[USA][CA][San Jose] Danna @ AK

Date Session: April 2023
Location: San Jose
Name: Danna
Link: https://www.asian-kdolls.ch/danna
Nationality & Language: Korean
Age: late 20's/early 30's? hard to tell
Face: 7/10
Body: 7/10
Height:  ~5.2"
Skill: 7/10
Service: 7/10
PSE: 7/10
Price & Session Length:  280/hr
Repeat: Probably not in my case

Arrived at a usual complex but went to wrong side of street at first until read the warning not to.  She has some physical attraction for sure.  Small size and attractive body, face also attractive. Not a seasoned pro.  She was accomodating throughout.  Some dfk in room but on the lighter side. Shower, no preview i think (can't remember).  She was a little rigid at start but loosened up and was dfk'ing.  Mish to completion.  No round 2 but she tried. Chemistry was more my fault. No massage.  Pleasant and friendly.

[ Last edited by  swpdonkey at 9-5-2023 08:02 ]

This jkfoodftw is going rogue and taking months of work creating.sharing reviews and adding -20 (1 was -15) karma across a series of reviews destroying months of work sharing, without a direct ask and clarity of his role. This feels unacceptable.  I've reported to the supermod for now.
What you did was wrong and you know it.  Your opinions are interesting but there are hordes of shorter reviews.  Going through a series of mine all at onece without discussion and adding -20 karma is outrageous and you should not be in this role if you think this is ok.

To be clear here, I have been spending money and then willing to share here my experiences.  People clearly people found vlaue.
jkfoodftw decided that he would go through 5-6 reviews in a single night and mark each one -20, destroying over 100 ponts and my access.
No discussion or reach out, just one fell swoop destroying months in minutes.  

Rampage jr is not what we need here.  You need to fix this mistake please.  -20 is the equivalent of 4 reviews work and you did 5 times in one night instead of asking me clearly and indictaing  your role you have been allowed.  Outrageous and I'm sure the board owners never intended such abuse of abilities granted.  We don't need another rogue rampage moderator abusing abilities.
Or remove the reviews or do some negative karma, but -20 across 5 or more without an ask first is ridiculous and unfair for the money, time and willingness to share.  Each review now is only 5.

I understand that we don't want reviews that are so short that they lack sufficient useful information. But we also don't necessarily want needlessly long and self indulgent reviews where the useful information is buried or could be conveyed more efficiently. The review above answers most of the questions I would have in brief form. It's certainly more useful than no review. Why such a massive penalty? Isn't that going to scare people off so that we get fewer reviews? Sure some people will simply write longer or more bloated reviews to prevent penalties. But some reviewers will simply review less often. That's not useful for the community.

Appreciate thoughts on this topic. Thx!

sexyloser your post feels wrong.  It seems you're trying too hard to justify what we know was wrong in terms of his taking so many points then refusing to adjust it.  Eyes will be watching these behaviors now.   I always try to add data that shows I was there that was not available in other reports.

In this case, if you have actually seen Danna, then "Arrived at a usual complex but went to wrong side of street at first until read the warning not to" is all you needed to know I was actually there.   So you made up your point.  We're all new here.  There will be learning curve, and we only need admins (or kick them out) who can help with tolerance on learning curve in positive ways, and not destroy people adding value.  Overbearing shouldn't be tolerated.

[ Last edited by  swpdonkey at 11-5-2023 03:04 ]

There are multiple issues:

The content of the reports have been quite generic with lack of details that would be useful for other when they are deciding on who to see next. A detailed report does not have to be ridiculously long, but it must be informative. I rather have fewer users providing quality reports than more users with low effort reports. To be honest, even if taking the few users approach, there will still be plenty of activity due to the influx of users from AMPReview.

Secondly, as mentioned already the second issue is the lack of effort by the user to read up on forum/subsection specific rules. If the account was made in May and only posted 2-3 replies, I would've been more lenient. But accounts created back in March?

Look, there is no point in continuing this conversation. Both sides have stated their case, just leave it at that.