Inside Connection with Providers Here

[FaustOust]

I am still relatively new here so I hope I can ask the questions from an outsiders perspective, which may seem obvious to others.

I wondered why there are providers who participate very heavily on this site, yet they are not reviewed here? And many who rarely participate are reviewed. Are certain people here are off limits?  It makes me  question whether there is a collaboration between COM and certain providers or whether the site is actually governed by providers who frequent the forums?  It seems there are some who are “in” and therefore immune from criticism, and those who are “not in” who are fair game.  

Would anyone here feel comfortable sharing a bad experience on this site with one of the frequently contributing providers without backlash?

[Trick]

You probably just haven’t browsed the topics enough to see the reviews of providers who are also members.

I have reviewed Mike Gaite and Tristan Baldwin who are both members here.

[big-n-tall]

There was an actual review (Daddy’s Reviews) site affiliated to this forum that many of the providers who have participated on this forum long term have a plethora of reviews. I think the old review site can still be accessed.

The current owners of this site have been working on a successor to that site.

People don’t know or seem to forget detailed reviews on the forum were pretty much forbidden. Then when Daddy died and the review site became derelict the new owners allowed for a little bit more detail… at least until the new review site is fully functional.

To be fair, popular providers are sometimes reviewed negatively on this site. I have been on this site long enough to read the blow ups associated with those reviews. Some of them were a fair assessment of the experience that some took issue with because they didn’t have the same experience. Some of them were attacks by the reviewer because the experience didn’t go as planned, not necessarily because of fault by the provider. And yet still reviewers have come on this site attacking a provider they never met. There are even instances of providers signing on just to attack or dispute a review.. never to be heard from again. All of which still happens now but to a lesser degree.

I don’t think this site is in cahoots with providers to protect a particular provider. The number of providers who participated is far smaller than it was in the past sadly because the forums don’t always benefit them. Many left or rarely participate because of the vitriol some spew on this forum. Even the popular ones who remain active have had negative feedback/comments/discussions about them publicly and privately. No slight against the OP but you just haven’t been around long enough to see/know the history of the site and all that entails.

Edited June 24, 2024 by big-n-tall

[Simon Suraci]

I’m sure it will be much easier and more popular to view info on providers, including those active on the site, once the review features go live. You will have to ask the site developer for status. Posting relevant links below:

Until the review features go live, anyone interested in me can find more about me on CoM including one linked review here:

We’re not in cahoots with the site. If anything, us being here holds clients accountable because we can correct misinformation and clarify the facts. It’s easy to write a trite, nasty, anonymous review right after having an appointment or interaction that didn’t go as you wanted it to go (for whatever reasons). It’s more difficult to justify your behavior when a provider clarifies the facts and puts what you say into context.

We’re human too. We won’t be perfect with every client or every time. Being here is an opportunity to own up to our shortcomings and publicly make things right, which inspires trust.

Personally I view my involvement here as part fun, and part marketing. I receive quite a lot of business directly or indirectly due to my being active here.

A professional in another field might attend a conference, write an article in a journal, or go to a cocktail party with industry insiders as some different ways to approach business development. This site is some version of the same type of thing, but for our field.

[Thelatin]

Reviews are funny things.  I recently spent time with a provider that has been complained about quite a bit on here.  Doesn’t return messages, blocks, is a jerk etc.  

I took the plunge and had a great evening.  

More than reviews I look at how long have they been around.  Do they have a Twitter feed that is used regularly, a WhatsApp etc.

[+ keroscenefire]

I personally have only had good experiences with him, but multiple people have gone after @Jarrod_Uncut on here even though he is an active participant in discussions, sharing his (sometimes controversial) opinions as an escort. I really don't see any kind of censorship or behind-the-scenes deals or anything like that from CoM. If anything, I think they try to really be fair and have a lot of integrity. I am talking about the forums of course as there isn't really a "review site" yet. I have put up a couple of profiles of a few guys but I wasn't allowed to do reviews when I did unless something has changed. 

 

 

[soloyo215]

6 hours ago, FaustOust said:

I am still relatively new here so I hope I can ask the questions from an outsiders perspective, which may seem obvious to others.

I wondered why there are providers who participate very heavily on this site, yet they are not reviewed here? And many who rarely participate are reviewed. Are certain people here are off limits?  It makes me  question whether there is a collaboration between COM and certain providers or whether the site is actually governed by providers who frequent the forums?  It seems there are some who are “in” and therefore immune from criticism, and those who are “not in” who are fair game.  

Would anyone here feel comfortable sharing a bad experience on this site with one of the frequently contributing providers without backlash?

Only very recently was when reviewing providers is allowed in this forum. This forum was not expected to be used for reviewing providers. That's a major reason why there are not that many reviews.

So no, I do not believe that there's some type of favoritism or influence of any kind towards benefiting or hindering any specific providers.

[buckguy]

Members here, whether clients or providers, have come and gone. Some stay for a long time, some come and go. Some providers who are members have been sharp in their responses to criticisms, others not so much. The most vociferous responses to criticism often comes from “fanboys”, whether providers ask them to do it or they do it on their own, that’s often a pattern. Some of the providers here seem to enjoy the community, others, usually short-timers mostly are building their brand. There are now more social media venues for that, so we seem to have fewer short time provider participants.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

10 hours ago, FaustOust said:

I am still relatively new here so I hope I can ask the questions from an outsiders perspective, which may seem obvious to others.

I wondered why there are providers who participate very heavily on this site, yet they are not reviewed here? And many who rarely participate are reviewed. Are certain people here are off limits?  It makes me  question whether there is a collaboration between COM and certain providers or whether the site is actually governed by providers who frequent the forums?  It seems there are some who are “in” and therefore immune from criticism, and those who are “not in” who are fair game.  

Would anyone here feel comfortable sharing a bad experience on this site with one of the frequently contributing providers without backlash?

Yeah, this was definitely a normal, run-of-the-mill, casual post that wasn't intended on stirring any pot.

There are those of us who have been on these boards for decades, having amassed 100+ 5-star reviews in previous site incarnations.

We are the escorts who have great reputations that precede them.  Known, viable, solid providers.

Some of us are at a point where we feel we can post here freely- sharing honest opinions and viewpoints- without the need to pollyanna on a constant basis.

I've earned that right, quite frankly.

This current admin would be, what I would consider, the exact opposite of playing favorites.  We all get our hand slapped when we deserve it.

Edited June 25, 2024 by BenjaminNicholas

[+ APPLE1]

I have hired a few of the providers who participate fairly actively on here.

The main reason I haven't reviewed them here is because they've already had very positive reviews overall, and I had nothing significant to add.

The second reason I didn't review them was the DM's I get about reviews I have done. Some of the questions I get about providers are very specific already. Personally, I don't want to get into a deep back and forth with a member here, about another provider/member, i.e. how could you hire someone who says X, or treats clients like Y, or said Z to YOU, etc.

The third reason is because I believe the ability to strongly disagree on 1 topic, and then move on fresh, is a rare skill. I don't want opposing views to potentially taint repeat meetings.

Edited June 25, 2024 by APPLE1
#3

[rvwnsd]

Speaking as a 20+ year member of this site and its predecessors, the providers who routinely participate in the site are generally those who deliver high-quality experiences to their clients. Unless a provider enjoys being excoriated, it would make zero sense for a provider who delivers bad experiences to participate in this forum. Over the years we have had providers who expressed unpopular opinions freely and frequently. In fact, we still do. Also, as others have pointed out, "reviews" have not been permitted in the public forum. When the companion review site went dark in the advent of the previous owner's death, the rules around reviews were relaxed to allow members to share more details than they had in the past. Old habits die hard, and our members tend to avoid sharing details so as not to run afoul of the rules. 

All this being said, on a routine and regular basis members share unsatisfactory experiences in threads about well-reviewed/well-regarded providers. However, well-reviewed providers are well-reviewed for a reason: they provide good experiences to their clients. Also, members communicate via direct message, which helps them avoid hiring providers who are not a match. I've lost count of the times a member's message endorsing a provider made me realize the provider was not a match for me. Bad experience avoided.  

UPDATE: I forgot to mention the non-member providers who receive bad feedback, join, and make comments about the members in general and those who commented about them. That usually does not end well for them. Their response essentially validates the negative feedback. They have a habit of learning their lesson and not returning.

[FaustOust]

1 hour ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

Yeah, this was definitely a normal, run-of-the-mill, casual post that wasn't intended on stirring any pot.

There are those of us who have been on these boards for decades, having amassed 100+ 5-star reviews in previous site incarnations.

We are the escorts who have great reputations that precede them.  Known, viable, solid providers.

Some of us are at a point where we feel we can post here freely- sharing honest opinions and viewpoints- without the need to pollyanna on a constant basis.

I've earned that right, quite frankly.

This current admin would be, what I would consider, the exact opposite of playing favorites.  We all get our hand slapped when we deserve it.

I don’t think you are able to speak to my intentions, @BenjaminNicholas. All you have is what I wrote.  No ulterior motive here, but simply a question based upon an observation, right or wrong.  I’m sorry if you were offended by my post or the suggestion that certain providers do not appear to be readily reviewed or criticized.  But even if you feel  that your reputation entitles you to it, or you have somehow earned a right not to be “pollyanna on a constant basis,” you will never be entitled to or earn the right to bully me. I simply shared an honest question that it appears you did not even want to have been raised.

[+ newatthis]

17 hours ago, Simon Suraci said:

Personally I view my involvement here as part fun, and part marketing

I've always felt that providers like you, who are actively and substantively involved in this site, are marketing...and it works! -- at least for those like you whose comments are tempered, informative, and interesting.  My problem is that those providers almost always live far from me and all I can do is note them for future reference if our paths cross.  (There are also occasional providers whose participation here has made me note them as people to be avoided.)

[Simon Suraci]

28 minutes ago, newatthis said:

My problem is that those providers almost always live far from me and all I can do is note them for future reference if our paths cross.

Yes, geography unfortunately limits who can see whom. I keep running lists of clients in different cities, both regular and prospective. I have quite a few interested CoM members in the NYC area, for example, even though I’ve yet to make a work trip there yet. My prospective client list in NYC influences me to travel there in the future. Same for other places.

I encourage clients to reach out privately to providers they like. You never know when they will be near your area. Having enough interest in a given area brings us to places we might not otherwise visit. I’ve been to cities because a CoM member wanted to see me there and now I have regular contacts in those cities that keep bringing me back.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

8 hours ago, FaustOust said:

I don’t think you are able to speak to my intentions, @BenjaminNicholas. All you have is what I wrote.  No ulterior motive here, but simply a question based upon an observation, right or wrong.  I’m sorry if you were offended by my post or the suggestion that certain providers do not appear to be readily reviewed or criticized.  But even if you feel  that your reputation entitles you to it, or you have somehow earned a right not to be “pollyanna on a constant basis,” you will never be entitled to or earn the right to bully me. I simply shared an honest question that it appears you did not even want to have been raised.

There it is:  I was waiting for the Norma Rae moment.

I wasn't offended.  Never even insinuated I was.

Bully you?  C'mon.  Be real.  If my reply to you was what you consider 'bullying,' you might want to reconsider internet message board altogether.

You raised a question knowing full-well what the response would be.

Don't play dumb because this board has seen it all before...  And frankly, seen it done much better.

Edited June 25, 2024 by BenjaminNicholas

[maninsoma]

37 minutes ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

There it is:  I was waiting for the Norma Rae moment.

I wasn't offended.  Never even insinuated I was.

Bully you?  C'mon.  Be real.  If my reply to you was what you consider 'bullying,' you might want to reconsider internet message board altogether.

You raised a question knowing full-well what the response would be.

Don't play dumb because this board has seen it all before...  And frankly, seen it done much better.

I think the truth is in the middle.  No, you didn't bully FaustOust, but I think you may be off base in your criticism.  He's only been a member of the site since May 22, so it's entirely possible that his original post was not knowingly pot-stirring but genuinely naive.  Unless you have good reason to believe that FaustOust has actually been around a lot longer under a different name (which I know has happened with some forum members), I think that taking his questions at face value is the right thing to do. 

[Cooper]

Administrator’s Message

Gentlemen,

The replies are starting to move off topic and become more personal. Please! Stay on topic and avoid the personal attacks. 

Remember:  Attack the issue not the person. Also, if you’d like to chat with a moderator you can do so in the Ask A Moderator Forum. It’s a private conversation between you & the moderators. 

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

35 minutes ago, maninsoma said:

I think the truth is in the middle.  No, you didn't bully FaustOust, but I think you may be off base in your criticism.  He's only been a member of the site since May 22, so it's entirely possible that his original post was not knowingly pot-stirring but genuinely naive.  Unless you have good reason to believe that FaustOust has actually been around a lot longer under a different name (which I know has happened with some forum members), I think that taking his questions at face value is the right thing to do. 

I'm definitely willing to admit being wrong about someone and their objectives.

I don't have any opinion on whether this poster has been here before or not.  It wasn't really what I was concerned about.

I'll take your advice and just sit back on this one.

[FaustOust]

1 hour ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

There it is:  I was waiting for the Norma Rae moment.

I wasn't offended.  Never even insinuated I was.

Bully you?  C'mon.  Be real.  If my reply to you was what you consider 'bullying,' you might want to reconsider internet message board altogether.

You raised a question knowing full-well what the response would be.

Don't play dumb because this board has seen it all before...  And frankly, seen it done much better.

 

26 minutes ago, maninsoma said:

I think the truth is in the middle.  No, you didn't bully FaustOust, but I think you may be off base in your criticism.  He's only been a member of the site since May 22, so it's entirely possible that his original post was not knowingly pot-stirring but genuinely naive.  Unless you have good reason to believe that FaustOust has actually been around a lot longer under a different name (which I know has happened with some forum members), I think that taking his questions at face value is the right thing to do. 

My question was simply my question.  It seems to have stirred only one person’s pot.  The other responses were supportive and non-accusatory, and  it is only @BenjaminNicholas who suggests that I reconsider the internet forum altogether. I am indeed new here, and have never been a member of this forum under another name.  I appreciate @maninsomapointing that out.  He took the opportunity to be kind.  

I do find the tone of  @BenjaminNicholas ‘s response to my inquiry unintentionally informative on the substance of my question. While there may not be a collaboration regarding providers and CoM regarding critical content, there is at least one provider/member who has the need to rule the roost on the matter.

And to demonstrate that there is no guile here, I will reconsider whether I post in these forums in the future.

[+ KensingtonHomo]

I have never seen any favoritism toward providers who regularly post here. In fact, I'd say the moderators are laxer with client members and what they say about providers specifically and in general than I would allow. I've also had disagreements with @BenjaminNicholas and he can be direct - as can I - but I do not see any evidence of an attempt to bully anyone. 

[+ KensingtonHomo]

1 hour ago, FaustOust said:

My question was simply my question.  It seems to have stirred only one person’s pot.  The other responses were supportive and non-accusatory, and  it is only @BenjaminNicholas who suggests that I reconsider the internet forum altogether. I am indeed new here, and have never been a member of this forum under another name.  I appreciate @maninsomapointing that out.  He took the opportunity to be kind.  

I do find the tone of  @BenjaminNicholas ‘s response to my inquiry unintentionally informative on the substance of my question. While there may not be a collaboration regarding providers and CoM regarding critical content, there is at least one provider/member who has the need to rule the roost on the matter.

Your question was provocative. You asked if there was untoward collaboration between providers and the operators of this site. Now you're engaged in "cry bullying", where a simple direct response by a long-time and well-regarded provider is your proof that something untoward is afoot. 

Personally, I do not find your questions or responses to be in good faith. 

[SouthOfTheBorder]

 

14 hours ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

Some of us are at a point where we feel we can post here freely- sharing honest opinions and viewpoints- without the need to pollyanna on a constant basis.

I've earned that right, quite frankly.

so providers (or clients) who are new to the business or new to this board haven’t “earned the right” ?  

who determines who has earned the right ?  Presumably, that’s you 

got it 

[Trick]

46 minutes ago, KensingtonHomo said:

Your question was provocative. You asked if there was untoward collaboration between providers and the operators of this site. Now you're engaged in "cry bullying", where a simple direct response by a long-time and well-regarded provider is your proof that something untoward is afoot. 

Personally, I do not find your questions or responses to be in good faith. 

I was the first to comment on this topic.  I bit my tongue, so to speak, to not be too defensive of the site. TBH, I sensed an allegation of conspiracy but I gave the newbie OP the benefit of the doubt.

Now after reading the thread, I can sense something going on.

This reminds me of another newbie who recently posted some provocative topics and got easily triggered by the replies.

[Lohengrin1979]

3 hours ago, FaustOust said:

 

My question was simply my question.  It seems to have stirred only one person’s pot.  The other responses were supportive and non-accusatory, and  it is only @BenjaminNicholas who suggests that I reconsider the internet forum altogether. I am indeed new here, and have never been a member of this forum under another name.  I appreciate @maninsomapointing that out.  He took the opportunity to be kind.  

I do find the tone of  @BenjaminNicholas ‘s response to my inquiry unintentionally informative on the substance of my question. While there may not be a collaboration regarding providers and CoM regarding critical content, there is at least one provider/member who has the need to rule the roost on the matter.

And to demonstrate that there is no guile here, I will reconsider whether I post in these forums in the future.

You’re being disingenuous at best, and calculating at worst. You’re obviously not a stranger to message boards based on your posting style, so I’m hard pressed to think you didn’t have an inkling of how a post like this would be received. Also, I don’t think you’ve ever stated what the point of knowing/not knowing that some conspiracy of collaboration exists. You’re letting other members fill in their own blanks while you watch the feeding frenzy.  I’m inclined to believe that this leans toward calculating.

[+ JamesB]

This thread is getting locked in 3, 2, 1……. LOL!!