Encounter Activities: See ROS

[ManSlut]

In my opinion, Encounter Reviews with ‘See ROS’ listed under ‘Activities’ should not get Premium Access credit.

Your thoughts?

[BasicGuy]

Disagree. It lets someone know things happened and if they have premium access they can see. So a random person who happens across this site or that post with a google search doesn’t see details.

Just helps keep private private. In the AMP section, most will post FBSM+, see ROS. So you know there was more, but not L3, BBFSCIP, TuMA, etc….

I switched to that and it helps others and offers some privacy.

[TinMan]

Staff has determined that it is at least if not more important to have that information in the ROS. I have had one review not receive PA credit because I was a little light on description activities in the Activities section (I did the L1, L2, L3 thing). I didn’t got into any further detail in ROS, either, and the mod specifically cited that lack of detail in the ROS as the reason I was declined.

[TinMan]

BTW, although I have not seen staff come out and state this, it appears ownership’s implied response to complaints about the lack of detail in the Activities section is, become a contributor either by posting reviews or paying for PA access and you will be able to see the details on the ROS.

That strategy works on me since I have run out of PA from time to time and posting new reviews to regain PA has become a priority for me again.

One final comment (for now): the reason you are seeing more “see ROS” now, particularly in the AMP and Studio sections is a result of increased LE activity directed at those organizations. There is some anecdotal evidence that community complaints have hastened action in certain circumstances, so an increasing number of folks are trying to limit the ability of “civilians” to 1) find the reviews when they google names addresses and phone numbers, and 2) limit what those folks see when they do click the links and see the reviews.

Whether or not that strategy has any real impact is certainly deserving of challenge, but allowing reviewers to take some precautionary measures with their reviews without making them completely useless is a decent compromise between the two positions.

[Anthonylewis50]

I disagree as well. In this environment the more security the better.

[RomanR]

Originally Posted by ManSlut

In my opinion, Encounter Reviews with ‘See ROS’ listed under ‘Activities’ should not get Premium Access credit.

Your thoughts?

Agreed. Also if they spell out the contact number. Post the god damn number

[TexTushHog]

I’m fine with it the way it is.

[RickyG2002]

Disagree to an extent. If they put See ROS and then they are lite or not really anything there, then yes.. deny it.. but if they put a good detailed experience in the ROS.. then ok. If you want to see it, get Premium access. Contribute to the site.

[TinMan]

Originally Posted by RickyG2002

Disagree to an extent. If they put See ROS and then they are lite or not really anything there, then yes.. deny it.. but if they put a good detailed experience in the ROS.. then ok. If you want to see it, get Premium access. Contribute to the site.

That is how staff is currently approaching PA credit, at least in my experience.

[ManSlut]

So what if someone just wrote ‘See ROS’ for everything on the template, but answered everything in the actual ROS?

My opinion is if it is on the open part of the template, every line should be answered accordingly. The only part that made it an illegal offense was removed years ago - the listing of a fee paid.

I also feel it benefits a provider to dispute a Fake Review (and invites dudes to write Fake Reviews) if she sees an Activity listed that she doesn’t provide. ‘Information Exchange’ (part of the IE in ECCIE) isn’t just for the consumers here, a degree is for the providers.

…drops mic

[643_DP]

Originally Posted by ManSlut

So what if someone just wrote ‘See ROS’ for everything on the template, but answered everything in the actual ROS?

My opinion is if it is on the open part of the template, every line should be answered accordingly. The only part that made it an illegal offense was removed years ago - the listing of a fee paid.

I also feel it benefits a provider to dispute a Fake Review (and invites dudes to write Fake Reviews) if she sees an Activity listed that she doesn’t provide. ‘Information Exchange’ (part of the IE in ECCIE) isn’t just for the consumers here, a degree is for the providers.

…drops mic

You have stated your opinion, and the Mods and others view it differently..

You may not like the system, but it’s currently being used this way for help with security and privacy of the chick… some of these chicks are using # linked directly to them and not a biz phone.. image pulling up one of them and you see bbfs cip etc.. keeping info like that private is the best for all parties involved, and current “leadership” views it the same way…

If it’s an issue, no one is stopping someone from coming off the sides lines to post a review.. I personally view it as I would rather assist individuals with PA who are also helping others over people who don’t do reviews.. one is helping the group, the other is looking for free info without helping others.

[purplepatch]

If law enforcement wants premium access they'll either pay for it or, more likely, write fake reviews to gain good standing in the community.