Sould the following be classified as a review?

Yeah; it's not a review, it's a list of beefs that a dancer has against a club. The only information in it that is useful to to a patron is "few black dancers working here," and "don't dress thuggy, or you won't be let in."

I agree, I don't consider that as a review.

That's definitely not a review. Its more of a thread topic that shouldve been posted on the main discussion board or on that specific clubs discussion board. I don't think that should be factored in to the clubs overall scores.

Not a review written by an unbiased customer. I say delete it.

I agree .... it's not a review. It should be deleted.

It looks like it was already taken down.

The two or three lines that were club related are longer than some of the reviews that get let through, though. Most of it could have been posted elsewhere, though, agreed on that. I wouldn't use bias as a way to determine whether a review is legitimate or not. That would wipe half the reviews off the site.

All that said, if a company has policies that could be questionable then questions might come. PP's an easy target because of the ink it gets here on TUSCL, but even if it were true it would not be alone. There is a lot of talk about wanting to hear more from dancers on the site. It looks like we just did, and it's not always going to classy or pretty.

My OTC gal, who is black (thin and sexy) has been complaining that upscale clubs are running off black gals, especially those with junk in the trunk. She's been dividing her time between the upscale club and a black club.

She should write a letter to Obama or those Equal Employment Opportunity folks, and watch her reaction when they ask if she's ever paid taxes. Tell her to go find someplace else to work, theres a strip club for everyone out there.

Agree, it's not a review and it was probably a mistake to let it be published. But complaining about something is certainly not new to the discussion board. But I would hate to see our discussion board become filled with dancer complaints. I like it skewed more toward the customer.

it's been removed. thanks for catching that and keeping tuscl a valuable resource.

What do you guys think about this new review today:
"
Kahoots Gentlemens Club
Columbus, Ohio

Overall Rating: 3.33Reviewed by: Berry2009
Review Date: July 7, 2009
Visited on: Tuesday Afternoon
Dancers on Shift: UnknownClub Rating: 3
Dancer Rating: 3
Value Rating: 4
Me and my buddies used to come to Kahoots all the time. I say used to because we aren't going to be back. You fired our favorite dancer, Victoria, who did the afternoon shift. She was tall, blonde, huge breasts and very curvy. She was also very friendly and very professional and was a pleasure to watch and be around. Then we found out that she was going to the Xclub and when we went there they say she was let go on her first day! Why? Because someone at your club is blackballing her. Needless to say, I passing the word around to all my friends who go to Kahoots and believe me I have a lot of friends there who spend a lot of money. We don't like doing business with people who treat their employees that way. It's one thing to fire someone but to not allow them to find employment somewhere else is not only wrong but illegal.

I hope the owner of the club sees this and fires whoever is responsible for this mess.

I am going to be writing a letter to Joe Hall to complain about the catiness and backstabbing that goes on in his club. I don't want to sit with a stripper who all she does is whine about her life and bills that need to be paid thinking that will get her a bigger tip. It's annoying and I just want to get away. Your ex-dancer, Victoria, never had a bad thing to say about her life or the other dancers. She just did her job - which was to entertain me and she did it well.

You ought to get rid of the whiners in the club including the old stripper who I think is named Hunter or something like that and bring back Victoria. At the very least, you owe her an apology for blackballing her at the Xclub. Yes, I know all about it as I have friend who work there. "


This review is about dancer drama and club hiring practices. I think it is fair for local clubs to blacklist a dancer if she was fired at one club because the dancers are so dishonest when they apply for dancing jobs. They tell too many lies to cover up their background. The Tuscl member also wrote the EXACT same review with the other club. I think this rant should be moved to the specific club discussion boards.

Club X Show Bar
Columbus, Ohio

Overall Rating: 4.33Reviewed by: Berry2009
Review Date: July 7, 2009
Visited on: Friday Evening
Dancers on Shift: UnknownClub Rating: 4
Dancer Rating: 4
Value Rating: 5
Me and my buddies used to come to Kahoots all the time. I say used to because we aren't going to be back. You fired our favorite dancer, Victoria, who did the afternoon shift. She was tall, blonde, huge breasts and very curvy. She was also very friendly and very professional and was a pleasure to watch and be around. Then we found out that she was going to the Xclub and when we went there they say she was let go on her first day! Why? Because someone at your club is blackballing her. Needless to say, I passing the word around to all my friends who go to Kahoots and believe me I have a lot of friends there who spend a lot of money. We don't like doing business with people who treat their employees that way. It's one thing to fire someone but to not allow them to find employment somewhere else is not only wrong but illegal.

I hope the owner of the club sees this and fires whoever is responsible for this mess.

I am going to be writing a letter to Joe Hall to complain about the catiness and backstabbing that goes on in his club. I don't want to sit with a stripper who all she does is whine about her life and bills that need to be paid thinking that will get her a bigger tip. It's annoying and I just want to get away. Your ex-dancer, Victoria, never had a bad thing to say about her life or the other dancers. She just did her job - which was to entertain me and she did it well.

You ought to get rid of the whiners in the club including the old stripper who I think is named Hunter or something like that and bring back Victoria. At the very least, you owe her an apology for blackballing her at the Xclub. Yes, I know all about it as I have friend who work there.

Are we at the point now where we are questioning every review that does not fit our pre-established idea of what a review should be?

Let people write what they want, as a reader you have the the ability to agree or disagree, or maybe even gain a new perspective on the club. After all, this is entertainment.

For those of you that feel these reviews s/b discussions, big deal, what does it matter.

It appears people are using the review to vent about a club. I have no problem with that. Most reviews posted are more of a personal experience in the club than an actual review of the club.

Are we going to start questioning discussions next? Should we eliminate all of the lame questions?

Really, a couple out of hundreds? Is this to become a censored board? I hope not, but founder may do whatever he wishes, of course.

Huh? TUSCL has been questioning every submission and rejecting reviews from day one. If you want to experience the joy of reading the people's uncensored views, try reading the name-calling contests at stripclublist.com or, better yet, the spam sewer that ASSC has become. I think I prefer the valuable resource that this site has remained through the work of the editors.

chandler,

That is founder's doings, as I said, not us. The question was asked by shadowcat, NOT founder!

Clubber, so when you asked, "Is this to become a censored board?" you meant by Shadowcat? OK, whatever.

I think the answer is no.

I read the "review" and felt like it was a complaint by a dancer which should have been on the "discussion board" if anywhere. That being said I read lots of so called reviews on this site that give even less information about a club than this particular review gave. I suspect the reviewer/dancer is new to the site and perhaps did not understand the distinction between reviews and discussion topics. In any case I was not particularly bothered by its posting or its subsequent removal. I will continue to read all reviews on clubs of interest to me and will sift through the good and bad on my own. I am not a fan of censorship in any form.

chandler,

Agreed! Sorry I went a bit past your understanding.

T_Bro,

As Clubber indicated, the review did at first past muster. It did not come into question until Shadowcat raised the issue as it appeared to disparage his favorite club.

While you may disagree with the format/content of the review, I am sure there are many African American TUSCLER's that would find it informative.

tx, you are raising the "heated issues" that I posted about and not keeping it confined to the question asked. The fact that the review was on my favorite club did not influence my decision to post it on the discussion board. It came to my attention because my favorite club is my book mark for TUSCL. Had I seen it on another club, I would have done the same thing. Founder is very diligent in reading reviews before he publishes them. His crew of editors are not so do diligent. Several week ago there was a review posted for my favorite club that was totally bogus. It was filled with LIES about a dancer very special to me. I immediately phoned her. She was outraged, to say the least. She immediately posted a review on the same club to gain access to the discussion board so that she could rebut the review. As soon as her review was posted, which made no mention of the bogus review, the offensive review was deleted. I can only assume that an editor published the bogus review and that founder posted the review by my special friend and noticed the review below it, mentioned her name. After reading it, he deleted it.The phony review was only available for a few hours. So I doubt that many people saw it. Nothing about my favorite club goes unnoticed by me. Bogus reviews don't get past founder but his editors are not so reliable.

Any one ever had a review rejected. I did. When I first started doing reviews 10 years ago. I got one rejected on the grounds that it was more of a personal experience than a review. I learned from that.

Scat,

I went back and read the review by Gridget that you mention. It is less descriptive of the club than the one you question. But since she is your friend I guess it is OK.

It's a discussion, but it provides valuable insight on the club management. I disagree that it should be removed.

Now I'm not sure where the review in question ended and the commentary began in the OP.

Don't see this posted as a review-has it been removed?

TB,

What if the "valuable insight on the club management" was that they support ripping off customers? Would that not be good for us to know?

Point is, censorship is censorship, no matter who does it or for what reason.

Calling this censorship is absurd. Founder clearly describes guidelines for approval on the review form and directs those who just want to post a comment to the Discussion Board. The comment about PP's hiring policy got posted here where it belonged in the first place and amplified by Shadowcat. If Founder was so determined to censor this valuable insight, how come it remains here for anyone to read? Because it's no longer on the page where readers go for views about PP? Sorry, that's editing, not censorship.

The review was not posted for discussion. THAT is the difference!

In any case, it really doesn't matter. I have been on here for years, and had I wished, I could have left at any time. I stay by my choice.

Most of the published reviews do not follow the guidelines for reviews outlined by Founder. And besides, they are guidelines, not requirements.

This board is frequented by dancers and customers, and it appears to me we have been recently been receiving more dancer feedback.

To me, a review of a club and its practices by a dancer can be just as informative as a review by a customer and his/her experience. This was a review of club practice by a dancer.

There have been several reviews similar to the one in question that were never questioned. It is still my belief that Scat questions this one as it disparages his favorite club.

Inconsistent application of guidelines is more censorship than editing due to its selective enforcement.

Because the editors are inconsistent, they are practicing censorship?

I would say they are imperfect editors, but they evidently do a tolerably good job of maintaining standards. Compare the usefulness of reviews here with sites that don't do any editing. Rejecting the rant of a disgruntled job applicant who never was a customer is the kind of decision that keeps all of us coming back for TUSCL's review section.

Or, in Clubber's world, evidently any rejection of text submitted as a review is censorship? Your right, it doesn't really matter. You know better than to put your money where your mouth is.

chandler,

"Your"?? Enough said. And yes, censorship IS rejection of anything!

Bottom line, we are both free to leave here at any time. I choose to stay even with the censorship, as do you, correct?

Clubber, first of all, thanks for catching my typo. Allow me to return the favor by pointing out how foolish you were to try to make a point about it, esp. given your own tendency to mangle the language. Of course, that's all beside the point.

As for the subject at hand, Clubber, what distinction do you make between censorship and editing? It appears you see no difference, in which case there can be little point in discussing it with you. Cries of censorship don't deserve much attention unless they come from someone for whom censorship means something.

I agree, txtittyfan, that censorship doesn't happen without a reason. I don't think he knows the reason Founder made this deletion. Sure, Shadowcat brought it to his attention, probably because of the low rating more than the accusations. Shadowcat's always going to be doing that to try to boost his favorite club. But it's Founder who makes the decision, and I don't see any pattern of him suppressing particular views from being published. I agree that you see a lot of other reviews that could be rejected. I think it's probably more a case of random enforcement than selective enforcement with some sinister agenda. If Kaylanta's accusations were included in a more proper review, I believe Founder would have accepted it. In the meantime, they have received plenty of attention here, which I notice you couldn't reconcile with your censorship theory, txtittyfan.

I agree that it's good to see the guidelines loosely applied, allowing people to say what they want in reviews for the most part. It would be pretty boring if everybody followed the same template. But it would be just as bad if no standards were enforced to keep out spam, shills, personal attacks and trivial comments. It's not by accident that TUSCL's review section is way better than stripclublist.com's.

chandler,

Most infants can't read and middle-aged illiterates who are unable to write and old fools that can't think straight. Just wondering your age!

To edit something does not mean to remove it from publication as planned, rather merely to "clean it up". Ergo, my editing of "you're" post. As I said above, "Bottom line, we are both free to leave here at any time. I choose to stay even with the censorship, as do you, correct?"

It didn't bother me one way or the other about the short review about PP. However, I didn't think there was hardly any information about the club. So they have a policy against hiring new black dancers or simply that they didn't want to hire the one dancer. Just that little piece of information by itself doesn't seem to be enough for a review. If she had just added something about the club I think that would have been enough. I've had some reviews in the past get edited and get information taken out of them. I didn't like that so I'm not in favor of censorship. However if there is no useful information about a club and you want 2 to 4 weeks of free membership here, I think you can add more than just one piece of information that may only pertain to you and no one else. She could have easily said something bad about the dancers and few customers and then given a one rating. Then added what she already did. There was a time when I thought about giving the same club a 1 rating but I don't know if I did or not. I did give more information about the club. I think even shadowcat gave the club a one rating one time.

Clubber, "cleaning up" is merely copy editing, a low-level subset of what editing entails. (BTW, it's also done by censors, only for different reasons.) Editing most any publication also includes continually adding and deleting whole articles and moving them from one section to another. How else do you think a publication takes its form? Does it just magically come together from whatever submissions happen to come in? In reality, it calls for a lot of hard work and judgment. You really ought to learn a little about at least the rudiments of the subject before opining categorically on it. Unless, of course, you don't care whether you know what you're talking about.

That has long been a common routine for you on this board, Clubber. You seem to fancy yourself to be highly literate, yet when one of us corrects you on some simplistic nonsense like your "50/50 odds", rather than admit to what's plain as plain as the nose on your face, you'll make it worse by trying to backtrack and feign superiority over "ignorant" readers who "fail to understand what you wrote". Too bad you can't just relax about your gaffes, because, otherwise, you seem to show a fun spirit here at times with your quips and your "clubber" animation. I've taken it easy on you because of that, until your recent attempts to insult me.

As for your putdowns, sorry, Clubber, I can't get into that schoolboy game. Why don't you save those gems for the name calling contests you're so fond of carrying on with TUSCL's trolls? It's a shame to see such, *ahem*, top shelf material go to waste.

chandler,

Are you sure you and mg aren't one and the same? Same worthless and meaningless "tactics". Just because one can not understand a simple concept, that is no reason for you to label others "trolls".

Tell you what, do yourself a favor and take a look at your computer screen as you read this. Notice in the upper left corner you will see the displayed name "Clubber". Just under that you will see [ignore]. Please, click that!

Yeah, ain't turnabout a bitch, Clubber? Did you think just because you dished out personal insults that I would abandon my clear rhetoric and stoop to your level? Looks like you picked the wrong target and got the plain truth thrown back in your face instead. No, I won't put you on ignore. I reserve that for trolls, not troll feeders. I wanna sit back and be entertained when you try to pull the same charade with the next "ignorant" poster who challenges one of your baseless assertions.

chandler,

Wonderful! Suit yourself, and I will continue to accept you as what you are. BTW, I didn't realize there was any "putdowns" as you call them. When you are wrong, you may say you are correct forever, but that does not make you correct. If facts do not matter to you, so be it.

casualguy, You are correct. I did give it a 1 rating once. I only did so to demonstrate how over all ratings are determined. Because I have so many reviews for my favorite club, nothing I can do will affect the outcome. BTW, If you read the text of the review, You know that I had a good time.

I don't think chandler and MisterGay are the same poster. MisterGay is much dumber than chandler for one. MisterGay also tries very hard to portray himself as nice guy/white knight friend/defender of whores. chandler, OTOH, is a complete douchebag and proud of it. MisterGay also likes to participate in the political discussions here, whereas chandler has only minimal interest in non-stripper topics. Two different people for sure.

I'm a little late to the party here, but allow me to point out another review that's like the one the OP was about. This is the first review of the new Scores in NYC:

I gave this place a 3 because the girls are hot--a mix of pretty white college girls, the typical brazilians and russians, and some really hot black girls. But other than that, this place is horrible. i worked here for about a month, before all the drama happened and it closed and reopened. hopefully it's better now, but i can't imagine how. It's in a terrible location, in an industrial part of manhattan near west side highway. It's directly next to a gay club and other than that, there's not much around.

The biggest problem with this place was the assholes who ran it. [yadda yadda yadda]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only is this an ex-dancer complaining about what it was like to work there, she's complaining about the PREVIOUS management/ownership (when it was Scores West).

Well, one thing I will say for both reviews is that they don't try to hide their agenda. They're don't appear to be fraudulent, like the shills who boost their own club and dump on the competition.

Well then Chandler, why should they have been censored/edited?

Beats me. Look upthread for a re-read of that debate. I don't think anyone's saying that apparent fraudulence is the only justification for Founder to reject a review.