I think reviewers are not supposed to say they are reviewers. Non disclosure etc

I used to work as a reviewer for one of the Middle Tier agencies.

And I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase?

I used to work as a reviewer for one of the Middle Tier agencies.

And I don't understand your question. Could you rephrase?

Do you think what you say about an agency or its reviewers affects the results of your image reviews?

Thanks, Click, for the response.  I realize my question must sound a bit paranoid.  It was a serious thought but I probably should have let it stew a bit longer before asking.

I was thinking about some of the things that have happened in the past -- censorship in forums; banning from forums; threatening PMs from admins, etc.

I've even heard of people having accounts canceled due to comments in this forum --MSG.  I think FT has done this in the past?

I'm pretty sure that most inspectors are objective.  There is room for doubt, however. 
The paranoia extends to inspectors protecting their own portfolios -- rejecting images that could affect their sales.

Was there, or do you remember, any checks and balances -- someone to monitor the inspectors' reviews?

Pardon my paranoia.  And, I honestly thank you for your response.  I do hope everyone is honest and objective.  Not going to push my luck any further.  There is very little that contributors could do anyway.
 

Might differ with the smaller agencies where you might say something to upset the "owner", who might also be the reviewer (or one of them). Depends on how big/small the personality of the "owner" is and how sensitive/insensitive the remark was I guess.