Ryan said:
I had the same experience with Arielle at CMJ...so I call BS on that entry also, much like Hope and her extra services. I get your point BR that the list has a low entry bar but you could basically copy and paste all of UC's list into the HVFM list since ALL MA's will provide a nude HJ, but that would make the list completely useless as it would quadruple in size.
Well, it's not just MA's in this list, there are SP's here too. SP's wouldn't stop at just a nude HJ, so if an SP makes it into this list, it's likely that she's providing FS at or under the price limits, which would make her a really good deal. And because SP's provide more than just an HJ, they typically tend to charge more than an MA. So it does filter out all of the $160/hh+ or $220/hr+ SP's. But if the SP is coming in under the limit, those are the really special cases that people should know about. The price limits were really designed to filter out SP's rather than MA's.
As for MA's making it into the list, that's really just a throw-away criterion. Most MA's will make it in, under these price guidelines. But that's why I'm asking people to nominate a special MA, rather than just copying and pasting UC's list into mine. Somebody who they think is special enough to make it into the list, must be a really special MA, somebody like Victoria at PS for example. Not everybody at PS or AT have made it into the list, because I am waiting for somebody to nominate individual names. Somebody who nominates an MA, must really think that they are extra special. Now, since then a few other girls from AT/PS have been nominated into the list besides just Victoria.
The reason the low-bar criterion of just a nude HJ was introduced was to allow MA's to participate in the list. If people think this is just an SP-only list, then people are going to assume minimum service requirement is FS, and they won't nominate good bargains in the MA world. An MA who doesn't provide FS, but does provide BBBJ, CIM, DATY, etc. shouldn't be excluded just because she doesn't go FS. A lot of people really are fine without FS, as long as these other services are provided.
So when you're looking at SP's in this list, they are considered good values because their prices are low enough to make it into this list. When you're looking at MA's on the list, they are considered good values because their services are high enough to make it into the list.
Can I suggest we add a "possible BS" flag (perhaps not worded like that!) but somewhere to capture that reports on services are inconsistent, if nothing else it will help others. I went to see Arielle with the hope of getting a bbbj as the list mentioned...like UC I am not sour either, but others should be warned...kinda like the both up and down votes on UC's list.
I don't know how that could work, as discussions about what services are really available or not from a provider requires that we discuss them in the open on the public forums. We're trying to keep the names of these providers secret, so we never discuss actual names publicly. We'd need a private invitation-only group in Terb, equivalent to our DOB group here, to be able to discuss any services.
Maybe, if I just make sure I put in "YMMV" explicitly in their additional service notes. This would indicate there there's some controversy about these specific girls. It should be assumed that everything YMMV regardless, but these are noted with extra emphasis.