| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
26
|
Facial Abuse
(0)
|
Reply of
Anth's Review
from pat362:
I respect anyone's choice when it comes to the type of porn they like to watch as long as the women appearing on the site are aware of what will happen to them and there is no BS. I tried FA twice and it's no secret that second one was a huge mistake for me. Their brand of porn is in my opinion not remotely funny nor is it in any way kind toward the female that foolishly decide to appear on the site. The best word to describe their brand of porn is cruelty.
I read accounts from two different porn performers on the treatment they were subjected to on their FA shoot. I even saw the pictures of one of the girls who stopped the shoot and pretty much told the guys to F..k off. The girl in question was quite comfortable with BSDM so it's not like she was a vanilla type performer but the kind of abuse she recived from the people associated with that site was something she had never experienced before. I'm not judging you on your choice of porn but knowing that the girls appearing in the videos are in real pain and distress makes me too uncomfortable with the sites associated with these guys.
I think the two main reasons why the updates are getting rare is that agents avoid sending their performers to these guys because the girls tend to quit doing porn after appearing on their sites and I think the guys are located on the East Coast the talent pool is a lot smaller here than on the West Coast.
|
10-07-12 07:50am
|
Reply
27
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
Anth's Comment
from Tree Rodent:
I think the main reason for PU existing, is to make money by helping genuine porn sites to make money. It mutually benefits both sides. At the same time they give the little guy a chance and a voice in the same way a lot of those TV shows, who challenge crooked organisations or companies, do.
I am really pleased to hear you got a result out of this. Sometimes sites make money out of very strange, incompetent, or dodgy behaviour, and the customer just lets it go, which encourages them, and means they are unlikely to change their ways. This is bad for the customer in the long run, but sometimes the customer bites back. Don't let them get away with it. By challenging them it benefits all of us.
Lets hope this is a lesson for all sites who try this sort of thing. None of us who have followed this are ever going to subscribe to this organisation now, and rightly so.
|
02-13-09 07:04pm
|
Reply
28
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
Anth's Comment
from Khan:
Admin Note:
The first six replies here were actually made to a Review by this same User. The Review was declined as not meeting the minimum standards for a REVIEW. We moved the replies to show we are not attempting to curtail the discussion.
|
02-12-09 09:23am
|
Reply
29
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
Anth's Comment
from badandy400:
That is terrible. And to think that I almost took them up on a similar Christmas offer.
As for chargebacks, I would not worry too much about it. It is a scare tactic to keep you from doing something that THEY are affraid of. Credit card companies keep an eye on how many charge backs a company receives over specific amount of time. At a point they will charge for them because the credit card has to deal with them. This is a way to encourage mechants to resolve issues on their own, which is usually better for everyone. When a company exceeds certain amounts of chargebacks they actually lose their ability to use that type of credit card. So doing a charge back is also a way of letting the large credit card companies know the mechant they are processing for it doing something wrong. And if chargebacks start coming from a handful of people the credit card companies do start looking into things.
So, by all means, do what you have to do. Hopefully at some point site owners will be fearful of getting a bad reputation on user review sites such as this one and become conserned with keep members happy and honorring deals offered.
Welcome to PU and we hope to see more from you, and hopefully it will be tales of good fortunes insted of bad.
|
02-12-09 08:57am
|
Reply
30
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
Anth's Comment
from Tree Rodent:
I agree with Anth on this. It doesn't matter how good the content is. If a site acts in a fraudulant, dishonest, or incompetetnt way, you would never join the site no matter how good the content is. I understand how pissed off customers are when this sort of thing happens. So shout as loud as you like as far as I'm concerned. I want to hear. You also get the warm feeling that by warning others you are diverting money away from rip off artists to genuine good quality sites.
|
02-12-09 06:27am
|
Reply
31
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
Anth's Comment
from ramscrota:
WOW! Sounds like you had a heap of problems with this lot! Good that you submitted detailed descriptions of what happened, as well as the text of their email.
I had problems with another bunch of shonks - Naked Novices (See my comments in forum & my review of the site)
We can only hope that by naming these fuckers they'll either change their evil ways or go out of business.
|
02-12-09 04:59am
|
Reply
32
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
Anth's Comment
from Colm4:
I can understand you are pissed (I would be too), but making a review AND a user comment with the same information is a bit too much. I believe the review section is here to write about the site contents.
Giving a 50 score (lowest possible) does imho not do justice to the site especially since you write that the content is good.
|
02-12-09 04:43am
|
