Today's review of Kristian

[Guy Fawkes]

Spitting out a wad of....

 

I think that all you can say is Daddy received a negative review, he gave the escort a chance to reply, and the escort wrote a wonderful response. Anything else IMHO is mental masturbation.

[Thumper]

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..

 

Hey Lucky, what's wrong with Lawyers!?

 

New: You've followed the logic correctly. But what's important is the implication, not his belief. It's the implication that affects the escort's business.

 

The implication here is that either the escort, Kristian, or the reviewer is lying. I would agree with Lucky that by printing the review it implies that Daddy sides with the reviewer, and that publishing the response merely indicates a willingness to dilute the review's impact.

[Thumper]

I think that all you can say is Daddy received a negative review, he gave the escort a chance to reply, and the escort wrote a wonderful response. Anything else IMHO is mental masturbation.

 

There is a difference b/w a negative review and a review of a meeting that likely never occurred.

 

It's a significant difference that I don't think simply boils down to a he said/she said infinite loop, or a "mental masturbation" dismissive. How to handle it, that's the question.

[Epigonos]

I really don’t understand what the hell is going on regarding this thread. There are, in reality TWO (2) undisputable facts here:

 

Fact 1: Kristian was in Palm Springs on Saturday, February 7th and Sunday, February 8th. How do I know that? I was there and I saw him and I spoke with him. If some choose not to believe me – fine. There were numerous others present who have and still others who might substantiate this fact.

 

Fact 2: Kristian on Saturday, February 7th and Sunday, February 8th looked physically great. How do I know that? I was there and I saw him. If some chose not to believe me – fine. There were numerous others present who have and still others who might substantiate this fact.

 

Now what I don’t understand is why Daddy is silent on these two facts. After all he was there, in Palm Springs, on both Saturday, February 7th and Sunday, February 8th. Whether or not the “supposed meeting” described, in the review, took place AT ALL is a different matter. If the “supposed meeting” took place on a date other than Saturday, February 7th or Sunday, February 8th then Daddy, of course cannot know whether it is fact or fiction. There is, however, not doubt about Fact 1 and Fact 2. Considering the FACT that the reviewer obviously LIED about Kristian's physical apperance might that fact not cause one to question the veracity of the rest of review.

[+ stevenkesslar]

How To Get Away With Murder

 

 

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.

 

 

From a purely intellectual perspective, I totally agree with this statement. Negative reviews and personal attacks spice things up, and many people would take them as opinion anyway. Why ban The National Enquirer from supermarket checkout lanes, when we assume the headlines are mostly bogus anyway? Even if everyone thinks this is bogus, you could also say - just like with the Enquirer - that this is part of the small price escorts pay for being "stars." Congratulations Kristian!

 

Once you get out of your head and into your heart, though, I feel strongly that letting this stand is wrong. I know I have been going off about this. It's personal, so I'll explain why. I happen to know an escort that is not cute, definitely not good looking, has a gap in his teeth, is not good looking, lies about his age, weighs at least 10 pounds more than he says, is not good looking, changes his hair often, and has turned out to be a very destructive person. Actually, it's me. At least that's what somebody wrote about me in the message center last year. From an intellectual perspective I could say, "Who cares? People won't believe it anyway."

 

But before we leave it at that, here's some other things to consider.

 

First, when you're attacked that way, you can attack back, which is really dumb, or you can pretend to be calm and gracious even though you are hurt. While it all may be cool intellectually, its not cool if you're the person twisting in the wind. When the attack involved me, there was no way I could respond without sounding like I was covering up. The saying in politics applies: when you're explaining, you're losing.

 

Second, some people will assume what was said is true. One informed reader already assumed that Daddy "most likely thinks" this reviewer actually met Kristian. Daddy hasn't said anything really, and his post today certainly does not say that he thinks the meeting happened. If I were to assume anything, I would assume only that Daddy is trying to be fair. And that is not an assumption, it is my judgment about Daddy's character based on what happened when I contacted Daddy when I was being attacked last year. As it turned out, Daddy knew a lot about the guy attacking me before I contacted him. So in my case Daddy's silence had nothing to do with what Daddy thought, it had to do with the fact that he really wasn't in a position to do anything until I gave him a reason to. Even then, the "reason" had to be a provable claim, which is the guy violated a very specific message center policy. In this case, writing a negative review of a popular escort does not and should not violate the policies of this site, so it may be that Daddy simply feels he has no choice but to post the review. But future uninformed readers will assume the review may be true.

 

Third, somebody is being harmed. In my case, the guy attacking me first made all kinds of private threats, which resulted in me getting a restraining order from an SF court. Having failed in a court of law, he then waited a while and tried to play with me in the court of public opinion, namely this site, anonymously. I am fortunate that he did not write a bogus negative review (which I worried he would do). Had he done that, what recourse would I have had? A court-sanctioned restraining order? While allowing these kinds of reviews might appear intellectually innocent, I can see all kinds of ways the guilty can use such a policy to make mischief. I don't know that the guy reviewing Kristian is guilty of anything, but it is clear that this review harms Kristian.

 

That leads to my most important point, which is that the basic purpose of this site, to paraphrase the wonderful retired Alex, is to maximize mirth, and minimize mischief. I've known clients who got robbed, drugged, and rolled by escorts they hired off the streets, or off websites that just featured hot pictures. Its obvious the reviews protect clients. What's less obvious but just as true is that the reviews protect escorts too. I have chosen for years to avoid advertising on sites like Rentboy that other escorts have tell me get them far more contacts than this one. I know from the few times I experimented with Rentboy that guys who use this site are just better clients. The standard on this site is reciprocal respect. To me, it has been and should be a safe harbor for a practice that is inherently dangerous for both parties. I can pretty much count on the fact that people who hire me are thoughtful, know what they want, and have a clear idea what I can offer. I may get fucked, but I won't really get fucked, if you know what I mean.

 

To me, allowing a disputed review that was written by an anonymous first-time reviewer which a credible escort denies having met moves that standard closer to the sewer, and undercuts the best thing this site offers for both clients and escorts. Personally, I value the mutual protection and respect more than the freedom to say anything you want. I mostly ignore The National Enquirer, and if this site exposed me to that kind of trash treatment, I'd opt for Rentboy in a flash.

 

History and credibility matter. My drama played out over more than a year, and before I tried to get a restraining order or approached Daddy I waited until I thought a pattern was clear and an intention to harm was pretty obvious. If Kristian is telling the truth, and he has no idea who this reviewer is, he has no recourse to prove anything. He obviously was trying to rebut claims, describing how his gym routine doesn't fit with what the reviewer described. But even if you followed Kristian around the gym (I'll volunteer for that job) it proves nothing. Its like the Kennedy assassination. One well aimed bullet and the harms done. Endless theories, few facts. You can get away with murder, as long as you don't get caught. Fortunately for Kristian, this is just character assassination.

 

If the real priority is defending the freedom of any reviewer to say anything they want, and a disputed review is allowed to see the light of day, I'd flag it until it becomes clearer whether the reviewer is credible. People are assuming Daddy knows something we don't. Maybe that is the value of a flag. Kristian's self-defense really can only sound self-serving. It would add value to know whether Daddy has reason to think its true, or has reason to doubt its true, or simply has no way of knowing. As Lucky pointed out, Daddy is certainly in a position to state that some things in the review are false, like that Kristian's body "looked nothing like the pics". Daddy could state that there is a factual dispute about whether the meeting even occurred, and he can't verify the review is true, but he can verify Kristian looks like his pics. Future readers would know that the jury, just like the escort, was hung.

 

And just so I am very clear, my point is not that Daddy should kill negative reviews or second guess critical things that clients say in those reviews. For example, Silver Dollar reviewed me years ago and said he would not hire me again, because he likes "younger muscle boys" and I am a "older muscle man." Daddy doesn't need to second guess that, partly because I wouldn't have dared to dispute it. It was valuable information. I know plenty of escorts who've had negative reviews. They may have felt stung, but they did not deny that they met the client, or that the client had the right to express his views. But if somebody new named Silver Dildo who I never met wrote a bogus review saying I suck, I'm obese, and I can't speak clear English, I would dispute it. I would want Daddy to remove the review. The fact that this has never happened to me, or most escorts, underscores that we are really talking about a rare situation. No need to buy a red marker, Daddy. There will still be plenty of negative reviews. As Kristian himself says, when escorts fuck up, there should be.

 

I think its fair to put the burden of proof on the reviewer as well. Kristian's reviewer writes that he is "easy going" and "enjoys the company of escorts." Well you sure could have fooled me. If he has the unique ability to penetrate what we must then assume is Kristian's witchcraft and deceit, and notice what we've all been missing, which is that Kristian is a sorry-looking jerk, one can only imagine how hot the escorts he actually "enjoys" the company of must be. Why isn't our easy going guy reviewing some of them as well? Inquiring minds want to know. Or is it okay to just slash, burn, and retreat to whatever part of the cyberrealm he is now hiding in? There are 182 members with handles starting with "S" on the message center, and unless I am missing something, Kristian's reviewer, Steve10069, is not one of them. That's okay, first time reviewers should be welcome, and many will only write reviews if they can do so anonymously. But the fact is escorts like Kristian and me can't hide, we have to live with what people say about us, and I really don't see how it helps build this site or protects any client's or escort's right to the truth to tolerate this kind of hit and run mischief.

 

(Disclaimer: There is one other thing I have to say I just can't stand. I am incredibly jealous that Kristian was born with a cock way bigger and prettier than mine. And I looked at his pictures, and the fucker really is stunningly handsome. This proves that life is truly unfair! Personally, I think he deserves to suffer.)

[Guest TNT Ted]

I’m sorry but it is not obvious to me that the reviewer lied. What he said was that Kristian’s “body looked nothing like the pics”. [A lot of reviewers say that – except it’s usually more like “he looks far better in person”.] That’s totally subjective, IMO, and the sort of statement that is often and easily said with exaggeration. Further, the reviewer mentioned something about “photoshopped pics”, so maybe he was expecting, but didn’t find, say, flawless skin – or whatever.

 

Just to set the record straight, I personally don’t believe the meeting occurred, and certainly not the way the reviewer has stated. But my belief is based largely on the discussion in this thread, all of which won’t mean a thing to someone reading the review in months to come.

 

And a final note to Steven: If you think you’ve been dealt an unfair hand in the looks department --- my god, do you realize how way shortchanged the rest of us might feel? [insert emoticon here, except I haven't figured out the way to place it where I want it.]

[+ Lucky]

Love/Respect/You're Wrong!!!!

 

With all love and respect, Epigonos, the Palm Springs event was held in February, not March. You have the numbers correct, just not the month. Don't worry, I'm having that kind of day too!

 

And with all love and respect to you too, Daddy, I think your reply is beneath you. You of all people should be willing to first protect the integrity of your reviews.

[Epigonos]

Oh hell Lucky you are absolutely correct. How time flys when one is having fun. The new feature on this site that allows one to continue editing posts is fantastic, especially for people like me. I need all the help I can get. Sincerely Thanks Lucky, I appreciate the heads up.

[+ Lucky]

Oh hell Lucky you are absolutely correct.

 

Next???

[Guy Fawkes]

It is Mental Masterbation...

 

It is Mental Masturbation!

 

It was a judgment call, I made it and the review has been posted along with the response from Kristian. It's a done deal and it ain't gonna be overturned because you hold your breath and jump up and down.

 

Can you imagine the embarrassment that you guys are causing Kristian? He did good, and you are all ignoring that to be vindictive twits. You got far more useful information from Kristian's response than you did from the reviewer. Kristian handled a hell of a lot better than you guys have.

What do you want me to do, get a big red stamp that says: "Liar!".

[+ stevenkesslar]

 

And a final note to Steven: If you think you’ve been dealt an unfair hand in the looks department --- my god, do you realize how way shortchanged the rest of us might feel?

 

 

Absolutely! I think we should all get together and have a pity party. I'll bring the lube.

 

[+ Lucky]

We want you to do what is right. Obviously one person is lying. Since this is an escort review site, you get the big bucks to decide the credibility of reviews before you post them. To castigate those of us who believe Kristian is not furthering anyone's interests, including yours. If he is lying, then he takes the lumps for it. The rest of us move on. If the reviewer is lying, the website loses credibility. We all suffer in some way because we use and value the reviews.

 

Having butted heads with you before, I know this is the end of the line on this subject. But I don't have to like it, no matter how many colors you've got.

[+ stevenkesslar]

 

Can you imagine the embarrassment that you guys are causing Kristian? He did good, and you are all ignoring that to be vindictive twits.

 

 

I'll bring cocktails too! Sounds like we should all take a deep breath and calm down.

 

Before I weighed in on this, I considered three people I would potentially embarrass: 1) Kristian, if it turned out he was lying, 2) Daddy, if it turned out he knew something he did not want to be forced to disclose, and 3) me, if I ended up defending a liar who I don't even know.

 

As far as I am concerned, the verdict is in, and we've all done good: 1) Kristian's response was great, and hopefully people who don't read this thread and scan his reviews in the future will believe it, 2) Daddy clearly was not holding back information, he was simply trying to be fair, which in his mind means not holding back information, and 3) me and I think everyone else who has posted, including Daddy, appear to believe Kristian, and have stuck up for him, so I don't see whats embarrassing about that. When I was being roughed up on the message center I appreciated the people who stuck up for me, including Daddy.

 

There is only one person who should be embarrassed, but I have no idea who that really is. Maybe we'll actually hear from him again at some point, or maybe he'll be like bin Laden and hide in a cave for the rest of eternity. If so,

 

GOOD RIDDANCE!

[+ Charlie]

For the record, I do not believe the appointment ever took place. Would it be that difficult to simply add a comment to the beginning or end of the review (or Kristian's reply) saying that several reputable reviewers on the site have expressed that opinion?

[Thumper]

It's a done deal and it ain't gonna be overturned because you hold your breath and jump up and down

 

Disagreeing with you is not the same as pouting. Suggesting such comes off as unnecessarily defensive. Being the boss does not entitle one to be bossy.

 

Few if any posters are asking for it to be overturned, just for assistance in weight and balancing this and future reviews if submitting a response is the only recourse to false reviews and little effort is made to "mark" suspicious ones.

[Traveler North]

Right on Steven. I have seen Kristain in the past and he is quite a "package." But I will never get tired of spending time with you, my friend.

[Guy Fawkes]

And if you don't like the answer...

 

Pouting has nothing to do with it. The point is that the call has already been done and with Kristian's response it's history. Bossy also doesn't have anything to do with it, there is only one person that makes the call.

 

I don't need to be second guessed of why I choose to put a review up or not. What pisses me off is the several people that attempted to put words in my mouth.

 

Reviews are completely subjective, and there is no magic crystal ball that allows me to see if the encounter was real or not. The only thing that I can do is follow my normal process and if the reviewer and the review pass the checks put the review out.

 

Anything else is doing a disservice to the both the Escort and the Clientele of the Site. I refuse to play favorites even in this case where I've known and respected Kristian for many years.

[+ deej]

Would it be that difficult to simply add a comment to the beginning or end of the review (or Kristian's reply) saying that several reputable reviewers on the site have expressed that opinion?

 

With all those oodles of glowing reviews isn't this already in place and in voices that FAR outweigh Daddy's?

 

Reviewers make their voices heard in the reviews. Not in the coffee klatch here.

[orbital sander]

The thread

 

Reading this thread helps me to better understand why the forum has been shut down in the past. How long can we beat a dead horse here? This thread turns my stomach, and so I can only imagine how it affects the administrators.

[+ stevenkesslar]

The verdict is in

 

 

Bossy also doesn't have anything to do with it, there is only one person that makes the call.

 

I don't need to be second guessed of why I choose to put a review up or not. The only thing that I can do is follow my normal process and if the reviewer and the review pass the checks put the review out.

 

 

 

Sorry, Daddy. I'll take the blame for that, and it was truly based on ignorance.

 

I was the one to explicitly call for discussion about why a review that nobody thinks is true is posted, and it was because I thought the site was collaborative.

 

It is fair to have a system in which you have a judge, but no jury, and in which alleged crimes are part of your record, whether or not you actually committed them. As I said repeatedly, you are a fair-minded judge, and I appreciate that.

 

I'm bending over. You may spank me if you wish.

 

And I promise to be quiet now. :o

[+ Lucky]

"I'm bending over. You may spank me if you wish."

 

One could characterize what you are doing differently.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

Fwiw...

 

I would have made the same call over at MER As Daddy did here.

 

I assume Daddy had no factual evidence to indicate the review was bogus, thus no reason to deny the review. Daddy was not at the egagement, thus he can never know what happened or even if it happened. The posting of a review does not mean the admin believes the engagement happened. It means he has no factual basis to believe it did not happen.

 

The reviewer had is say and the escort got the last word with the response. That is the way it is suppose to work. The reader is presented with the case and has access to previous reviews of the escort and by the reviewer. These all go in to weighing the reviewer veracity and the escort reputation and the present review. This is the responsibility of the reader not the admin.

 

This seems to be working as it is supposed to based on the messages in this thread. Most seem to give veracity to Kristian over the client based on the review content, the escort response, on past reviews, and on reviewer history. Kristian took the advantage of this opportunity to put himself out there a very beneficial way that served to enhance is reputation.

 

It is not the Admin's place to susbstitute his judgment for the readers unless there is some objective factual basis to call a review into question. In some cases such evidence is present. I am unaware of any based on this thread and the review. Opinions of the Admin's or of others are insufficient basis.

 

If you guys really want the admin to decide, based on his opinion, who gets reviewed and who doesn't and who gets negative reviews and who doesn't then you stradle a slippery slope. Over the long haul, such judgments tend to look like favortism to some. How will you ever know you got the straight skinny' if you cede that judgment to your admin. You will never know because you never got to see what was filtered out to suit his opinion. Why would you guys want us to do that for you?

 

P.S. Nice job with the new forum, Daddy.

[TruthBTold]

If Daddy doesn't want to do it

 

Sorry, Daddy. I'll take the blame for that, and it was truly based on ignorance.

 

I was the one to explicitly call for discussion about why a review that nobody thinks is true is posted, and it was because I thought the site was collaborative.

 

It is fair to have a system in which you have a judge, but no jury, and in which alleged crimes are part of your record, whether or not you actually committed them. As I said repeatedly, you are a fair-minded judge, and I appreciate that.

 

I'm bending over. You may spank me if you wish.

 

And I promise to be quiet now. :o

 

 

If Daddy doesn't want to do it, please let me!!!