Where's Shadowcat and the censors/editors?

"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?"

Chandler,

I was illustrating the point that Shadowcat and the staff only appear to remove (censor) a review if it is questioned. Shadowcat only appears to question if it is in reference to his favorite club. It still reeks of inconsistent standards. Or no standards, and we only act if people complain.

Removing something because of a complaint is censorship, not editing as you claim.

What I do not understand is why Shadowcat is being discussed in the context of a review or a club. Sure, he gets carried away with PP but why should another TUSCLr be offering disparaging comments about Shadowcat? I do not see the point at all. Until a few months ago there was a TUSCLr, who had to insult Shadowcat at every opportunity. It got very tiresome, and I was happy when that person stopped posting to this board. At least this thread is not bashing anybody, and I appreciate that.

txtittyfan asserts that "Shadowcat ... remove(s) ... a review..." How is that possible? txtittyfan, are you certain he has done that?

As far as removing something, that is the Founder's job, and by delegation, the editor's job. In reading the "review" in question, it strikes me as more of a free advertisement than a review. That's not to say I have any problem with it, but if the editor removed it, so what? That's certainly not "censorship" per se. It is the job of editors to use their judgment in determining what is posted. Let's say the editor "missed one", and somebody pointed it out. Then removes him. That really is NOT censorship. Censorship is when an outside body, usually a governmental or religious organization, exerts their power to prevent a publisher from publishing what he wants to publish.

I realize that we are all free to comment on any topic we wish in this Discussion Board, and that is a good thing. But where is this particular thread supposed to be going? Perhaps I have only muddied the water with these comments, but I am interested in the topics being discussed here, and look forward to reading more. If txtittyfan has a rebuttal for me that is fine.

"I was illustrating the point that Shadowcat and the staff only appear to remove (censor) a review if it is questioned. Shadowcat only appears to question if it is in reference to his favorite club."

Look, while it's true that scat is just another shill for the PP...it is also true that, from what I've been able to gather, founder & his editors rarely edit or remove a review unless there is a complaint about it. Who knows how many reviews are never published (or simply end up on the "Articles" board?) in the first place by them, but I kind of doubt that the number is very, very high.

"Removing something because of a complaint is censorship, not editing as you claim."

I disagree. This is a private website, and they can edit whatever they want to. Censorship, IMHO, only truly occurs when the govt. does it.

"but why should another TUSCLr be offering disparaging comments about Shadowcat?"

Because he's a tried old fool?? I'm just sayin'...lol... ;)

"Until a few months ago there was a TUSCLr, who had to insult Shadowcat at every opportunity. It got very tiresome, and I was happy when that person stopped posting to this board."

Yea, what the heck happened to p-man?

MisterGay: "Censorship, IMHO, only truly occurs when the govt. does it."

You need to check a dictionary:

"censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable "

No mention of government in the definition. But let me ask you this, if founder deleted any posts on this board he deemed "pro liberal" and only let the conservative viewpoint stay won't you say that was censorship?

MisterGay: "Yea, what the heck happened to p-man? "

Well he is your fellow short bus rider and boyfriend, so why don't you tell us? My guess: his HIV progressed to AIDS and he is now to weak to log onto the board and spew his filth here.

Well, isn't this a happy subject.

My opinions, for what they are worth (not much probably):
1) There are a few clubs I am really familiar with. I can spot a bogus or biased reviews for those clubs.
2) I tend to let these things slide. The bogus and biased reviewers don't last ling.
3) I can understand the pride factor. You don't like to see your club, or some of the people you know, disparaged or slandered.
4) I don't care whether Shadowcat objects to some reviews. All I care about is getting him to introduce me to the girls at PP if I happen to go there.
5) In the famous words of Rodney King...

Well, I meant "don't last long"... ;-)

arbeeguy, T_Bro

My discussion topic was a followup to a discussion brought forth by Shadowcat a few days ago questioning a review by a disgruntled dancer wannabe at his favorite club. I suggest you go back and read the ensuing discussion.

Myself and others felt it should not have been questioned/removed from the board. If you want to believe the reasons for removal, than why are we not consistent here? Shadowcat in his own words said he does not just question reviews of his own favorite club, hence my question to him as to why not question this one?

Censorship can be when any controlling body removes what they feel is objectionable. Founder and his staff are a controlling body of this board. It seems you and others are missing my basic point that a different standard is being used for the evaluation of the reviews questioned by Shadowcat, Samsung1 and myself. This is back to my basic premise that the negative comments on PP were only removed because Scat was upset and questioned it.

Finally, nowhere in my post herein, did I make a disparaging comment about Scat. I think you guys tend to read too much into comments based upon your own personal biases.

The way I see it the Founder hears your complaints. If they are valid he may agree with you and take action. If not and you don't like it, you may end up getting banned like shadowcat has been in the past.

Thad's is a swingers place.

The review referenced might be a total shill job, but it's not out of bounds given the type of club. Good taste isn't a requirement. There have been reviews here by dancers on their own clubs which aren't too different from this in spirit. It really comes down to a subjective view on the content of the post.

I've flagged a few reviews through founder that seemed off to me. Some were deleted. Some weren't. But I don't read every review. It's an admin call at the end of the day.

Tittyfan, are you sure this isn't more about some grudge you have with Shadowcat? It seems like once every few days I see a snarky comment of yours about him, usually in an unrelated thread. Starting this topic because of a review of some obscure place in San Diego Shadowcat did not complain about is really a strain. Makes you appear a bit preoccupied. Realize that I've had my share of disagreements with him over the years (to put it mildly), but I do it in direct response to his posts. I get it over with and move on.

As for the issues you raise, I don't have much to add to what I wrote in the earlier thread. I agree that the site could stand to be more consistent in applying standards for reviews. I feel that calling their lack of consistency censorship is a frivolous misuse of a word that should be reserved for something more significant.

In any case, I just don't get the sense that you feel so strongly about the issue as you do about one person involved, and I don't mean Founder.

chandler: I suppose that txfan considers himself a white knight/nice guy/defender of whores/open-minded in much the same way that MisterGay likes to think of himself as some kind of hero. For whatever reason, and, perhaps, mistakenly such types seem to have a thing against shadowcat who likes to speak more openly about things rather than always trying to take the PC approach.

To elaborate a bit: What is going is that MisterGay and tx see in shadowcat beliefs that they actually have some sympathy for, but are to scared to admit to others and even to themselves because it would shatter their image of themselves as PC heroes.

The attacks on shadowcat (e.g. calling him "scat") are futile attempts to reduce the cognitive dissonance they feel which is caused by the conflict between their simultaneous whore mongering and desire to be good little PC nice guys.

This definitely went too long. Might as well add.

I don't think txtittyfan was trying to necessarily single out shadow. I think he saw that it was a review that didn't seem like a review and knew shadow brought up the bogus review a couple of weeks ago, so he asked why shadow didn't bring this one up as well. Of course, I could be wrong, txtityfan knows the complete reason of the post, but it seems like everyone assumes he meant malice towards shadow which reading the initial post doesn't seem like that to me

Isn't the fact that tx addresses shadowcat as "scat" a dead give away that the "hates" him? Given that, what do you make of this thread?

I actually almost used it to abbreviate before reading the post ahead of mine. MisterGuy was the first to use scat then in subsequent replies txtfan used it. But what i meant was at the beginning I didn't see anything derogatory although as the thread grew it certainly grew that way.

Maybe shadow saw it differently though. I consider myself a friend of shadow's and have met him at PP a few times. I've never met txtfan.

uscue13,

You seem to have hit the nail on the head. People read too much into comments and make assumptions based upon their own personal biases. I use Scat as I have seen it used before and it is easier to type. We have all seen references to members abbreviated.

Most people still appear to miss the basic point. We have inconsistent application of guidelines based upon complaints. When people were arguing their view, many were hypocritical.

I referenced Scat because he took it upon himself to question a negative review of his favorite club. However, people defending the position do not seem to take issue with posts that have far less merit as a bona fide review.

Posters have talked about maintaining the integrity of TUSCL, I am just illustrating an issue that brings the integrity in question IMO.

Chandler,

The only time that I remember ever making a "snarky" comment toward Scat is in reply to a comment he made on the thread about Asian dancers that I found racist and inappropriate. You comment is clearly an exaggeration.

"Starting this topic because of a review of some obscure place in San Diego Shadowcat did not complain about is really a strain."

It is indeed...this entire thread could be considered by some to be a mild "attack thread", which is usually the realm of the trolls on here and/or scat & his buddies.

"MisterGuy was the first to use scat then in subsequent replies txtfan used it."

That's not true at all. Someone else (I forget exactly who) a long while ago accidentally abbreviated his name to scat, and scat's reaction to it was so odd that it was obvious that it bothered him. Others on this board have *attempted* to use much, much more disparaging "nicknames" for some that post here (you can even see a few on display right here in this thread!), so I don't have any problem using one as mild as scat.

"We have inconsistent application of guidelines based upon complaints."

Again, I don't think so at all. If you don't like the review in question, then just tell founder about it...no need to post an entire thread on the subject. Again, that's what scat & his buddies do. We can do better...

It could be that most people reading the thread understood the point but didn't find it to be that much of an issue. Not tracking on why this is important. No system is perfect. As a frequent user of the site, it seems to work well enough as a reference. Some of the reviews that get posted probably should not have made it through review but for whatever reason did. Take the following as an example:


Platinum Plus
Columbia, South Carolina

Overall Rating: 8.00

Reviewed by: sclubber Send Private Message to sclubber
Review Date: June 18, 2009
Visited on: Wednesday Afternoon
Dancers on Shift: 25-99

Club Rating: 8
Dancer Rating: 8
Value Rating: 8

"First time in the club. Nice layout, a little loud but a lot of nice dancers. Was having some nice dances at 2 fer 25 as that is all I will pay. Anyway I started getting light headed I guess the oxygen was going to the wrong head. Management called paramedics as I passed out.

When I came to I was in the ambulence with some attendent named Gidget or Gridget or something like that. I told her I was just about getting finnished by a hot dancer when I passed out. She said she used to work there and would finnish me off. Lucky me, I got a BBBJ on the way to the hospital. I will def go back."


Did it make it through the initial review? Yes. Should the post (clearly a personal attack) have stayed online?

Now, to address the point on whether a review has been unfairly singled out for removal, fairness is relative. The review blown away which started this discussion was not a very good one. Maybe if there had been more merit to it, the review could have survived with an edit. Some do. I've had reviews edited and didn't really care because it's a judgment call that's out of my hands. Overall the content of the site is consistently better than its peers.

For regular contributors this is essentially a free service. That's a pretty good deal. The norms are what they are, so please enjoy your stay in Rome. Making it personal doesn't help.

Tittyfan: Off the top of my head, you're forgetting the times when you asked if we need to "check with Shadowcat" before making an off-topic post (because he once complained about all the political posts), and when you scolded Shadowcat for posting something about Platinum Plus that was somewhat off-topic. Sorry, I don't feel like going back and searching for examples.

If I'm imagining a pattern when it's just by chance that you happen to have done all this towards one poster, then I would expect that to be borne out from here on. Cool.

Be careful about that tx guy, chandler, he tends to be full of shit.

T-Bro,

Now this does look like a review that s/b removed as it attacks a person, not a SC.

Tittyfan: I don't think the rest of us miss your point. We just disagree that it's such a problem. Where's the hypocrisy in that? In any event, if inconsistency is the problem, what do you favor as a solution?

Should we all ignore Founder's longstanding request that we help by alerting him to reviews of dubious merit? Are we supposed to refrain unless we scrutinize every single review that gets published? Should Founder stop screening reviews all together and just publish everything that comes in? Should he hire more editors in order to ensure fair and equal enforcement of standards for everyone, and fund it by turning TUSCL into a pay-only site? Let's see some constructive proposals, man.

chandler,

I think it is comical that you are dredging up an old thread with questions that have already been asked and answered. And I never said it was a problem. You keep fabricating statements to try and bolster your position. Although it does still appear that you do not get the point. At this time, it is my belief you never will.

Looks like the failed writer and the idiot gay trader from Texas are now officially enemies. How amusing.

since this was brought up again, I felt compelled to respond. I had lunch with gridget twice last week and we discussed the review again. First of all, nobody that knows her would believe a word of it. She is not an EMT in that county and was at home, 50 miles away, when it allegedly happened. We figured that it was posted by some one with a grudge or just trying to impress the rest of us. Her name has been mentioned enough on here that anyone could have put together the tale. No one contacted founder and asked for it to be pulled. He did it himself.

Scat, that was not the review being discussed. The review in question was by the disgruntled dancer wannabe.

Tittyfan, I didn't dredge up anything. I replied in an active thread related to complaints you keep bringing up, with a simple question you haven't answered. Either you have something constructive to offer or just nagging. The ball's in your court.

Date Sent: 06/18/09 6:11 PM
To : founder Send Private Message to founder

Subject:
Bogus Review for Platinum Plus in Columbia, SC


Message:
I find shadowcat's narcissism as annoying as the next guy, but this is over the line...



Platinum Plus
Columbia, South Carolina

Overall Rating: 8.00

Reviewed by: sclubber Send Private Message to sclubber
Review Date: June 18, 2009
Visited on: Wednesday Afternoon
Dancers on Shift: 25-99

Club Rating: 8
Dancer Rating: 8
Value Rating: 8
First time in the club. Nice layout, a little loud but a lot of nice dancers. Was having some nice dances at 2 fer 25 as that is all I will pay. Anyway I started getting light headed I guess the oxygen was going to the wrong head. Management called paramedics as I passed out.

When I came to I was in the ambulence with some attendent named Gidget or Gridget or something like that. I told her I was just about getting finnished by a hot dancer when I passed out. She said she used to work there and would finnish me off. Lucky me, I got a BBBJ on the way to the hospital. I will def go back.

"Tittyfan, I didn't dredge up anything."

That's a little disingenuous of you chandler. There was 7 days between the last reply and yours. Just admit that tx has landed some good points against you and move on already.

So I was scanning reviews for Players Club in Baltimore and ran across another that falls into scratchable territory. Aside from having a serious case of little big man syndrome, it doesn't mention the club even once. It also doesn't mention that what Players Club calls its VIP room is barely the size of a phone booth and the dancers hate it because they make more money on regular lappers. This after going on and on about them. But I digress, this would have made an interesting article but is absolutely a non-review:

Players Club
Baltimore, Maryland

Overall Rating: 8.00
Reviewed by: SC_Afficionado

Review Date: June 26, 2009
Visited on: Friday Evening
Dancers on Shift: 6-10

Club Rating: 8
Dancer Rating: 8
Value Rating: 8

I am about to give a little bit of strip club "GAME" to some of you lames and new strip club hobbyists...
The basic "5 Step Blueprint" to high mileage at a Gentlemen's Club.

Lesson 1: All strip clubs that offer VIP champagne rooms and/or private booth lapdances, offer high mileage...
(Note: When searching for a high mileage strip club... Unless, you have the time, the gentlemens club expertise and a lot extra $'s to toss around, buyer beware of strip clubs without VIP rooms and/or private booth lappers. And, enter those establishments at your own risks... As always, YMMV).

Lesson 2: Never pay for a HJ... (because, "extras" are customary).
(Note: Extras = HJ's, kissing, fondling, etc. All of which, are a start and enhancement to your high mileage lapdances. Thus, an "extra" given at the dancers' discretion... NO tipping required...
Mileage = DATY, all inclusive GFE lapdances, nude lapdances with "extra" attention, etc.; all of which, warrant a reasonable 40% - 50% gratuity).

Lesson 3: Never tip upfront...
(Note: This is the oldest dancer trick, lapdance chicanery and scheme in the history of the gentlemens club... Tipping upfront is a bad practice. And, it immediately communicates to the stripper that you are a SUCKER... an easy victim for all lapdance con- artists.
By the way, if a stripper states, "I haven't made any money, tonight..." Avoid this entertainer, altogether; because, there is a reason for her "no dollar" dancing demise. And, it always proves to be at an undesired result, via the strip club hobbyists expense... Don't even bother trying to figure it out... just avoid this dancer, immediately... Remember, "If a stripper offers high mileage, her night is always lucrative..." Use your common sense)

Lesson 4: Well- groomed. Always dress clean, casual and comfortable... (Commando- style, can be a plus).
(Note: Two splashes of a Gucci cologne or any expensive spray/fragrance, for that matter, will definitely increase your chances at high mileage lappers... Most dancers enjoy the expensive smell of a well- groomed man, while they're entertaining within their dirty dancing deeds... Although, this is definitely NOT the dealmaker, it shall surely increase your chances at high mileage. And, sometimes add fuel for interesting dancer-to-customer relation).
Ironically, enough... Be advised, the less attractive the dancer, the more (better) mileage offered...) ;-)

Lastly. And, more importantly...

Lesson 5: NEVER tip a dancer more than 40% - 50% of your total VIP room and/or private booth lapdance costs.
(Note: In restaurants, a waitress or waiters gratuity is 15% - 20% per total cost of meal(s), for acceptional service. And, CraigList Adult Providers and Massage Therapists complete services via 120 - 150 mph; both of which, can be described as paid "professionals...")
In short, most half hour private lapdances are already valued above & beyond the costs given to paid professionals.

Gentlemen... The bottom line is...
Refrain from outrageous tipping practices within the VIP room sessions and/or private lapdance booths... Extend your high $ appreciation to the dancers via strip club stage performances (before and/or after your lapper experience). Therefore, the fun and "private" room sessions given to the frequent gentlemens club hobbyists are continued and rightfully preserved within the strip club industry...
No disrepect... But, should anyone dispute the more than reasonable 40% - 50% gratuity for high mileage lapdances, they are either a Pimp or a "con- artist" stripper... (Note: Pimps and "con- artists" strippers should stay in their lane on the streets of prostitution)!

By all means, take care of your entertainers and always tip accordingly... (dancers should appreciate gratuity)!
And, frequent strip clubbers (and future SC hobbyists) should control the Gentlemens Club experience!

"Be safe... And, HAVE FUN"