Stella22

Why Do Reviews Have To Be Separate From The Soho Thread?

32 posts in this topic

I don't know the ins and outs of this forum or the origins of how the rules came to be and why. There are posters who are better placed to kickstart this thread and I hope they take the time out to make the valid points that they are able to articulate.

As a long time lurker and an infrequent poster I think the enduring popularity of the soho thread stems from the one-man field reports made by punters of new and existing soho women.

With that in mind I want to ask the mods (or whoever can answer) a few questions:

1. What is the purpose of the Soho walk up thread?

2. Are field reports on soho WGs incompatible with the rules as they are and the nature of walk ups?

3. Could the rules be adapted for walk ups, and if not why?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1, Same as other topics.

 

2, No, The review section is not part of the forum, its run by Galahad and he is the only person with input,

 

3, Walk ups or any other provider needs contact details, without them it become difficult on many levels, just one being identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Which is?

2. By answering Q.3 the way you did it mean that they are incompatible because walk ups by their very nature don't issue phone numbers for specific girls.

3. Can you expand on this please? No one on the soho thread has any problems identifying a particular WG without contact details. Name, walk up, and rota is all that's needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, which is same as other topics

 

2, If you want to review any soho lady, ask them for their contact number, if they don't have one then explain why they should get one, perhaps they prefer to be off grid.

 

3, why, what do you not understand? Punternet reviews are the most trusted for good reason hence the need for contact details, the very minimum is a phone number, any WG can afford a tenner phone.

 

Reviews are not part of the Punternet forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Thanks for the clarification

2. Again this doesn't take in to account the uniqueness of walk ups or address the fact thaf WGs are easily identifiable without the need for contact details. They may prefer to be off the grid in terms of being readily available to contact but that doesn't mean they don't want to be recommended to other punters

3. You said without contact details "it becomes difficult on so many levels", which suggests you could provide some insight into how the rules came to be and why. Trusted reviews are part and parcel of the reason the Soho thread has endured for so long. Punters go out of their way to provide accurate information and the most trusted punters tend to be the ones who post field reports, rather than contact details. In fact they would probably be trusted the least were they to post a WG's phone number online.

And to your last sentence, and to rephrase the title of the thread, why can't reviews be part of the Punternet forum?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Thanks for the clarification

2. Again this doesn't take in to account the uniqueness of walk ups or address the fact thaf WGs are easily identifiable without the need for contact details. They may prefer to be off the grid in terms of being readily available to contact but that doesn't mean they don't want to be recommended to other punters

3. You said without contact details "it becomes difficult on so many levels", which suggests you could provide some insight into how the rules came to be and why. Trusted reviews are part and parcel of the reason the Soho thread has endured for so long. Punters go out of their way to provide accurate information and the most trusted punters tend to be the ones who post field reports, rather than contact details. In fact they would probably be trusted the least were they to post a WG's phone number online.

And to your last sentence, and to rephrase the title of the thread, why can't reviews be part of the Punternet forum?

 

If reviews were allowed on the main forum they would be far harder to moderate and be much more open to abuse: specifically touting and excessive cheerleading. Moderators don't have the time to read every post and depend on members' reports to alert them to dubious content. The fact that all reviews are read by one person and are subject to specific rules (eg relating to the frequency with which a wg is reviewed) means that the review section is far more likely to be objective and reliable than if it were absorbed within the main forum.

 

As it stands, I would recommend that if members wish to pass on information in the walk-up thread, they need to be informative, objective and to the point to stay within the current rules.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, thank you for giving me reasons for why the rules are in place.

Secondly, reviews were allowed (or tolerated) in the soho thread for a time until Tuesday and no touting occurred as far as I'm aware. Excessive cheerleading does happen but that tends to relate to how popular they are in general.

Granted, opening reviews to the whole forum would be difficult to regulate and I wasn't suggesting that in my initial query. But there's clearly a significant void being caused by the rules as they are which makes walk ups impossible to review.

Lastly, how can any review be objective? It's a personal experience based on opinion and perception. An objective review would be purely factual i.e hair colour, body type, sex positions etc with no room for opinion - which is the very essence of a review. Since everyone has different tastes, some form of objectivity only comes when somebody has been reviewed by a range of punters based on their individual experience, rather than just solid facts which are opaque and give no real insight.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If reviews were allowed on the main forum they would be far harder to moderate and be much more open to abuse: specifically touting and excessive cheerleading. Moderators don't have the time to read every post and depend on members' reports to alert them to dubious content. The fact that all reviews are read by one person and are subject to specific rules (eg relating to the frequency with which a wg is reviewed) means that the review section is far more likely to be objective and reliable than if it were absorbed within the main forum.

 

As it stands, I would recommend that if members wish to pass on information in the walk-up thread, they need to be informative, objective and to the point to stay within the current rules.

 

To be quite honest I remember when PN did have reviews for the Soho walkups and don't remember any of those things being an issue. I don't remember touting, cheerleading or dubious content. Because of the popularity of the Soho thread much of the job of review moderation was actually done 'in-thread' by knowledgeable posters who would have been almost certainly quicker to discredit phony reports than anyone else outside Soho. Not only is this assumption based on a prejudiced guess about what might happen that is almost certainly flawed; it is also historically quite wrong.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The soho thread is here to stay dispite what people may be implying.

Reviews will not be allowed in any part of the forum, same goes for cheerleading  no matter where they choose to work.

Reviews on Soho ladies are subject to the same posting critrea as every other wg, this is not about to change, the minimum requirement is a phone number, this allows the lady to be identified by punters and insures that if there is a problem with a review PN is able to contact them to resolve the issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The soho thread is here to stay dispite what people may be implying.

Reviews will not be allowed in any part of the forum, same goes for cheerleading  no matter where they choose to work.

Reviews on Soho ladies are subject to the same posting critrea as every other wg, this is not about to change, the minimum requirement is a phone number, this allows the lady to be identified by punters and insures that if there is a problem with a review PN is able to contact them to resolve the issue

Yea right! So a Soho walk-up girl gives me her phone number so that if a punter on PN says something she dislikes the lady. or PN, can contact each other to resolve the probelm - what planet are you living on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A phone number does identify a girl uniquely. There could be 2 bellas working. Or bella1 could retire and a new bella start. We would not want their reviews getting muddled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea right! So a Soho walk-up girl gives me her phone number so that if a punter on PN says something she dislikes the lady. or PN, can contact each other to resolve the probelm - what planet are you living on?

 

thats not the issue at all, punternet operates on a one put all out poilcy, no Wg can cherry pick the reviews that are filled on punternt. good or bad they stay up. If any wg wishes to go off grid and be on the no report list then its her choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How comes Sincity's review of Robi at Bateman Street posted today is allowed to remain on the forum then? Is that a review or not? I am confused.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A forum is a place where opinions are expressed and sometimes someone will disagree with you, or even attack you, but a forum where opinions are censored the way they have been on PN diminishes the value of the forum itself. In Roman times a Forum was often placed outside the town itself, almost neutral territory, so that people could express themselves freely from the constraints of the urban authorities. Maybe the moderators should look up the original meaning of "Forum" to really understand what this word means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for the reviewer is that the visit has not been booked in advance and therefore the contact details are merely the address.  If there is a phone or website it tends not to be known.  Similarly anyone planning a visit from seeing a review needs to be able to translate the contact details back to an address.  Most of the historic reviews still available are useless as they just refer to 'well-known flat' or similar because the detailed location field is no longer displayed.

Some places do seem to have phone numbers.  Perhaps we could use them in reviews even if they were not how we visited.

70a Berwick St is 020 7434 0785
Greens Court uses 0774 825 6969

Any more?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for the reviewer is that the visit has not been booked in advance and therefore the contact details are merely the address.  If there is a phone or website it tends not to be known.  Similarly anyone planning a visit from seeing a review needs to be able to translate the contact details back to an address.  Most of the historic reviews still available are useless as they just refer to 'well-known flat' or similar because the detailed location field is no longer displayed.

Some places do seem to have phone numbers.  Perhaps we could use them in reviews even if they were not how we visited.

70a Berwick St is 020 7434 0785

Greens Court uses 0774 825 6969

Any more?

 

 

Ideally the number needs to be of the WG you have visited and not of the walk-up or this will limit the reviewer to the number of reviews he can post in the future at that location.

 

It would help if visiting Soho that one could explain how PN works and the benefits of having a website to promote them self's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A forum is a place where opinions are expressed and sometimes someone will disagree with you, or even attack you, but a forum where opinions are censored the way they have been on PN diminishes the value of the forum itself. In Roman times a Forum was often placed outside the town itself, almost neutral territory, so that people could express themselves freely from the constraints of the urban authorities. Maybe the moderators should look up the original meaning of "Forum" to really understand what this word means.

 

unfortunately we are not living ancient Rome and the fact that they did not have phones would still have meant no reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally the number needs to be of the WG you have visited and not of the walk-up or this will limit the reviewer to the number of reviews he can post in the future at that location.

 

 

 

But surely if you're reporting on several WGs from the same agency you'd face the same problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely if you're reporting on several WGs from the same agency you'd face the same problem.

no. when we report on an agency girl, we can report on another girl from the same agency.  There are issues when a girl leaves and another one starts with the same working name

 

there are rules how many reports you can do for one agency. If all you do is report girls from one agency then it alerts Gal to the possibility of cheerleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I presume that the whole idea of a review from a client is that it gives the girl publicity so that other potential clients can contact her.

 

How would this be possible without a phone number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A forum was also a court of law, where disputes were settled. Having or not having a phone doesn't change the concept of the forum, which is where OPEN discussion was supposed to take place. You and your colleges delete and remove my posts and don't want them to stay, because you are afraid of being wrong. I have punted in Soho since 1985; traditionally Soho walk-ups have acted on a first come first serve basis and phone numbers are not normally exchanged ( you know this and yet you change your rules to suit your own agenda ). This is the way punters and girls like it so that they can both remain anonymous.

 

Punternet is missing out on a real chance to reform, become more open, user friendly and allow members to provide, via post/reviews information for the benefit of all of us, working girls as well.

 

The majority of punternet members who follow the Soho Walk Up thread would like to see reports on the girls Vox Populi Vox Dei.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A forum was also a court of law, where disputes were settled. Having or not having a phone doesn't change the concept of the forum, which is where OPEN discussion was supposed to take place. You and your colleges delete and remove my posts and don't want them to stay, because you are afraid of being wrong. I have punted in Soho since 1985; traditionally Soho walk-ups have acted on a first come first serve basis and phone numbers are not normally exchanged ( you know this and yet you change your rules to suit your own agenda ). This is the way punters and girls like it so that they can both remain anonymous.

 

Punternet is missing out on a real chance to reform, become more open, user friendly and allow members to provide, via post/reviews information for the benefit of all of us, working girls as well.

 

The majority of punternet members who follow the Soho Walk Up thread would like to see reports on the girls Vox Populi Vox Dei.

 

That isn't the case. I initially suggested moving the discussion to this section precisely because we could discuss this issue openly without further derailing the Soho thread. We have also tried to remain patient in the face of a fair amount of abuse which could easily have led to warnings and pre-mod (and led to further accusations of censorship).

 

We are trying to moderate within the rules as they currently exist. I agree that there can be grey areas here which lead to some inconsistencies, mostly because it is impossible to read every post. My own view is that posts in the 'requests for information' section should be to the point and provide enough information to make useful recommendations (or not) but stop short of the detail and subjectivity that characterise reviews. That's why specific rules ( eg about frequency of review and contact details) apply in the review section.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I presume that the whole idea of a review from a client is that it gives the girl publicity so that other potential clients can contact her.

 

How would this be possible without a phone number?

 

Because Soho models who work in the walk ups are by definition only ever contacted by the physical act of walking up the stairs and knocking on the door. This is the nature of Soho walk ups. If she gets a good review, you put your shoes on and go and walk up the stairs and knock on her door yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't the case. I initially suggested moving the discussion to this section precisely because we could discuss this issue openly without further derailing the Soho thread. We have also tried to remain patient in the face of a fair amount of abuse which could easily have led to warnings and pre-mod (and led to further accusations of censorship).

 

We are trying to moderate within the rules as they currently exist. I agree that there can be grey areas here which lead to some inconsistencies, mostly because it is impossible to read every post. My own view is that posts in the 'requests for information' section should be to the point and provide enough information to make useful recommendations (or not) but stop short of the detail and subjectivity that characterise reviews. That's why specific rules ( eg about frequency of review and contact details) apply in the review section.

 

Essentially this whole argument is pointless as indeed are most things in life. It is your website and you let us use it for free, so you can decide on whatever rules you want. It is like that man in France who is suing Facebook for infringing his human rights because they censored his picture of a Manet nude or something. It is not a human right to be allowed to use Facebook, they are a private company who let the rest of us use it as long as we stay within their guidelines. It is not our human right to say what we want on Punternet either, of course not. It is your website and quite rightly you have to be comfortable with what people are posting on your website. It would be appallingly irresponsible of you if you let us all say whatever the hell we liked on here. Free speech yes! But if you (i.e. us) want free speech then start your own website THEN you can say what you like and then only you can take the consequences of it. Not fair to demand free speech on Punternet when it is the Punternet owners who will get in trouble for any abuse we might spew out on their pages.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, I don't understand what is this apparently great terror of yours of cheerleading! Like that would be the end of the world! "Oh to prevent cheerleading we are not going to have any reviews at all"! 

 

Take the Luna phenomenon. There was a whole slew of ecstatic almost swooning reviews on her, some kind of mania broke out on the streets of Soho for a while, some collective hysteria. One might say a LUNA-cy. Oh no! Touting! Cheerleading! But now in the last few days we have had a series of rather poor reviews on her, and so we readers can read all the reports and obtain a balanced view on her. No cheerleading, just massive pro-Lunas and a lot of balancing neutral-Lunas which in a Hegelian way leads us to the middle path and to think she is OK but nothing special (I have never met her so I cannot say).

 

Even within the infamous deleted reviews by DG and DS they themselves seemed to wrestle in some Hegelian way with their own confused reactions to Luna + the other one and finally found their way to some balanced conclusion which even they did not seem sure about. DS liked Luna but actually thought maybe the other one was better; even then he liked the other one but worried about her Greek nose. Totally balanced. DG spent most of his time pondering the mysteries of his own (temporary) erectile dysfunction. No cheerleading there. It is a very small goldfish bowl in Soho these days, very few girls, we all review the same handful of girls, and fake reviews would soon be exposed I would have thought. Or at least countering voices would soon balance them out. A new star in Soho! So we all rush to check! Er, no, actually. But it's your site, innit, so fair enough. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now