This isn't about gatekeeping, but I might end up derailing this thread by bringing in a similar scenario - with a twist. Just putting it out there: same theme, different angle, could shift the convo in an unexpected direction.

Let's approach this logically.

Punter A posts a negative review. That's his right. Reviews exist for that purpose.

What's interesting is what followed.

Individuals claiming they had similarly poor experiences months - even a year - ago are now stepping forward. Not with reviews written at the time. Not with contemporaneous accounts. But only after a negative narrative was already established.

That timing matters.

If an experience was genuinely poor, the appropriate course of action would be to document it when it occured. Forums function on timestamps and transparency. Delayed commentary introduced only after momentum has shifted is not the same thing as independant reporting.

It is reactive alignment.

If Punter's C and D truly had negative experiences, the record should reflect that. It doesn't - there are no reviews available to prove it. What we have instead are retrospective claims emerging once reputational damage has already begun.

That doesn't strengthen credibility. It weakens it.

As for Punter C calling those punters who provided positive reviews "simps" or "cheerleaders", because their experiences have been consistently postive. These punters have documented their reviews at the time they occured, whereas no review exists for Punter C on the said SP. That is how the review systems are meant to work.

Participation is not bias.
Consistency is not weakness.
And documented experience outweighs convenient commentary.

If others wish to challenge credibility, they are welcome to do so - preferably with the same standard of documentation/reviews they expect from everyone else.

Until then, the difference is simple:

Some of us record our experiences when they happen.
Others wait to see which direction the wind is blowing.

On 2026-02-23 14:48:07 Bonganelovejoy said:
On 2026-02-23 13:44:13 GeminiMajor said: There are punters who are willing and good reviewers and storytellers. That's how it is..

It took me 7 years to write my first review. Lol if you can find it, it's 2 lines long of me saying "she's amazing, she's great, 10/10". Ever since that one review I've made sure I review everyone I book, it helps everybody (the lady and the punters who are not sure), some punters even send me messages to ask for more details about a lady I booked and reviewed. Now I'm not what anyone would consider a "reliable punter" or a great storyteller but I still review.

Now I understand not everyone is comfortable with writing, heck it took me 7 years to do so. But if a lady leaves a great impression on you, it wouldn't hurt to highlight her with a review. Coming back to the example I made at the beginning of this thread, those 2 Punters could have written their positive reviews and it would have been a counter to the one negative review. But because they said nothing, our first and only impression of the lady is that negative review.

It's a fair point. again I don't think it's all malicious or trying to gatekeep girls. Some are simply not good writers or storytellers, some are just simply not interested in reviewing and it's their choice. But in the interest of the greater punting community I will definitely start commenting.

I also think some girls are not as reliant on reviews than we think. There a couple of girls I've booked with limited reviews and they say they are always busy that's why they are so difficult to get a hold of. And there are a few that do believe are seriously underrated for their service

Simple.
Leave NO trail/evidence.
Imagine reputational damage if wife/partner/ex to be somehow get hold of your alias on esa?

What we see with reviewers here is exactly how it is in the real world. Not everyone wants to share reflections on their experiences in general. I think we should just get over it. If everyone reviewed every single life experience, every time, there would just be too many reviews and we'd be confused either way.

A punter must decide how much reliance they put on reviews, and go with it. And because everyone has a unique experience of other people, it's up to that punter to decide whether it lived up to his expectations or not.

Too lazy to write reviews but not too lazy to debate RB and Arhwen in every thread every single day? Just a joke...

I suppose we can't force people to write reviews. I have trusted punters who share the same taste as me and we all pay it forward whether it be on reviews or via private messages. We've been doing this even under our old aliases.

I owe those gents a stack.

Often punter B & C aren't even punters. It's just the accounts the wgs created to fight punters just like that and promote and recommend themselves. Most of the so-called simps are just wgs with punter accounts pretending to be punters so they end up coming across as simping.

JP69