Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.




Author Topic: Tazz Has Gone! Thoughts?  (Read 3432 times)

Offline Firebird

Apologies if this isn't deemed thread worthy, just curious to see what everyone's thoughts are on a banning that has been a long time coming in some ways but at the same time it's still quite hard to believe that it's happened.

A wonder if he'll try and sneak back on...

Offline Happy_Punter

Banning reason: Previously banned obsessive nolife troll


Offline mr small

Don't like to lose guys who contribute with reviews but his white knighting was putting newbies off reviewing.

His reviews also had limited worth in that decent. good. and excellent girls all got fantastic reviews.

 :hi:

I'm fairly new to this community and only read (and benefitted) from Taz's recent posts. So I can't comment on his banning as a loss or boon to this forum. However...

I am utterly perplexed at how his banning came about. So much so that I've been searching for old posts which try to define "fluffy" or "white knighting". I've spent the last few minutes pouring over old threads in the attempt to understand what it is about both terms which enrages people on here. I must admit that I'm none the wiser. I understand the terms being used but I don't understand how some people can be so wound up by a slightly fluffy author. People seem to get so angry and appear content to pull the arguments into some sort of infantile gutter. I'm referring to both side on the recent Taz post; I find the fluffy-attacks as indigestible as the "yer mum" comments which appeared towards the end.

This is a review site populated by critics and customers. By its very definition that means that opinions will circulate and be promoted by people with varying agendas. I can see these agendas and I can often infer how sensitive or emotionally involved each author is. But it never enrages me - I can make adjustments without having to shout and troll.

The fluffy punter has never really bothered me. (a) because life's too short, and (b) because I don't subscribe to the argument that punting is a financial transaction only. I think that every punter puts varying amounts of emotional investment into each punt; it's not just about swapping cash to stick your dick in a hole. It's entirely analagous to paying to watch a film. Sure, on one level it's about paying for the experience of going to the cinema, but it's also about viewing that film through emotional goggles and leaving having had a strong emotional connection. Fluffy punters with fluffy reviews are similar to fluffy film reviews - as a customer I read the fluffy review, do a mental aggregation against everyone else's opinion and decide who I'd like to believe based on my own needs.

Am I the only one on here for whom the fluffy review and white knighting is absolutely inconsequential?

GB


...but his white knighting was putting newbies off reviewing.


I'm not sure that's true. Well, for me it wasn't. I existed as a lurker for a long time and delayed putting up a first review because of the general hostility that meets many first posts on this forum. Admittedly I haven't searched for any evidence to back up my point or yours, but it seems preposterous to me that a history of white-knighting was detrimental to newbies. Newbies, after all, don't even know what a fluffy or a white knight is.

I'm fairly new to this community and only read (and benefitted) from Taz's recent posts. So I can't comment on his banning as a loss or boon to this forum. However...

I am utterly perplexed at how his banning came about. So much so that I've been searching for old posts which try to define "fluffy" or "white knighting". I've spent the last few minutes pouring over old threads in the attempt to understand what it is about both terms which enrages people on here. I must admit that I'm none the wiser. I understand the terms being used but I don't understand how some people can be so wound up by a slightly fluffy author. People seem to get so angry and appear content to pull the arguments into some sort of infantile gutter. I'm referring to both side on the recent Taz post; I find the fluffy-attacks as indigestible as the "yer mum" comments which appeared towards the end.

This is a review site populated by critics and customers. By its very definition that means that opinions will circulate and be promoted by people with varying agendas. I can see these agendas and I can often infer how sensitive or emotionally involved each author is. But it never enrages me - I can make adjustments without having to shout and troll.

The fluffy punter has never really bothered me. (a) because life's too short, and (b) because I don't subscribe to the argument that punting is a financial transaction only. I think that every punter puts varying amounts of emotional investment into each punt; it's not just about swapping cash to stick your dick in a hole. It's entirely analagous to paying to watch a film. Sure, on one level it's about paying for the experience of going to the cinema, but it's also about viewing that film through emotional goggles and leaving having had a strong emotional connection. Fluffy punters with fluffy reviews are similar to fluffy film reviews - as a customer I read the fluffy review, do a mental aggregation against everyone else's opinion and decide who I'd like to believe based on my own needs.

Am I the only one on here for whom the fluffy review and white knighting is absolutely inconsequential?

GB

To be completely honest I had never heard either term until I joined this forum. Like yu, I didn't think any of the reviews were anything other than what that particular person felt. I'm mature enough to realise one mans meat is anothers poison and wouldn't feel upset if I saw a girl that I found less than satisfying, that another had found gave him the best fuck of his life.

Offline Firebird

The problem stemmed from the fact that he often appeared peeved when a girl he really liked received a negative or neutral review and would berate other members as he felt their review was wrong, saying that a negative review could probably have been a neutral and a neutral could have been a positive.

He also had a tendency to make out that he discovered certain girls, Maisie, Cherry etc, was all rather pathetic.

Didn't have any beef with him but a think a ban had been simmering for a while. His use of the prhase keyboard warrior was also annoying as fuck lol!!!

Offline Matrix

I'm fairly new to this community and only read (and benefitted) from Taz's recent posts. So I can't comment on his banning as a loss or boon to this forum. However...

I am utterly perplexed at how his banning came about. So much so that I've been searching for old posts which try to define "fluffy" or "white knighting". I've spent the last few minutes pouring over old threads in the attempt to understand what it is about both terms which enrages people on here. I must admit that I'm none the wiser. I understand the terms being used but I don't understand how some people can be so wound up by a slightly fluffy author. People seem to get so angry and appear content to pull the arguments into some sort of infantile gutter. I'm referring to both side on the recent Taz post; I find the fluffy-attacks as indigestible as the "yer mum" comments which appeared towards the end.

This is a review site populated by critics and customers. By its very definition that means that opinions will circulate and be promoted by people with varying agendas. I can see these agendas and I can often infer how sensitive or emotionally involved each author is. But it never enrages me - I can make adjustments without having to shout and troll.

The fluffy punter has never really bothered me. (a) because life's too short, and (b) because I don't subscribe to the argument that punting is a financial transaction only. I think that every punter puts varying amounts of emotional investment into each punt; it's not just about swapping cash to stick your dick in a hole. It's entirely analagous to paying to watch a film. Sure, on one level it's about paying for the experience of going to the cinema, but it's also about viewing that film through emotional goggles and leaving having had a strong emotional connection. Fluffy punters with fluffy reviews are similar to fluffy film reviews - as a customer I read the fluffy review, do a mental aggregation against everyone else's opinion and decide who I'd like to believe based on my own needs.

Am I the only one on here for whom the fluffy review and white knighting is absolutely inconsequential?

GB

Admin clearly won't tolerate white knights.

As for Taz, He's his own worst enemy.

Fluffy reviews are tolerated but the fluffy in question wouldn't tolerate anyone who wrights a review, of a girl he's reviewed, that isn't glowing.

Anyone who had a different opinion was either a pimp, hooker, troll or the old favourite "keyboard warrior".

One things for sure, his market value in the west of Scotlands PR department has just plummeted.


Offline Roman

There's always the sister forum.




What does UKE mean? UKE is short for www.UKEscorting.com


Offline EnglishRebecca121

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,226


Offline EnglishRebecca121

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,226
im not sure he even post on uke  :rose:

Offline AVGscot

He was always a fluffy bastard in his reviews which by itself isn't an issue most of us are smart enough to determine how accurate a review is and whether or not a punter can be trusted.
However he coupled that with being a white knight for all his "fantastic" girls having a go at anyone who disagreed with him by giving them a negative/neutral review. Case and point his pathetic display in the thread linked above.

Well, I found his gushing posts fairly annoying and of limited usefulness in identifying good potential punts. Way too much detail. Just excessive words to convey that, ultimately, all his punts were just amazing and his chosen hookers had fab pink toenails or wonderful fluffy towels. Just a lot of 'keyboard grandstanding'.
I'd noticed his outpourings on the site had been tailing off lately. Maybe he was running out of cash or testosterone. Or words.

Offline Firebird

The whole obsession with feet and fluffy towels was quite odd. Not so much the feet thing as that's an actual fetish, it was just the way he would wax lyrical for ages about a prossies perfect little feet lol

Online Micky5633

I must admit although I did like the fact he reviewed a lot of girls I always found it strange he had such a liking for the Geordie duo. I like maisie and looks wise she is completely up my street but still the same time I can see why punters may find she gives a mechanical service, it's all about opinions. I could feel Taz rage from the keyboard anytime someone would bad mouth her.

Offline auldie63

When he was simply putting up glowing reviews of absolutely every girl he ever saw it was simple to skim through his stuff and pick out the gist or simply ignore his posts. But recently he had started actively promoting girls who were about to tour, sometimes weeks before they were even here. To me that crosses a line, I think this forum is for information on girls who are actually working here that we have seen, or not for whatever reason, good or bad. It is not for what almost became pimping girls he was obviously keeping in constant touch with. He said he got nothing from them for this but it was a lot of bother for no result is all I will say.
His reactions to any form of criticism or any review of one of his 'perfect princesses', which was less than glowing was also getting out of hand. At times he sounded like some sort of self appointed punting God with whom no-one was allowed to disagree.
As he is now on UKE I suppose I can expect pelters on there for daring to post this.


What does UKE mean? UKE is short for www.UKEscorting.com

Online Micky5633

Pretty much hit the nail on the head auldie. I don't use UKE so would be good if lads could post links if Taz starts spouting shit on there, could make for comical viewing.


What does UKE mean? UKE is short for www.UKEscorting.com

Offline mavgoose

Like a few months ago , when loads of people contributed to the forum(s) , after the banning of people who got carried away with bitching / scoring points -
I hope this has the same effect.

I hadn't realised or considered that Taz and his ways would keep people away. I realise now that could be possible.
Taz just got too famous in his own lunchtime and began to believe his own hype.
I met at least 2 WGs who were very nervous at their impending "first meet" with king Taz.
Let this be a chance just like a few months ago where there was a flurry of activity and new users coming on and posting reviews and discussions. For fux sake that is what we are here for after all.

However , let us also not forget that people will always use this forum for the wrong reasons. Hopefully , over the top fluffy or self promoting , false or vindictive reviews will be called out and spotted.

Mav

 
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 09:12:13 AM by mavgoose »

Offline Clattypats

Think my review caused a bit of a shit storm  :scare:  :D

Like I said on the other thread, it was an honest review of my booking with her ..so I told it the way it was :)

Offline seeker

Pussy  :coolgirl:
Has been the undoing of many a fluffy white night ....
I had no beef with taz .....
But hated the constant pre ,during ,and post promotional
Blanket touting of some of the girls .....
Maybe he was just super excitable where pussy was conserned
And wanted to let the world know he was getting some .
Maybe he did have all those great punts ,who knows  :unknown:
Just hope a lot more punters start to review and not just
Lurk ,take and not contribute new opportunities.  :hi:






Latest media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)