Hear! Hear! Hear!
Doesn't that definition of 10 worthy also skew results in a way? Why should risky activities merit 9's and 10's, as tho the sp is rewarded for endangering her health -- or I should say penalized for not.
A corollary to the "risky activities" argument is the "market segment" argument: Clients look for different services and don't necessarily find one to be a substitute for another. In other words, a 10-point BBFS (if "out-of-the-ordinary activities are worth more points, shouldn't that take the cake?) provider means absolutely NOTHING to those clients who don't seek it. Because of the different market segment, effectively this scoring scheme, in its attempt to enforce a uniform standard, achieves the exact opposite -- forcing people to compare apples and oranges.
I think the reviewer should be allowed to give whatever points make sense to him/her, at that these points should reflect how well the sp provided what the reviewer was looking for. That means an r&t provider should be able to get 10's, provided her service is above exceptional for an r&t encounter. But limiting 10's to bbbjs and anal means that the most phenomenal r&t service & attitude, etc etc is only worth 7. In the viewers eyes, that is going to affect their perception of the overall service.
In enforcing a uniform, supposedly objective standard across geographical markets that have different offerings, the scheme also makes reviewers guess what these "out-of-the-world" services or appearances are like, when the reviewers themselves may have been limited to much less. How are they going to "objectively" give scores when they haven't had the benefit of being exposed to what the "better" offerings are out there? Isn't it better to acknowledge that it IS always a subjective experience and scoring, and then appreciate these reviews on that basis (i.e., with a box of Morton's Kosher within reach).
When the number of services offered is limited (e.g., a straight R&T as compared to some fantastic, no-holds-bar PSE), it's actually HARDER for an SP to distinguish herself and earn that 10. She simply has fewer "tricks" to work with. She will have to make up for that with ambience, attitude, techniques and so on. In this scoring scheme, these attributes that are equally hard to come by are not being rewarded fully.
For myself, having fully professed to be subjective (although not all that "biased"), I would rather score from the standpoint of what I would consider the perfection of what a regular, fair-minded client would look for in terms of performance and appearance. If an SP fits that to a tee, she's a 10. For everything I find lacking, there is a deduction. So what Miss Veronica mentioned, a young hottie may get close to a 10 in appearance, if she has an attitude and is lacking skills or enthusiasm, she may not even get a 7 in performance. On the other hand, Miss Veronica herself may also get close to a 10 in appearance (have you folks seen her latest "new lingerie" picture? OMG!
) AND a perfect 10 in performance, for obvious reasons. I think my system is better than ERB's, especially since the scores are but a part of -- not in lieu of -- the whole review, in which the reader can gather more information on why the scores are so and whether the SP is in the market segment that he is after.
There is NO good reason for any sp to provide discounts in exchange for reviews. I wouldn't consider any review posted as a result of a discount as believable, reliable, reputable, or any other -able. It is a desperate and pathetic move on the part of the sp, and completely inexcusable. It should make any potential client run in the opposite direction lol.
Whereas I see your POV in this, I am not opposed to ladies offering a deep discount ("deep" being the operative word here) for a review. Said discount notwithstanding, I promise to be objective and fair. Any takers?
