don't respond.  Perhaps because indeed the mods are plenty busy with other things (and other reports) and may take quite a while to circle back around.  So that's the current process in play as I've experienced.

But as I said this isn't what I was speaking to.  There is a systemic issue, but bashing it out on this thread isn't the proper place.  Happy to discuss offline.

The basic rule of thumb is if no visible action taken then none is required, or do you expect daily updates? you say "nowt much might happen for a while" do you not think members should be allowed time to respond to being asked why they haven't contributed?  As it is we post the question and allow enough time for them to be aware there has been a question asked, sometime with a reminder PM. A system we see as fair.

You are a forum helper therefore you can see the banning log and that includes -

No reviews since joining in 2015 and failing to reply to a mod when questioned after 2 weeks
Refusing to explain blatant white knighting
No reviews in 6 years and no reply when questioned by a mod

-  within the first few at the top of the list.

Every report is looked at by all the mods and normally the first one to see it will check it and decide on the action, if there's something we aren't sure about then it's discussed between us, admin and Head1.

To be honest I'm not sure how the current system could be improved, we receive a report, take action where necessary and that action is visible on the thread reported. You will just have to take our word for it that every report is looked at.

As far as I'm concerned any issues regarding moderation of the site should be done on the open forum for all to see.

Edit

I should add that every member's first post has to be approved by a mod before being seen and certain checks are done prior to that approval. If they have been a member for a while they will be questioned regarding their lack of contributions, as in this thread - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=375739.msg3845262#msg3845262 - if new members given advice.
 

[Gentleman Charlie]

First time I've checked back on this post and have noticed that a few more of you have continued to be more welcoming - so thanks again!

...and I can now confirm that after having perused for 2 or 3 days, there are definitely some reviews of the more pricey SPs here

[Bonker]

Welcome and congratulations on the promotion and pay rise.

But I have to say, I was bored by all that westminster abbey carry on   

[daviemac]

Welcome and congratulations on the promotion and pay rise.

But I have to say, I was bored by all that westminster abbey carry on   

Eh?? you've lost me what are you on about. 

[cunningman]

Eh?? you've lost me what are you on about. 

Know any right charlie's that have had a do at Westminster Abbey recently?

[daviemac]

Know any right charlie's that have had a do at Westminster Abbey recently?

Relevance to this thread or anything else on here for that matter.   

Troll post for the sake of it??   

[cunningman]

Relevance to this thread or anything else on here for that matter.   

Troll post for the sake of it??   

The poster you appeared to reply to had made a joke about the OP's nickname, and the coronation, which you seem to have missed.

[daviemac]

The poster you appeared to reply to had made a joke about the OP's nickname, and the coronation, which you seem to have missed.

See my post above yours. 

[mr.bluesky]

Old Possum 

I thought it was "old pussy " 

[Iloveoral]

Hidden Image/Members Only

[Bonker]

Relevance to this thread or anything else on here for that matter.   

Troll post for the sake of it??   

A pointless and foolish post from me.
No excuse, just an apology.

[Doc Holliday]

A pointless and foolish post from me.
No excuse, just an apology.

Well as with many of your posts it made me laugh.

[JontyR]

Well as with many of your posts it made me laugh.

Snap.

[Thephoenix]

Well as with many of your posts it made me laugh.

Same here!
I wouldn't want to deter Bonker's bonkers, droll sense of humour.

[Bonker]

Thank you gentlemen.
But, I have no wish to break the rules, annoy / irritate the moderators.

[daviemac]

Thank you gentlemen.
But, I have no wish to break the rules, annoy / irritate the moderators.

Didn't annoy me mate, I just didn't get the connection between a member called Charlie and someone else called Charles.   

BTW should add I didn't watch anything about what was going on with Charles, didn't even know where it was happening, not interested in the slightest.

[Gentleman Charlie]

Hello All,

I've just realised I've been here for almost a year and haven't yet left a review.

I'm vaguely aware that there's some kind of obligation for a member to review within a year - is that right?

The SPs I've met have been largely reviewed at least a few times - Gabriela @ HoD (outstanding), Masha @ Masha (likewise, for very different reasons), Adele @ HoD (great) - so I wonder whether there's much value in adding to the list - but if that's what's expected, I'll crack on...

Also, could someone please confirm whether the joining fee is annual or lifetime?

Thanks,
GC

[scutty brown]

Hello All,

I've just realised I've been here for almost a year and haven't yet left a review.

I'm vaguely aware that there's some kind of obligation for a member to review within a year - is that right?

The SPs I've met have been largely reviewed at least a few times - Gabriela @ HoD (outstanding), Masha @ Masha (likewise, for very different reasons), Adele @ HoD (great) - so I wonder whether there's much value in adding to the list - but if that's what's expected, I'll crack on...

Also, could someone please confirm whether the joining fee is annual or lifetime?

Thanks,
GC

Yes there is a value in reviewing previously reviewed girls: it adds another persons view (which may well be different) and proves consistency (or otherwise).
As for the fee, that's annual

[daviemac]

Hello All,

I've just realised I've been here for almost a year and haven't yet left a review.

I'm vaguely aware that there's some kind of obligation for a member to review within a year - is that right?

The SPs I've met have been largely reviewed at least a few times - Gabriela @ HoD (outstanding), Masha @ Masha (likewise, for very different reasons), Adele @ HoD (great) - so I wonder whether there's much value in adding to the list - but if that's what's expected, I'll crack on...

Also, could someone please confirm whether the joining fee is annual or lifetime?

Thanks,
GC

The obligation is to post reviews of bookings that took place within the previous 6 months, bookings that took place before that can't be reviewed.

If everyone had the attitude that it wasn't worth reviewing an SP who had already been reviewed we wouldn't have much of a site nor would we know which escorts gave constantly good or bad service as each SP would only have one or two.

There's no such thing as an escort having too many reviews.

For anything you aren't sure of the rules are here. - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=252680.0