Today's review of Kristian

[EXPAT]

This review makes no sense to me either. I see Kristian all the time at Numbers and he is absolutely stunning. Something is fishy here. . .

[+ Lucky]

Since I don't often read the reviews, I was glad that you referred me there. That coverboy William Cox is pretty hot.

As for Kristian, well, he wasn't the only one at the Palm Springs party that thought he looked hot. He was getting lots of attention. So we know that the part of the review knocking his looks can't be right. As for the rest, well, I wasn't there, but I have hired Kristian, and he is pretty straightforward about being clean. He also seems to love impressing a new client. I think he gets off on that part especially. So I have to take the review with a grain of salt. When read with the rest of them, this one withers.

[+ ArVaGuy]

Kristian is a Class Act

 

I must give kudos to Kristian for his very professional and sincere response. He made no harsh accuastions about the alleged client but did draw some very pointed distinctions.

 

Potential clients can read the review and the response and draw their own conclusions. I conclude that this "review" may not be legit but that Kristian is a class act.

[Guest MickeyMoosie]

The review is obviously bullshit.

 

I just want to know when Kristian/Diego is going to do porn.

[Epigonos]

I too would like to commend Kristian for his reasoned response to the negative review by Steve10069.

 

I happened to be in Palm Springs that weekend for Lucky’s theatre evening and Oliver’s open house. On both occasions I had the opportunity to speak with and enjoy Kristian’s company. At the open house I also had the extreme pleasure of seeing Kristian in a bathing suit. To say that Kristian has a nice body would be a gross understatement – he has a drop dead gorgeous body. He is somewhat shorter than I had expected but his body is cut to ribbons, he has arms to dies for and his nipples are the kind about which dreams are made. Additionally he was immaculate and beautifully groomed at all times. ENOUGH SAID!!!!!

[Guest dougiefreshsf]

Kristian is the best

 

I have been hiring Kristian since his Texas days and he has always been fantastic. I saw him last August and as other reveiwers have stated - his body is cut, muscled, has the right amount of hair, and his stomach could grate cheese. If anything, the last time I was with him, I was feeling very shy as he looks so beautful now IMHO. I like him better each year as he matures. I can't imagine him in any way behaving as was stated in the review. In fact, I was just thinking of calling him for a trip down to Orange County in April.

[+ newatthis]

yes indeed!

 

Not that Kristian needs any more endorsements in this thread, but ...

 

I, too, met him for the first time at Oliver's party. His stunning good looks caught my eye as soon as I walked in, and he immediately came over and introduced himself. I'm a little slow sometimes (Lucky -- no need to comment ), so I didn't even realize that this was the Kristian until quite a bit later in the afternoon. His body in a bathing suit was every bit as stunning as his looks.

 

What impressed me even more than his good looks was his modest, friendly, and warm personality. The Kristian I met could only be the Kristian of this review if he had had a lobotomy in the interim.

 

Off subject (but Lucky started it): today's reviews are full of the kind of highly professional, highly talented, beautiful escorts this forum is meant to ferret out: Kristian, Will Cox, Romann, Andrew Justice. What a group!

[+ stevenkesslar]

Trust but verify

 

This review makes no sense to me either. I see Kristian all the time at Numbers and he is absolutely stunning. Something is fishy here. . .

 

I'm wondering why the review is even up if this appointment never happened?

 

Right before Hooboy died a client wrote a negative review of me that never saw the light of day. The reason why is that I never saw the client. I did communicate with him, and he insisted that I give him a rate discount, and when I refused to do so and refused to meet with him he insulted me and I called him a jerk, so he wrote a scathing review about how I "was not what I claim to be". Hooboy sent the review to me without proofing it, the night before he planned to post it, and when I responded that I had never even met the client, he bagged the review. The policy, in his words, is that you can't review a restaraunt if you haven't eaten the food. As it happened, this occured right before Hooboy passed away, so the issue sort of got bounced to Daddy and he reinforced Hooboy's decision - no meeting, no review.

 

This may be a different situation, in that the client claims he did meet with Kristian. But it is a first time review, the reviewer apparently has no history on this site, Kristian denies it, and everyone else in creation seems to think its bullshit.

 

I wish I could say I could prove the review is not true, because Kristian and I were fucking like rabbits that night, but alas, I guess that can only happen in my dreams. So far at least. :-) I can corroborate that I was in Florida the night of the infamous Palm Springs pool party and one of my clients called me and told me he had met Kristian, and that he in fact looks incredibly hot in a tight, bulging swimsuit. That may not be a smoking gun, but it is a loaded one.

 

Anyway, since the credibility of this site depends on the credibility of reviews, it seems like maybe this needs some discussion.

[Thumper]

I'm wondering why the review is even up if this appointment never happened?

Anyway, since the credibility of this site depends on the credibility of reviews, it seems like maybe this needs some discussion.

 

I also wonder why Daddy, or anyone, would publish this review. Nothing about it reads as credible.

 

I've never hired Kristian. However, his reviews coupled with his presence here on the message center (not to mention his presence at social situations such as Mickey's and Numbers) have established him as an escort of character. Vincezo, Steve Kesslar, Talvin DM, That Brussels guy, etc. If you hire reasonably often, if you read the reviews and message center both here and at the MER fairly regularly, you know who these escorts are, intuitively. They've been in the business more than 7 years, are consistently reviewed well, are expressive in the message center when they need to be, and regularly honest and accurate reviewers (think Silver Dollar, Think KyTop) who've met and or hired them always describe them as hot, sexy, fun, and considerate.

 

It's not as if I'm unwilling to believe a negative review of any of these guys (in fact, I remember a time here where many posters over a several month stretch (just before he retired for a bit) complained about Kristian being tardy about answering emails and phone calls), it's simply a matter of predicting their likely behavior based on their strong reputations. Good escorts can be flakes; they're just rarely assholes. There's a difference.

 

Having never hired Kiristian I have to assume that if Kristian arrived at my place sweaty from the gym (I should be so lucky) it's much more likely he'd say "Fuck, I didn't have a chance to shower after the gym, wanna join me?" As opposed to "fuck you, deal with it." That just isn't believable.

 

What does one bad review among many good ones matter? Well, often times if I'm in a city and it's midnight and the escort I had lined up flaked and I have to catch an early flight, but I'm not willing to allow the hotel to charge my card for the hole pounded into the mattress by my dick in my sleep, I'll jump on what I still call the Hooboy site. I scan the guys who look hot. If there's a negative review I'll just click on the next one until I find a guy I like who's only received positive reviews. Why be so dismissive? I'm horny and I'm in a hurry.

 

I think one or two negative review in a sea of good ones makes little difference when the potential client is taking time to research his next boy. But when making a decision in a flash, that red flag is nothing less than a detour. NEXT!

 

It's a given that Kristian has established himself as, at the very least, a good guy.

 

For that reason, Daddy owed it to Kristian to make an effort to contact Kristian before publishing an obviously bullshit review. Instead, Daddy chose to throw said shit against the wall just to see what shape it makes. It's a bit shameful.

[Steven_Draker]

For that reason, Daddy owed it to Kristian to make an effort to contact Kristian before publishing an obviously bullshit review.

 

Actually, he did. Each time a negative/not satisfactory review is received Daddy sends a note to the escort in question. That's why the review and its rebuttal are published the same day. If you remember, there was a case in which a credible reviewer has sent a negative review of a high-profile escort who posts here and that review never saw the daylight on this site, but it did on a different review website. Daddy decides what to publish on his website; the reader is ought to make his own opinion about the credibility of what is published and make the distinction between true, false and free advertisement.

[alanalt]

For that reason, Daddy owed it to Kristian to make an effort to contact Kristian before publishing an obviously bullshit review. Instead, Daddy chose to throw said shit against the wall just to see what shape it makes. It's a bit shameful.

 

Uh, the fact that the review and response went up the same day would seem to indicate Daddy did contact Kristian and allowed him to prepare the appropriate response to be placed alongside.

 

Personally, I think Daddy did the right thing here. If someone submits a review, the escort (no matter how respected) should not be able to 'veto' a review on the grounds that the encounter never happened unless he can provide some concrete evidence that he was somewhere/with someone else on that day. Barring such evidence, I think it's entirely appropriate to put both sides of the story up and let people decide for themselves.

 

Now I happen to agree with the consensus here that the review is unlikely and Kristian's response was convincing (which is rare for an escort rebuttal), but the point is that I'm allowed to come to that conclusion for myself rather than Daddy do my thinking for me...

 

Alan

[+ stevenkesslar]

I also wonder why Daddy, or anyone, would publish this review. Nothing about it reads as credible.

 

 

I think one or two negative review in a sea of good ones makes little difference when the potential client is taking time to research his next boy. But when making a decision in a flash, that red flag is nothing less than a detour. NEXT!

 

 

 

 

Good. This is the debate that I hoped I would start.

 

Steve Draker is right - Daddy did what he needed to do, which is give Kristian a chance to respond. So I do not think the fact that it was posted is necessarily unfair.

 

Having said that, it is also true that future clients that scan the reviews could well decide that this particular review is bad enough to just give Kristian a pass. Whether or not it is fair, I would certainly be pissed if someone wrote a bogus review just to raise doubts about me.

 

There is one other precedent that I know of that sort of applies here. Back when I first started getting reviews, I kept telling my friend Bill that he should get on the site, which is to say that he should let clients know that there is a place they can write reviews about him if they choose to. At some point he did that, and sent out an email asking clients to review him if they chose, and Hooboy put a big red flag up because he all of a sudden got all these positive reviews. In most cases, Hooboy was able to verify the reviewers were real (this was in the earlier days, so they were not necessarily people who had been around for years anyway). In at least one case, the review was unverifiable because the reviewer used a temporary email, presumably to protect his anonymity, which is partly why Hooboy felt he had to flag the authenticity of the reviews.

 

At the time, I felt partly responsible, so I wrote Hooboy and asked him to take down the flag, which he did, because the whole point of the site is to let reviewers speak for themselves, and it seemed like if there were a bunch of positive reviews, and he was able to verify most of them, they should stand. The standard that worked, at least in my own words, is that the reviews were authentic "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

In this case, it seems like the opposite. There is, at the very least, a reasonable doubt that the review is authentic. So even if the review does stay, perhaps there should be a flag saying that there are questions about the authenticity of the review. That at least reduces the chance that somebody scanning reviews in the future decides "not worth the risk." If the reviewer is real, and wants to post more reviews and establish his credibility, the flag can be taken down at some future point. If he turns out to be a one-shot wonder, maybe the review itself should be ditched at some point.

 

Mostly escorts have the upper hand in that very few people want to trash us, so most reviews are positive. Having said that, the one thing clients get to be that escorts can't be, at least on this site, is anonymous. We do have to put our reputations on the line, and it seems fair that escorts should be able to count on the fact that we won't be subject to anonymous character attacks or bogus reviews.

 

One of the things I like most about this site is that it is mostly open-ended and collaborative. I just got spanked by Daddy because I set up a signature picture with a cock shot, and he reminded me, appropriately, that his ass is on the line for a big fine if he is found to be in violation of the law. That seems totally appropriate to me, and besides I like it when Daddy spanks me. :-) But on something like this, where there is no federal law, I like the fact that the people who contribute to the site, both escorts and clients, have a say in setting policy.

[Thumper]

Uh, the fact that the review and response went up the same day would seem to indicate Daddy did contact Kristian and allowed him to prepare the appropriate response to be placed alongside.

 

Alan and S.D., you are correct. I misspoke. Obviously K was given the chance to respond, and yes potential clients should be given the opportunity to weigh a legitimate negative review against the escort's response. It's a wonderful feature of this website that escorts are allowed to respond.

 

Less clear to me is what benefit to anyone there is of publishing an obviously bullshit review, under the excuse that the escort is allowed to state the obvious: that the meeting never happened?

 

If SilverDollar, KYTop, etc, had submitted this review, we'd be inclined to scrutinize K's response. Given that it's an anonymous review from someone who clearly has an ax to grind, how does that help anyone?

 

Steve Kesslar's idea of compelling reviewers to build credibility is a godamn good one. (Flag's, however, wether of the reviewer or or the escort, are also a quick-scan detour).

 

All in favor?

[TruthBTold]

Objective in nature

 

Maybe there could be some identifiers posted next to a questionable review that would indicate the objective things that make the review questionable. Like a red circle with a one in it would indicate that this is the only submission by this reviewer. Kinda like smilies but used for another purpose. This sort of thing would go next to reviews whether they are negative or positive so that the identifiers are objective in nature. Just a thought.

[Guest TNT Ted]

Since Daddy’s policy is “no meeting, no review”, and since Kristian was obviously consulted prior to the review being published, it certainly suggests to me that Daddy has reason to believe that the meeting occurred. Is it up to the escort to provide evidence that he was elsewhere at the time, or is it up to Daddy to ascertain the credibility of the reviewer?

[seeker630]

Interestingly, every review posted today was by a first-time reviewer.

 

I'm not sure how you establish credentials unless you hire frequently and you hire the same limited set of escorts who get reviewed by others, so that a consistency gives you credibility. And that's going to be relatively small number of people, I suspect.

 

I admit that I always check the 'Submissions' history (just as I always check the 'about me' description) in deciding how much weight to give a review.) But I think each of us has to decide for ourselves the basis for credence.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Since Daddy’s policy is “no meeting, no review”, and since Kristian was obviously consulted prior to the review being published, it certainly suggests to me that Daddy has reason to believe that the meeting occurred. Is it up to the escort to provide evidence that he was elsewhere at the time, or is it up to Daddy to ascertain the credibility of the reviewer?

 

I am not assuming Daddy has reason to believe anything. In this situation, or some future one, he may not be in a position to prove anything. And part of the problem is you are right that simply by posting the review, it could suggest that Daddy has reason to believe the meeting did occur.

 

This is a pretty rare situation. As far as I can recall, most escorts that get bad reviews don't claim the reviewer never even met them. In a situation like that, I don't know how either side could prove anything, or why Daddy would want to get in the middle of a 3 way like that. (Unless he gets to remove sperm samples from Kristian as evidence).

 

To me, the value of a flag would be that it would be rare. I'm not suggesting Daddy should get in the business of judging the quality of reviews. I seem to recall Hooboy tried that, and it never made much sense to me. But if there is just an outright factual dispute about whether a meeting even happened, and the escort has built a lot of credibility and the reviewer hasn't, I'd get rid of the review. Flagging its authenticity is a middle-of-the-road way of saying that there is at least reason to doubt that any of what is described is true. Everyone reading this thread seems to think that, but in a year when this thread is buried and someone scans Kristian's reviews and this one pops out, they won't know that.

[LurkerSpeaks]

meeting or no meeting?

 

I had to put in my two cents worth.. Do we know for sure that this "supposed" meeting happened the same weekend as Lucky's Palm Springs weekend??? if so, then I dont see how it should remain published because Kristian was in Palm Springs for the weekend (He is a very nice person in person, btw).. and so was Daddy. We were all together on Saturday, and Sunday......

[+ Lucky]

The encounter took place in February, no date specified. Since Daddy himself saw Kristian at the party, he should know that the part about being out of shape didn't hold water. (I'm referring to Kristian being out of shape, not Daddy)

[alanalt]

Less clear to me is what benefit to anyone there is of publishing an obviously bullshit review, under the excuse that the escort is allowed to state the obvious: that the meeting never happened?

 

The benefit is that a potential hirer can read the review and rebuttal for himself and draw his own conclusion. You may think it's a bullshit review and I would agree with you, but that's merely an opinion based on the evidence at hand. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd rather see a questionable review published and be able to draw my own conclusions to its veracity.

 

As for Steven Kessler's suggestion that the review be 'flagged' I can see the use of such a flag when there's additional information to provide (such as when the reviewer and escort's e-mail addresses originate from the same IP ), but in this case, I think Kristian's rebuttal speaks (very well) for itself and serves much the same function - it should make the reader aware that there are 2 sides to this story.

 

Alan

[Guest TNT Ted]

If I were to read the review with no knowledge of Kristian’s reputation, I don’t think there’s anything in it to suggest it’s bogus. And I wouldn’t call it “bullshit” based merely on the review and the rebuttal.

 

Bottom line for me is this: The review was submitted. Daddy contacted Kristian about the review, Kristian stated the meeting never happened, Daddy published the review and the rebuttal. Since it was published, I conclude that Daddy most likely thinks the meeting occurred.

 

Now we definitely have two sides to the story and both are questionable. As Steven Kesslar pointed out, when this thread is buried and forgotten, what will the casual reader think? I think flagging of some sort would be good.

[vabballfan]

I don't buy it

 

I don't think that Daddy indicated that he believes the meeting took place.

 

I have seen Kristian a number of times in the past, dating back to when he visited Premier in Philadelphia his second trip to Philly from Houston. When I called on his first trip to try to book an appointment he was booked up until he was going back to Houston. Every time he traveled to Philly, I booked him with another escort for a three way. He was absolutely stunning and immaculate every time I have seen him and always ready to top or bottom in a session. He's one of the few escorts I have ever been with that made me cum without me or the escort touching my cock - with Kristian I always came just from getting fucked except when we both came when I was topping him. I saw him several times one on one when he was in DC and he was just as spectacular.

 

I just can't believe the review is accurate.

[+ Lucky]

Benefit of the Doubt

 

The argument is that if Daddy believed the meeting didn't happen, he wouldn't have printed the review. By posting it, he is indicating that he believes it did happen, and that Kristian is lying. What other conclusion can be drawn? I cannot accept that Daddy would post a review of an encounter that he didn't believe happened, and I can't believe that Kristian is lying, so where does that leave it? My personal opinion is that Daddy should retract the review and keep it retracted in the absence of more evidence.

[+ newatthis]

non-aristotelian logic

 

The argument is that if Daddy believed the meeting didn't happen, he wouldn't have printed the review. By posting it, he is indicating that he believes it did happen, and that Kristian is lying. What other conclusion can be drawn? ...

 

I don't think strict Aristotelian logic applies here. We can posit that daddy wouldn't have printed the review if he believed it didn't happen. But the contrapositive -- if he posted the review, he believes the meeting did happen -- need not necessarily hold in the real, as opposed to the aristotelian logical, world. For example, he might only be willing to deep six a submitted review in the face of incontrovertible evidence -- not just his "belief" -- that a meeting didn't take place.

 

The problem here, as many others have pointed out, is that the review and its response will be out there long after this thread has been buried, and might harm Kristian or his business. Perhaps there is a way to add a link to this thread above the posted review, or to otherwise indicate that there are serious doubts about its veracity.

[+ Lucky]

Baby Love

 

You sound just like a lawyer. Always wanting to split the baby. If the review is a lie, it should come down. Period.