Scam - or NOT a Scam ?

[Admin]

Just one guy's opinion....

I'd say we'd need a single member to do an honest profile and detail it like a good, objective TR as to how it played out. Any married member would risk trouble even from a good FSU wife who mostly understood.

It should be one person to stay consistent and the person selected should be able to make the trip and spare the time to possibly "waste" on this project. If it came to that. There should be a general understanding of keeping it on a reasonably moral path by general social standards.

Arranging to meet 3-4 girls at most would be interesting.

On-going TR's would be fun to catch the comments and feedback.

What about the lady(ies) on the other end? We should assume the contacts we make are legitimate - yes? And if so, they are breathing feeling loving human beings who are (one hopes) sincerely seeking a love/life partner. To the extent we are only commissioning an 'experiment,' that might be pretty 'cold' if there is no intent to follow through. This was my concern about the 'emotional investment' mentioned earlier. Where men are most often scammed of $$ - women are scammed for sex and emotional investment. We need to insure we are not acting the part of the scammer.

Make sense?

- Dan

[Sculpto]

I  think what Ed proposes makes sense.  

The other problem with this is.. everyone here is savvy to the scams and will have their radar up..

We need a dupe LOL.  

What about the lady(ies) on the other end? We should assume the contacts we make are legitimate - yes? And if so, they are breathing feeling loving human beings who are (one hopes) sincerely seeking a love/life partner. To the extent we are only commissioning an 'experiment,' that might be pretty 'cold' if there is no intent to follow through. This was my concern about the 'emotional investment' mentioned earlier. Where men are most often scammed of $$ - women are scammed for sex and emotional investment. We need to insure we are not acting the part of the scammer.

Make sense?

- Dan

You are right.. so it should be someone who is really looking.. in case something does work out.

[ECOCKS]

I  think what Ed proposes makes sense.  

The other problem with this is.. everyone here is savvy to the scams and will have their radar up..

We need a dupe LOL.  

You are right.. so it should be someone who is really looking.. in case something does work out.

Well guess we need to ask who is our sorriest, most pathetic  excuse for a potential FSUW's suitor?

[Daveman]

Yes, someone also with his (actual) head on straight with realistic goals/expectations, seriously looking to build a relationship, who also will not fall in love with a photo, etc etc..

If they actually did find love/marriage, they could come back here and read the TR/ conditions of the experiment and then post about the divorce court proceedings (or murder trial when she kills him).

Definitely an interesting experiment to conceptualize... hidden button, eyeglass, shoe cams should be used for the future Discovery Channel reality show Man vs Anastasia! - or at least to catch various fleecing attempts...

At first thought it would appear cool but probably unworkable... however, perhaps the more the idea is tossed around the more workable it could become.

[Sculpto]

I nominate Sandro

[ECOCKS]

I nominate Sandro

OUCH!

[Admin]

You are right.. so it should be someone who is really looking.. in case something does work out.

Definitely an interesting experiment to conceptualize... hidden button, eyeglass, shoe cams should be used for the future Discovery Channel reality show Man vs Anastasia! - or at least to catch various fleecing attempts...

At first thought it would appear cool but probably unworkable... however, perhaps the more the idea is tossed around the more workable it could become.

If it were YOU to be the 'someone', how would YOU go about it?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

- Dan

[Sculpto]

Seriously Sandro is the perfect candidate.. he is cautious and thoughtful..

the only problem is Sandro is not going to target the kind of ladies that are most likely to be involved in scam.

[Gator]

Hold on everyone!  I detect strong prejudice among some of you.

All AW is guilty of at this point is advertising pretty women, "flesh peddling."  What are they doing that other agencies do not do?  What would please you?  The Taliban extreme that all women be covered?

When doing my search today I noted a couple of RW with whom I have contacted in the past via other sites.  I never met them, yet they seemed honest to me.  I spoke at length with one via webcam.  She seems absolutely real and sincere.  Then again these two are women in their 40s and most of the trouble is with 21-yo RW.

RWD archives should contain a number of stories by men who met someone on AnastasiaWeb.  Some are complaints, and some are okay.  In fact, did not one of our members meet his wife there?

Some of you need to analyze facts and not jump to conclusions.

So if we send Sandro into battle or another member, what do we expect?  We know the next step could be fabricated letters, and the archives have several cases of that.  Yet, how many agencies with a "pay by letter" scheme do not fabricate some letters? 

I have witnessed Cindy Agency terps calling a UW when receiving a letter from a man.  She reads the man's letter, takes notes of the UW's response, and writes a reply to the man.  The terps got paid less than one dollar to do that.  Is that a scam? Not in my opinion.  It facilitated making a connection.

I am trying to say that AWeb is no worse than many others, and it may be better than some.  So why single them out?

And aren't we being deceptive ourselves talking about someone going undercover..  I enrolled with nil intent of writing, and I gave them a little used email account.  Well, if some RW caught my eye I may have peeked.  And with my "complimentary credits" I may have written her a letter.  And where could that go?

Our 10 Commandments stress the need to communicate diretly with a RW.  Enough said.

[ECOCKS]

I trust Sandro to play this well and provide the facts for dissection and anlaysis. It would even make an interesting Appendix to the next edition of the E-book.

[Admin]

Hold on everyone!  I detect strong prejudice among some of you.

All AW is guilty of at this point is advertising pretty women, "flesh peddling."  What are they doing that other agencies do not do?  What would please you?  The Taliban extreme that all women be covered?

When doing my search today I noted a couple of RW with whom I have contacted in the past via other sites.  I never met them, yet they seemed honest to me.  I spoke at length with one via webcam.  She seems absolutely real and sincere.  Then again these two are women in their 40s and most of the trouble is with 21-yo RW.

RWD archives should contain a number of stories by men who met someone on AnastasiaWeb.  Some are complaints, and some are okay.  In fact, did not one of our members meet his wife there?

Some of you need to analyze facts and not jump to conclusions.

So if we send Sandro into battle or another member, what do we expect?  We know the next step could be fabricated letters, and the archives have several cases of that.  Yet, how many agencies with a "pay by letter" scheme do not fabricate some letters? 

I have witnessed Cindy Agency terps calling a UW when receiving a letter from a man.  She reads the letter, takes nots of the UW's response, and writes a letter.  The terps got paid less than one dollar to do that.  Is that a scam? Not in my opinion.  It facilitated making a connection.

I am trying to say that AWeb is no worse than many others, and it may be better than some.  So why single them out?

And aren't we being deceptive ourselves talking about someone going undercover..  I enrolled with nil intent of writing, and I gave them a little used email account.  Well, if some RW caught my eye I may have peeked.  And with my "complimentary credits" I may have written her a letter.  And where could that go?

Our 10 Commandments stress the need to communicate diretly with a RW.  Enough said.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the apparent prejudice.

My selection of Aweb to start this topic was merely because they seem to hold the reputation of being the worst scam agency on the planet - or so I have heard here at RWD. Where better to start with asking about a scam than with the agency reported to be the most vile of the vile?

Upthread for a while, I was half expecting someone to respond to my request for direction by suggesting we run the same initial registration with maybe Dream-Marriage (or other) and report what happens there. That is OK too, but we took a slightly different direction with the topic.

- Dan

[Sculpto]

to make a scam effective you need to have some truth to the story you are selling. 

There are some legit ladies on Aweb.  I know one as I stated in my first post in the thread.  In her view.. she was scammed by her x fiance.

So.. to me the question is.. if we are to label Aweb.. or any other site as a scam.. there has to be some % or other metric of measure relative to the number of letters written versus the number that are sincere.

So.. one parameter that I suggest is a random sampling of intro letters.. say 20 intro letters sent out by our "mystery shopper". 

I predict.. every one of the 20 will come back with a positive response that encourages more letter writing.  However.. despite my prediction.. what percentage of positive responses should be considered unrealistic?

For example.. on Mamba.. if I send out 20 intro letters.. I typically get one positive response..

[GQBlues]

What am I missing that HALF of the (admittedly too few) respondents would declare this a scam AT THIS JUNCTURE?!?

From my standpoint, the core reason I submitted this a scam at the given juncture is borne simply because you (the unsuspecting person) paid into a marriage agency, in hopes of meeting a legitimate candidate for what else, marriage. Unexpected bells and whistles designed and in place ready to sound off as soon as you complete your form, IMHO have only one and one purpose only; deception. Had you dismissed the invitation and chose not to respond or accept it; then the deception never took place. Thus a scam didn't happen.

Now, if the person signed up for entertainment, then these bells and whistle serves that very purpose. If he accepted the chat invitation - then he's getting exactly what he signed up for, entertainment. No scam. It matters not when he chooses the invitation because fact of the matter is, he's resigned and submitted to be entertained whether that happens now or later.

I think the real question here is, is AW a marriage agency or are they a dating agency? Dating can carry various definitions whereas marriage does not.

Add:

Strange that Sandro used the fishing analogy because that was one of the first thing that also came to mind. If a guy baited the hook, cast the line into the water then sat there all day long and never caught a fish, did he in fact went fishing? what defines the deed? The act or the result?

[Daveman]

If it were YOU to be the 'someone', how would YOU go about it?

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

- Dan

Ah, go ahead and greet my playful sarcasm with an actual cerebral challenge..  That's a violation of the rules of fair play!  :rulez:

Sorry, I had to use that new icon (thanks for the new ones btw)

I'll have to give it some serious thought and come and revisit the topic.

The first thing that comes to mind is the "undercover" approach or attitude must be dropped from the get go. It would have to be a sincere attempt to use this website/agency  to find, court, meet a sincere. legitimate, partner potential woman.  It can be nothing underhanded, nefarious, or disingenuous (that would be my first condition.. as I believe it would be for any sincere man agreeing to do it). More along the lines of following the guy on the pursuit, but not with the attitude of "look what we are going to uncover"..

We'd have to design a set of rules to play by, e.g., removing the agency ASAP as the 10 commandments suggest, or, USING the agency.. if the lady is successfully extracted from the agency loop, would that invalidate the process? at what point on the timeline would extraction invalidate it (if it does)? early on? any time prior to meeting?

As gator and sculpto indicate, the ladies in "normal" dating range, say 15yr gap or less for most of us are not necessarily the gravy train of the website...

[Gator]

If a guy baited the hook, cast the line into the water then sat there all day long and never caught a fish, did he in fact went fishing?

For sure if he and his buddy drank a case of Miller Lite.  In the South, you don't have to catch a fish to go fishing.

Did you have fun?

[ECOCKS]

That's why you use a single guy to sincerely use this as part (or maybe all) of his strategy in his search.

I don't think anyone is over-assuming what will happen so I didn't find any merit to Gator's comment. Eric's comments about realism seemed true and it makes sense to use as I first suggested, a single guy who is potentially looking. We can suggest volunteers but accepting the "job" should be done with reflection and careful consideration of their search.

The age of the person makes no real difference either way. We are looking to see what the process is that AW approaches the client with in the first place. We can use some agreed upon standards like a limit of some sort on the age gap. I'd say 15 but the volunteer can establish some reasonable parameters on their own or in consultation with the members.

Finding a wife on AW is not a measurement of their success or failure. The numbers and behaviors of FSUW who approach, respond and establish communication all indicate the "reality" of the site. If they agree to move off the agency for communication quickly then great, no problem. If they don't it says something especially if the volunteer documents their insistence on moving to private communications and the girl's reactions.

The sending of a money request and their reaction to refusal to pay will tell us something. I don't think Dan is going to buy a new dialysis machine for dedushka or pay the $500 fee for her visa fix, if the woman suggests it.

[Chelseaboy]

Hi all,

I've just joined this site,and I've recently joined Anastasia,so I'm happy to post my experiences,so you can determine whether it's a scam or not.
I have started communication with two girls who initially wrote to me,neither of whom I've seen on webcam,and i have initiated communication with two other girls that i saw on webcam.
I'm more than 15 years older than all the girls.
I am prepared to go and meet any of these girls,if things progress that far,and my intentions are sincere and honorable.
My concern is whether these girls are actually involved in the letter writing process,or whether it's all done by local agency staff,which would make it a scam to my mind.
I will only post as and when significant developments occur.

[Steamer]

If you use a guy that has his radar up and is alert to potential scams won't he most likely not be scammed? A guy that writes to every pretty face he sees without regard to any warning signs will more likely be scammed.

Doesn't this point to the man as being the most responsible for being scammed or not? I think this exercise will be useless. It will show what ever you want it to.

[Faux Pas]

If you use a guy that has his radar up and is alert to potential scams won't he most likely not be scammed? A guy that writes to every pretty face he sees without regard to any warning signs will more likely be scammed.

Doesn't this point to the man as being the most responsible for being scammed or not? I think this exercise will be useless. It will show what ever you want it to.

Excellent point

[SANDRO43]

Thanks to all those who suggested me as their candidate for the Anastasia fact-finding mission, but methinks we already have a less jaded guinea pig in the person of our newly joined lad from London, provided his Chelsea residence is not at the Royal Hospital, gorblimey .

[Admin]

If you use a guy that has his radar up and is alert to potential scams won't he most likely not be scammed? A guy that writes to every pretty face he sees without regard to any warning signs will more likely be scammed.

Doesn't this point to the man as being the most responsible for being scammed or not? I think this exercise will be useless. It will show what ever you want it to.

>>Doesn't this point to the man as being the most responsible for being scammed or not? I think this exercise will be useless. It will show what ever you want it to.<<

This is partly my point in creating this topic and pursuing this 'exercise.'

The RWD Vision promotes individual choice and personal accountability. The very fact RWD exists is largely to facilitate education so that people are better-equipped to exercise their prerogatives of choice - the choice to engage in activities at a site like Aweb, and to be more aware of the risks of engagement so that they may pass as a matter of choice.

It begs the question then - WHY do we see so many reported accounts of people claiming Aweb (and others) are SCAMS?!?

Does it resolve down to simple ignorance - or stupidity (the less PC term) - that results in these frequent reports?

Somehow, that seems overly simplistic (to me, anyway), hence, my interest in exploring this further.

Continuing this exchange has merit. It creates clarity on the definition of what is, and what is not, scamming behavior on the part of an agency. It allows us to examine the ethics of putting up a ruse account at one of these suspected agencies. We can compare and contrast the alleged scamming activities from the agency reported to be the worst scam agency with other agencies. Done correctly, it should offer insight into why we see frequent incidents of scam reports for certain agencies. AND - we may be able to witness a scam unfold in real time - assuming it really IS a scam.

A final thought. I am really and truly surprised at how quickly some are willing to declare a scam is afoot. Perhaps it is that I am naturally suspicious of ANY purveyor of goods/services and err on the side of anticipating them to be full of hype to sell their wares. With that as my going in position, I consider all the unsolicited ads, emails and offers as nothing more than I find ANYTIME I encounter an aggressive marketer. It is par for the course and does not mean they are scamming. Not YET, anyway.

FWIW

- Dan

[tim 360]

What A-Web and agencies of their ilk do is to provide a set-up or scenario for the non-savy, gullible guy to scam himself by believing in the little fantasy they peddle.  A guy who is well informed is not going to make the misktakes a keyboard romeo makes nor spend $10 per letter on multiple RW beauties who spam him.

As with any con it is the mark who makes this scam work.  Usually it is motivated by the guys greed and ignorance.  If there were no fools there would be no scams.

A-Web simply throws out the bait and the foolish men bite on the hook and pay, pay and pay for a little fantasy.  So it is a scam with the aid of foolish mark who I see as equally guilty.

I don't know how to vote since I see it as BOTH parties are guilty.

[BC]

Just another way of looking at it:

Scam value = productive value - entertainment value - ego boost value

Bottom line true scam is probably overall very very low.  Take the 90+% that never make it on a plane and add a few more percent that either hook up or not and you're probably talking somewhere well under 5% with many of those either finding themselves over their head in hot waters or disappointed with achieved results.

Most get what they pay for.. and seem happy with that.

95% customer satisfaction.. kinda hard to complain.

[Jumper]

This exact scenario  has been done recently.

but what would it prove one way or another?


 we have plenty of TR's showing men chasing the 19yo chatgirls to an expected poor  result.
Not shocking at all right?
(and to play devils advocate, ultimately would they have any better success if chasing a model looking moscow /st pete/kiev 19yo from lets say EM? isnt that question equally important in the
overall theme?)
 
My question-
How many Anastasia (or similar agency business models)  TR's have we seen ,
with the same dog chasing his tail train wrecks ,if the girl was even 25 or older?
what about 30? 35?
not many,
in fact I can't recall a single one here ?
and the agency has a really bad rep. (perhaps deservedly)
but almost entirely based on the cheesy and easy to see thru chat deal?

I did see a TR  somewhere else ,however that particular soft scammer  was a 36 yo known scammer who was /is listed on just as many more loved agencies...
 

Would this age "phenomenon" be fairly equally represented in  any "given" agency?
one without the cheesy bait and switch tactics.. ?

I really hate sticking up for marginal agencies,  i think they are a very poor way to "look" but I also feel like jack nicholson


i'm not sure  many  guys can handle the actual *truth*.
You dig deep enough  in the FSU agency ,any agency there,
 you are NOT going to find pearly white ethics, so its just a matter of perspective,
and percentages?

my thoughts- get over that, or get out of this game.
you arn't playing in your home court ,the rules arn't the same ,and if that is what you are expecting
from any business ..  best to stay home.


The only thing i see is the percentages of sincerity vs insincerity of profiles on various sites ,
this is true  even social sites as scammers exist there too,, ( but it isnt a business model)


In my mind , all that would be roughly determined by such an experiment is percentages or odds?

and you would need a total new guy with no preconceived notions regarding
this type of dating, one agency or another.
where are we going to find such a juror ?

Certainly a random mans odds are better with certain agencies or a better/different business model?

but would not this also be highly different depending on the man, and his life experience ?


Take a naive man,  new to everything as far as internet dating , that signs up at anastasia

He falls for the schoolgirl fantasy offered ,spends a lot of dough ,, and yes in this scenario could be truly *scammed* as he is being presented  with  the idea that she is available and sincere.

Take a man that has been to the FSU , anastasia's affliates and dated women from there before ,
been to the offices to know the inner workings ..familiar with both the scams ,pro daters  and success(as defined by meeting "sincere" women)
 

Given that last scenario,are *his* odds "ultimately" really any better on another site with a
* better* business model? As odds are he can sort out a sincere woman (or 3) from any site given a 3 month membership.

Yet in the first scenario, the man likely has greatly increased his odds by dealing with an agency with a different business model.


It is all in the numbers?

Ok-you guys threw up the scenario,
 as meeting 3 or 4.

I will state absolutely I could use any agency of your liking, to meet 3 or 4 sincere women ,nyet problemo, and since most of you are quite experienced, you could easily as well..
However the time , effort, or expense , to do so would be different between agencies perhaps?
and maybe greatly so.

[Lazarus]

Scenario:

AW girl, let's say 25, is in contact with an AM 45.
She (agency) has been "milking" him for a few weeks, but suddenly she realizes that this guy might be a good "catch".
Let's say he lives in SoCal (not a village), has a good job, nice house, car, etc.
She finds all of this information out through "paid" correspondence.
All of the sudden she is confronted with the reality that she may actually like to meet this guy and see if there is any chemistry between them (after all, we already know that she has a loser/drunken R/U boyfriend that takes her money and beats her when she comes home every night. ).

Would she qualify as a scammer?

Does "scamming" have anything to do with what is considered "morally" acceptable?

What is considered the moral "threshold" when searching for an FSUW?

Just wondering.

Laz