Sugar Babies
Shemales

Author Topic: Tazz Has Gone! Thoughts?  (Read 5399 times)

Firebird

  • Guest
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...

Happy_Punter

  • Guest


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:

Online geezer_breezer

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


Online geezer_breezer

...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.

Offline Scotpunter

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.
Banned reason: Cunt
Banned by: daviemac

Firebird

  • Guest
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.


Roman

  • Guest
There's always the sister forum.


Offline EnglishRebecca121

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 3,924
  • Likes: 0
Banned reason: Ex sex worker with zero useful contribution to make
Banned by: Head1

Offline Matrix


Offline EnglishRebecca121

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 3,924
  • Likes: 0
Banned reason: Ex sex worker with zero useful contribution to make
Banned by: Head1

Offline Matrix


Offline EnglishRebecca121

  • Banned
  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 3,924
  • Likes: 0
im not sure he even post on uke  :rose:
Banned reason: Ex sex worker with zero useful contribution to make
Banned by: Head1

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.

Offline S.X. MacHine

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.

Firebird

  • Guest
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

Offline 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.

Offline 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.

mavgoose

  • Guest
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:



bigbell

  • Guest
couple of points,,
taz may have broken the 1st rule of punting, he fell for a working girl(s)
as he was good custumer he may have been getting "favours" that others werent
he may have been a real life walter mitty/ billy liar
we are all able to have an opinion on that, and how to deal with it
but to goad someone to get a reaction, is not right either
there are proper channels to go through
reviews are opinions, and can differ, doesnt make it right/wrong
ive noticed lately(after the last banning) that the amount of put down on reviews/services is on the rise
a review is based on that individuals experience on that day,it is not open for debate. ie if some one posts a review and likes what he got or paid for, he shouldnt be ridiculed for it

Offline henry brubaker

I ignored his reviews as they were a waste of fucking time and I'd take the getting two for one favours with a pinch of salt.

He was constantly touting though and he refused to allow even neutral reviews for his favorites without questioning the reviewers motives, even going as far as blaming them for average or poor service.

He was a bit of a prick to be honest.

Offline Matrix

I ignored his reviews as they were a waste of fucking time and I'd take the getting two for one favours with a pinch of salt.

He was constantly touting though and he refused to allow even neutral reviews for his favorites without questioning the reviewers motives, even going as far as blaming them for average or poor service.

He was a bit of a prick to be honest.

+1

My very first post on here was a review on a psychopathic bitch whom he hadn't seen. He tells me it's shite, (would never explain why) and then preceded to tell anyone who dared question him "to go and see the girls" he had reviewed. When they did it resulted in more baseless accusations. Led me to avoid posting another review on here for a very long time.

He hadn't done much reviewing this year (despite him using reviews as a dick measuring stick) and when he saw a girl, it was always for 30 minutes. Last of the big spenders. Not usually an issue, but he always liked to point out how affluent he was.

It just goes to show you that in today's age of the internet, even someone with a limited mental capacity can make a good living. Either that, or he's full of shite.

If UKP had a wanker of the decade award, he'd most definitely make the shortlist.

Maybe that's what he's doing now (wanking)?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 03:11:45 pm by Matrix »

Firebird

  • Guest
I remember asking him how he could afford to punt so often and his response was,

'I work and I work hard'

Don't we all? Personally I would get bored of punting if I was going to see girls every week, personally I reckon he's addicted to seeing escorts, he'd probably deny this but if you're going to see escorts as regular as Tazz was then there's definitely something a miss. Pretty sure he had a girlfriend as well, personally a don't really agree with the whole cheating on your missus thing that goes on in the punting community (just my opinion) but if you've got a girlfriend why do you have to see escorts about 4 or 5 times a month, if your sex life with your bird is non existent, either talk to her and try and reignite it or split up with her.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 03:34:41 pm by Firebird »

Offline Matrix

I remember asking him how he could afford to punt so often and his response was,

'I work and I work hard'

Don't we all? Personally I would get bored of punting if I was going to see girls every week, personally I reckon he's addicted to seeing escorts, he'd probably deny this but if you're going to see escorts as regular as Tazz was then there's definitely something a miss. Pretty sure he had a girlfriend as well, personally a don't really agree with the whole cheating on your missus thing that goes on in the punting community (just my opinion) but if you've got a girlfriend why do you have to see escorts about 4 or 5 times a month, if your sex life with your bird is non existent, either talk to her and try and reignite it or split up with her.

To be frank, he's full of shite.

We've all met someone like him in real life. I.E totally and utterly insecure and projects it with the "mines bigger" Freudian nonsense. As was mentioned before he sounded like a primary school child.

Typical loudmouth who, when challenged, folded every single time.


Offline Matrix

I'll add this for good measure.

From 10/12/2012

"Disgusting person very very rude big man I felt threatened and was not going to knock 70 pound of a service"

Quote taken from the first readable piece of feedback from his aw profile (sorry, not sure how to link direct). Perhaps aw feedback ain't so bad after all?


Game on

  • Guest
I'll add this for good measure.

From 10/12/2012


"Disgusting person very very rude big man I felt threatened and was not going to knock 70 pound of a service"

Quote taken from the first readable piece of feedback from his aw profile (sorry, not sure how to link direct). Perhaps aw feedback ain't so bad after all?

Noticed that on his on AW months ago. Anyway he's gone for
now?   :sarcastic:

Offline Jock D

In all honesty Taz and his sidekick DG should have been banned from this forum a long time ago. Their antics were quite outrageous and blatantly obvious...pimping their favs for favours...and attacking any genuine punters who even mildy criticised one of their chosen girls. Unfortunately, they will probably try to worm their way back in again...so keep an eye out.

Offline Randy Mcknob

Not sad to see him go.  I had a decidedly mediocre punt with a girl he'd raved about, ignored his reviews after that.

Firebird

  • Guest
One thing he would occasionally do was tell punters that were going to see one of his favourite girls, to say that Tazz recommended them or 'Just say you want a service like Tazz's'. The guy was a bit fucking mental when you think about it!

Roman

  • Guest
Gee don't all the knives came out when a plonker gets banned.

Online David1970

Roman it might be like when the school bully gets expelled, the true feelings of others come out and the extent of people's dislike for him is made public.


Taz may have written untrustworthy reviews pimping "his girls" but Roman at least he did write reviews.

Offline Jock D

Gee don't all the knives came out when a plonker gets banned.

I could have questioned virtually every post Taz and DG made on here...but what would that have achieved? Instead, I chose to ignore their posts for the most part...as I use this site to seek out and pass on relevant information on the current punting scene. :hi:

Offline henry brubaker

Gee don't all the knives came out when a plonker gets banned.

Can now say what you feel without having to read his "keyboard warrior" "where's your reviews" shite.

Offline seeker

Roman it might be like when the school bully gets expelled, the true feelings of others come out and the extent of people's dislike for him is made public.


Taz may have written untrustworthy reviews pimping "his girls" but Roman at least he did write reviews.
+1

I visited quite a few of Taz's Offerings which i wouldn't have otherwise
For Example" Amanda " and she wasn't reveiwed at the time ...and is excellent imo
I  think Taz just liked the sound of his own keyboard a little too much .... :D  :D
It obviously made him happy  ....
« Last Edit: September 23, 2016, 11:12:32 am by seeker »

Offline Harrymetsally

If you ever read Evo magazine and they compare 2-3 cars they rarely say any are shit and all have their strengths depending on your personal taste...just to not piss off the manufacturers advertising budget/receivr back handers.  It seems suggested Taz wasn't a neutral reviewer from the posts here.


Offline JJM

I only ever seen one girl he raved about and by fuck did he call that one right, I probably wouldn't have risked it had it not been for seeing his post.

It looked way too good to be true, don't think she's ever been around again.

Why ban after all this time, would have thought if had been that much of an issue he would have got the heave ages ago as by the sounds of it he was pretty consistent.

Offline henry brubaker

Should have been gone long ago. There were less persistent offenders who were banned ages ago.

Game on

  • Guest
Gee don't all the knives came out when a plonker gets banned.

My knifes were out before he got banned. When and if I want to say 
something about a punt or another member  I WILL DO SO. 

Firebird

  • Guest
Had a couple of arguments with him but he was pretty much always the instigator of those arguments.

Online David1970

Gee don't all the knives came out when a plonker gets banned.

Check out the last review he attacked and the number of members who stood up to him, they did not wait until he was banned.

Offline Matrix

I only ever seen one girl he raved about and by fuck did he call that one right, I probably wouldn't have risked it had it not been for seeing his post.

It looked way too good to be true, don't think she's ever been around again.

Why ban after all this time, would have thought if had been that much of an issue he would have got the heave ages ago as by the sounds of it he was pretty consistent.

Ask Admin.

If I read a good review and had a bad punt, the only person to blame would be myself or the girl I chose to see.

He may of verified the girl you saw was real but, unless he truly is a pimp, he has no control over service quality. He, in that case, was sharing his experience. A pity he couldn't handle others doing the same though. 

 

mavgoose

  • Guest
Not looked into it in great detail , but I perceived the ban was due to the tone his arguments had taken recently - as opposed to his 10/10 reviews ( every time ).

He'd just overstepped the line and gotten way too personal. It doesn't take much. Maybe it was a combination of his fluffiness , and his argumentative tone.

Offline Matrix

Not looked into it in great detail , but I perceived the ban was due to the tone his arguments had taken recently - as opposed to his 10/10 reviews ( every time ).

He'd just overstepped the line and gotten way too personal. It doesn't take much. Maybe it was a combination of his fluffiness , and his argumentative tone.

It was far from recent, Mav.

Offline MrMatrix

I only ever seen one girl he raved about and by fuck did he call that one right, I probably wouldn't have risked it had it not been for seeing his post.

It looked way too good to be true, don't think she's ever been around again.

Why ban after all this time, would have thought if had been that much of an issue he would have got the heave ages ago as by the sounds of it he was pretty consistent.
+1. I noted the ban and was surprised. After 3.5years here and some 43 reviews I was surprised. I don't reside in his region so the reviews were not of value to me. However I do feel newbies are some times given a hard time and feel we should be more supportive as some established members can be very scathing. I've been subject to this myself. It doesn't worry me TBH as I don't have an ego of having to be right all the time. But if someone writes a review we should be encouraging them, so more will follow suit as this is what this site is about. If Tazman was giving his favourites white Knight support I would like to think he had a warning first- I don't know. I'm always sorry to see long term members banned when they have been good contributors to the site. :unknown: