Are you sure it's a good idea to put that low rating for the site just because it's not your cup of tea? I mean that all "cons" in your review (except for the first one) are HIGHLY subjective and there are will be LOTS of people who have an exactly opposite opinion. Personally I'm at least trying to avoid setting low (especially THAT low) ratings to the sites which just aren't my cup of tea, at least if inside member area they provide essentially the same stuff as advertised on the tour pages.
Oh, this background of yours indeed explains "attention to details" which sometimes crosses the border of "not seeing forest for the trees". And it's not your fault, but the one of the whole huge legal system which is built to make formalities dominate over common sense and reason. BTW, if I would be in your place (which is not too likely), I would care much more about "not guilty person behind the bars" rather than about "guilty person walking free".
Anyway, I don't see how this background of yours is relevant to the concern I have raised.
Wow, thanks for the information, but how can I see if any of the other users also has such suspicious "computer sharing"? Or you just automatically suspend them?
I don't "target" anybody (come on, do you really expect me to care that much about your image here?), I'm just expressing my concern. About those people "below you" - could you elaborate a bit? ANYBODY who will post his/her FIRST review with 98 or so rating is suspicious to me until proven otherwise, period. In formal terms - such rating in the FIRST review by definition carries significant negative credibility attached to it.
> I don't think it's suspicious when someone starts their posting career
> at PU giving the highest ratings ever - probably because that's what I
> did.
Interesting, maybe I'm suspicious because I didn't it? :-) But seriously, starting with 98 or so review is a "business card" of the typical "shill" (we've seen many of them here, and there is no doubt about it); while I agree it is not conclusive evidence, it is still suspicious.
> Met Art deserves high praise...
If only they would make their models look a bit more alive than current "dead fish" looks... But unfortunately there is no holy grail in porn, not even in softcore :-(.
> you cant really tell if any person on this site is honest or not
I think I can tell at least most of the time, otherwise what's the point of reading the site?
> I have the right to put out my opnion about a site
Right
> just cause you dont agree with my score dosent mean that I am lying
Right, but I'm suspicious about you _not_ because of disagreeing with you (come on, I disagree with every second person here, starting from exotics4me, but there are no regulars I can suspect), but because your pattern of reviews is quite close to a typical "shill" who tries to promote the site (or sites) for money.
> I think hondaman done some fine things here after all
For the first review - yes, but IMHO it's still too one-handed. Ok, it can easily be "honestly one-handed", but it's still way too one-handed IMHO.
> But, bro - we'll see in the future - guess there's never any 100%..
For me there are a few 100%s here on PU, starting (surprise) from myself :-), and ending with about 50 or so people (yourself included :-) ); come on, suspecting roseman or exotics4me of shilling would be WAY too far fetching.
Well, bro, to put it bluntly - doesn't it look suspicious when somebody just STARTS his PU life with ridiculously high ratings? You're here longer than me, but even I myself have seen LOTS of different shills around here (coming, making 98 or so review for the site, seeing that rating doesn't count, then sometimes trying to make a few MUCH less detailed reviews to get points, and then usually giving up and disappearing). Granted, it doesn't look TOO suspicious for hondaman, but I'm still not 100% sure about him.
> Not sure what you mean by "lack of fire".
I've meant that at least most of Met-Art models are plastic dollies without any personality. Please read my review and also comments of the other PU'ers to my review.
> Are you sure that you where ever a member of this site?
Yes, I am. Also I'm sure of lots of the other things, though not 100% sure about search on Met-Arts. If it is there, good for them, but my rating stays (I even think of reducing it because of "lack of fire", which IMHO is not compensated by brilliant photo work and locations); just wondering: are ALL Russian models have so little personality?
> That done, I'd view her stuff right before going to her place,
> thinking, "Wow, I'M going to bone this babe! For REAL!"
I think I'd react the same way.
Hm, it would be a kind of quite misleading guarantee, won't it? It would be interesting to see if anybody has tried to use this kind of guarantee to see if it is real or "30 days or 30 seconds whichever comes first".
> Does anyone think that a stuntman would allow himself to be set on
> fire for that big scene without first putting some protection on?
Right, they take precautions - EXACTLY PRECAUTIONS THAT THEY THINK ARE APPROPRIATE. Why models should be denied THE SAME CHOICE?
> Yes some of them do get hurt, but it's not because of the lack of precautions.
Come on, when anybody get hurt in an accident it's ALMOST ALWAYS because of the lack of precautions, and is ALWAYS this way for stunts (to start with, they could easily refuse to participate in the particular stunt if they consider it too risky). BTW, the same is true for car accidents - the very basic precaution is to avoid driving completely, but very few people are taking it.
IMHO it is MUCH more complicated than simple "people have contracted some serious illnesses". People get infected and even get killed in all kinds of jobs (starting with medical ones), so IMHO just mere EXISTENCE of the chance doesn't make some thing "too bad" or not, for me it is important to know HOW BIG this chance is. To complete analogy with stuntman - some of them die or get permanently injured, but this doesn't mean that I won't watch "regular" movies which include stunts. Also it's quite obvious that using condoms does not GUARANTEE anything, it just reduces the chance, which again supports my point of view that it is all about "HOW BIG the chance is". EVERYTHING has some risk, even driving to work (this one is probably MUCH higher than any job-related risk BTW), so I tend to consider SOME risks as "normal" (yes, it is very sad if somebody dies in the car accident, but we won't give up cars because of it, will we?)
Now to the "HOW BIG the chance is" question for condomless porn - while I don't have any statistics on it (maybe somebody has? - then it would be interesting to compare it to statistics on stuntman injuries), I've got a feeling that with all the people who REALLY HATE porn, any such cases would be made VERY high-profile as a tool to fight porn, so as I don't hear of it every second day, it shouldn't be too bad even as it stands now. This obviously is just a wild speculation on my part, and I will be glad to see any real statistics (which in turn can make me reconsider my view of condomless porn).
> Well thanks for sticking it out, ... it is always nice to run across other people who enjoy the activity
Thanks to you, it takes two to tango :-).
> I'll admit I often have the habit of arguing another side just for the sake of arguing, it isn't in my nature to concede an opposing party's argument
So do I, but as long as we admit this habit, it can't be THAT bad :-).
I agree with most of your arguments, but on the other hand... IMHO as 3D Sex Game is ALREADY ranked on PU against Hands on Hardcore (they're shown in the same list according to the ranks, BOTH in "browse sites" and "hardcore sex" sites), we need to try to put them within the same ranking system, or those pages will become misleading.
If PU admins will decide to completely separate interactive games from the rest to avoid placing them in the same list - it would be a completely different story (and I wouldn't argue against such separation), but now they ARE within the same system, with rankings directly compared to each other, and IMHO we need to take it into account.
As for difference in "how much we enjoy this or that site" - I don't see it a problem, and completely agree that it is what this site is all about :-).
Ok, I will change reference to "3D engine" to "3D graphics", thanks for pointing it out (as I've said, I'm NOT into these things, I'm just a user).
About being impossible to compare apples and oranges - well, aren't we doing it here all the time? :-) What I'm trying to do is to put ALL the reviewed sites on scale of "how much I enjoy them"; and IMHO my ratings are pretty consistent in this regard; now it became even simpler as I have lots of sites to compare new ones with, and it's quite easy for me to say that I enjoy 3D Sex Game about the same as Naked News, MUCH more than Newbie Nudes and significantly less than Met Arts.
Also while everybody can choose their own criteria, I will explain why I prefer "my" approach (try to rank everything) to "your" one.
There are two problems I see with your approach (ranking only "apples to apples"). The first one is the question "what is the niche narrow enough to compare?" Shall we stop separating ONLY 3D games or it shall be done for ALL niches? And then - shall we separate, for example, ATM from Anal as being the same or different niches? In the very extreme case we can even say that all sites are unique, but it will make any ranking completely worthless. The second problem is that when new user comes to the site, he easily can see "the best sites" by overall rating right on the home page; but at this point he doesn't care about "best in class" thing, he wants "the best overall entertainment site", and "global" ranking (opposed to "per-niche ranking") is REALLY important there; another incarnation of the same problem is that sites are usually labeled as multi-niche ones, so if 3D Sex Game is compared to such sites as "Hands on Hardcore", which means that they shall have the same ranking scale. Just IMHO though :-).
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
