I don't think it has to be full-moderation or no-moderation - if it's either/or then I'd choose no-moderation I just want to see the obvious trolls (txtittyfag(s), San Jose Gay, etc) not be allowed to post - but not moderate b/c someone has an opinion others don't like - just the trolls who only serve to clog up the board for no reason other than to troll
Here's the deal guys, if you actually get a moderator there will need to be terms or rules and they will need to be published so that you can make a post and be published. Sooner rather than later the rule is going to run into a post that is a judgement call this is logic not math. There won't be a real strong leaning one way or another and the moderator will have to make the call, based on his biases that's the line on which the call will be made at that point there may or may not be an appeal. At this point this blows up and becomes just another moderated forum, who really wants that, certainly not me. Be careful what you wish for , you just might find you won't like it.
I must say that it's been very pleasant here the last few hours. The trolls must be getting their beauty sleep.
A moderator is a mixed bag for reasons already mentioned. I know the ignore feature isn't perfect but it's pretty effective.
I have been on lots and lots of forums which have active moderation. Problem is the interpretation of any rules is completely arbitrary. And so it ends up being a place where like mindedness is enforced. Most of the time the moderators are real shits, and they are on high horses. So it gets even worse, because people are arguing to protect their reputation and to prove that they are right. And almost never do these moderators spend enough time reading threads to really know what is going on. So while we have trolls, on most forums with moderators, the moderators are the trolls, and they have arbitrary powers.
So I say that Founder has set this up the best way.
We do have IGNORE, and I have used is sparingly, but it does work:
My Ignore List
DoctorPhil [restore]
DoctorPhil. [restore]
ime [restore]
Meat72 [restore]
san_jose_gay [restore]
@Go Vikings- There are open boards with no moderation throughout the internet covering any imaginable topic and for the most part they work just fine,a better question IMO would be, don't you like this forum, and if so why would you want to change the character of this very board that lets us talk about broads, football, politics, and be a little or a lot stupid at times ? If you don't enjoy posting and responding here why are you here?
i guess we've had different experiences----because i can't recall one forum i've ever visited that didn't have a moderator
i think you misunderstood me---so i want to making something crystal clear---the ONLY reason i'm in favor of having a moderator is because of the trolls who clog up the board and ruin it for everyone. if it weren't for that, i couldn't careless about whether we have a moderator or not.
i'm not sure if you've noticed, but sometimes this board is completely incomprehensible because all you see is FOUR different threads in a row that say "ricky boy is gay" title says it all by none other than dougster of course and whoever else that for whatever strange reasons gets enjoyment out of trolling a message board.
what's the point of having a forum/discussion board if you can't go on it without reading a shit ton of non-sense?
Moderated boards tend to take what I call, The National Public Radio Social Hygiene Position.
I think TUSCL is fine the way it is. And GoVikings, identify the people you consider malicious trolls, and IGNORE them. You won't see their posts or their threads.
@GoVikings I don't want you to think that I don't agree with you about the redundant fucked up shit, I do, but the risk is greater that some self appointed, or even board appointed moderator will get ticked off and take it upon himself to ban some idiot based on personality conflict alone. I know that the repetitive shit is annoying, yet the members that are irked, have a remedy in the ignore feature. I know it isn't perfect but it does work. The real problem is the folks that use it the most, can't seem to resist peeking around it from time to time and then they feel the need to respond. I believe most of the trolls are just being silly, so I don't really care all that much, but I certainly understand that they do get under some of the thinner skinned posters. Actually some of the shit is tired but who really cares. I don't have anyone on ignore and wouldn't report it if i did, I just scroll past the shit I don't have an interest in, and respond only to things that I find interesting. i just believe that a moderator would ruin this board so I am against it, and I'm willing to put up with the bullshit so here I am.
Interesting thread. Having a moderator has pros and cons. If we had one specific ground rules need to be agreed upon and adopted. This may be a bigger job than any of us realizes. The ignore button is a good option, although I never use it ezcept lie sflyguy
^^ PS some of the guys that are considered trolls make me laugh out loud cause they are really funny that alone is a good reason to like some people that you may not agree with.
I would vote for a moderator and Papi or Shadow sound like good choices to me. The ignore button is okay, but you have to be logged in to use it, and it's nice to visit the site without being logged in all the time. If you lose your phone or something, do you really want to be logged into TUSCL, for some stranger to see your alter ego?
I'm suggesting very minimal moderation. Just outright spammers or trolls, like the Indian packers and movers, txtittyfag, txtittyfag., etc. If a moderator determines that their pointless advertising or attack threads hold no value whatsoever, they should be banned from posting new discussion topics or only allowed to post one comment per day or something like that.
I think that might clean things up, but still allow for a wide range of topics and discussions for everything from strippers, to OTC, to sports, cars, restaurants, politics, etc.
txtittyfag, you've been here for years? You should have spent some of that time learning to spell. At least when Juice mis-spells words it's kind of funny.
You do know how to spell though, right? You're just one of Dougster's aliasas.
Hey shadowcat, remember back in the day when we had to make do with only one or two trolls? And sadly I was a troll feeder. These millenials just don't get it.
Don't need a mod. Need Founder to delete 5 or 10 of the worst and then after that delete anyone who spams the board or creates discussions simply to attack other people. It wouldn't stop the real lunatics but it would help. Sadly Founder isn't interested.
jestie might sort of get it in his last sentence. It's Libertarianism that's at stake. If a small board can't even get by peacefully without an active moderator, how can society get by without an active government?
Shocking no one Dugly is terrified of a moderator or even of Founder deleting problem posters.
Police and fire departments aren't "nanny states". They're local entities set up to deal with problems that left unchecked can disrupt everyone. You're average libertarian has no problem with that. Even some of the more extreme ones are fine with privatized police/fire. A paid moderator would be okay?
I've been on plenty of moderated boards. Hardly "terrified" of them. Like I say I can play by any set of rules.
And Libertarians say the police can only get involved when violence or theft (which they say is equivalent) comes into play. Something impossible if people are just discussing things. (An exception might be if a psycho like SJG threatened somewhat. We'll have to check with little georgiemicrobrain to see what the Libertarian have to say chapter and verse on that one).
For a technical POV deleting accounts wouldn't do much to stop people from coming back under different accounts. How do you know where they are logging in from? Not too up on the details of how the internet works are you, jestie? Not something they got to when you were getting your Art History degree or in janitorial school after that?
Jester nailed it. Here's something to chew on: I'm a member on 3 other public forums, all of which are moderated to varying degrees. (I'm also on a closed forum of sorts with moderator, but I'm not counting that.) Combined ignore list on those 3 forums: Z-E-R-O!! As in bold cap ZERO. Tuscl ignore list: 75.
Obviously, founder doesn't want moderation, or he would have done so a long time ago. Discussing stripclubs, broads, dames, booze, juvenille hijinks, etc. is not on the same level, as a board on how to advance one's career, overhaul a V8, build a Heathkit (anyone remember those), or design a control panel for a RC model or drone, there comes a point where one needs to say enough is enough.
Today, Tuscl looks more like a junior high chat board than a germane DB on stripclubs, and how to get the most enjoyment out of them.
I recognize that moderation is an inexact science, with a degree of personal discretion the watchword. On a site like this, some degree of tomfoolery should be tolerated. If I were moderator (I'm not interested in being one), I'd wink at desertscrubs "greetings" to 0-0 newbs trolling for intel on best extras clubs. I would not tolerate posting/bumping multiple threads calling other members a faggot. Nor creating multiple aliases to spam the board. Nor too much of other nonsense that outnumbers the reviews that a member has posted. If you want to post about every time you took a shit in a fast food restaurant, or every time chicken fangers made you fart, gtfo
this board, and start your own blog about those subjects. Yes, the ignore button is a wonderful thing, but one shouldn't have to keep pulling up weeds. A weed killer is needed, just as long as it doesn't kill the grass, or good
plants.
^^^ another guy who doesn't understand how the internet works. How do you prevent multiple aliases? Someone creates a new alias how do you whether or not they have other ones?
I don't like much of what is posted. But I think this forum is still fine just as it is. For those who are complaining or want someone deleted, have you put them on IGNORE? Why not? How could you have any basis to call for moderation or banishments if you are not using IGNORE?
SJG
Robert B. Reich: responding to "Entrepreneurs give you work." Entrepreneurialism stems from a degree of economic freedom. Wealthy individuals and CEO's are not the job creators. We have socialism for the rich, but most people live under a very cruel form of capitalism.
https://youtu.be/YFhismScVq4?t=25m2s
Well you see, SJG, in their minds ignore isn't doing enough to punish the person. They put someone on ignore the person they put on ignore couldn't care less. So to them it doesn't feel like the ignored person got punished. Now if they could make everyone else have them on ignore... Seems fairer, right?
Founder's past comments indicate that the discussion board is here for entertainment only. It doesn't generate any significant revenue when compared to the review pages. In fact, I think the amount discussed was something on the order of "virtually none," suggesting that the ROI would be negative.
Given that, he's not likely to spend much time on a section of the site that won't return the investment of time, effort and skull sweat.
I suggest those who are wish for a moderator learn to live with disappointment.
Besides, the only person I trust to moderate honestly and objectively is me.
Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
One mod can't watch this forum 24 hours a day so to be thorough there would have to be more than one. My opinion is because all of us have various biases that none of us should be appointed as mods. The only fair way would be to bring in new unbiased people that would come in only to enforce rules without prior opinions of posters here.
There's lots of spam, trolling, and arguing here but I see at the bottom of the page that TUSCL has existed since 1995 and has managed to do that without mods so at the end of the day I say leave things as they are.
I am agreeing with Dougster here. ( quite rare! ) We should not be trying to punish people. That is actually how moralists work, and seek to criminalize the behavior of consenting adults.
Lets just use IGNORE as needed.
So can we agree, no more complaints unless you already have all of the transgressors on IGNORE?
Yanis Varoufakis: Basic Income is a Necessity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgdtF3y… Financialization has created a huge wedge between Capital and Labor, created a new form of Capital, Financialized Capital.
gmd-->"Founder's past comments indicate that the discussion board is here for entertainment only. It doesn't generate any significant revenue when compared to the review pages. In fact, I think the amount discussed was something on the order of "virtually none," suggesting that the ROI would be negative. "
I would respectfully wonder if founder is thinking this all the way through. There is a reason websites like to capture conversation, even if the real income from that website is elsewhere -- it brings eyeballs, and lots of them, to the site. Which brings more eyeballs. Which creates sales elsewhere, and also opens up new opportunities. It's why at least some of the big sex-oriented sites -- the site that completely monopolized and the bay area scene to the point of making BP irrelevant in this area, for example -- bother to put it in at least a minimal amount of effort... it keeps eyeballs pouring in.
There's no reason tuscl can't dominated SC conversation on the web. But how many new posters do we get each year? Few, because "put them on ignore" doesn't do anything to keep a new poster who is just peeking in to see if tuscl is worth his time. In several SC forums I"ve been to, whenever there's a "what other SC sites and forums do you go to", there's mention of tuscl -- ALWAYS followed with "but those guys are brutal and the place is overrun by trolls". Every time, always. By contrast, positive mentions and a better signal-to-noise ratio, I would predict could bring in many thousands of eyeballs, many of whom would lurk (but are potential review writers and VIP membership buyers), some of whom would contribute to the forum. It doesn't make sense that every website with a thriving forum makes tons of money off it, and brings in a huge number of new clicks, but tuscl can't ... they just haven't given it a good run to see what will happen.
I wasn't too interested in TUSCL nor its reviews since I don't travel frequently - it was actually the board that made me a TUSCLer and my 300+ reviews followed (I originally had no interest in writing reviews)
IMO the board is really where the knowledge is - reviews rarely get into nitty-gritty nor can there be an exchange of opinions and ideas - reviews are important but on the board is where one can learn "best PL practices" per se.
Papi, that has been the rule at every site I"ve been on -- and I agree it's also true here. The conversations can be super interesting -- if a newbie has the patience to find them. Plus, backchannel messaging between active forum members is the #1 best way to get info.
Elect me moderator and I will do one thing and one thing only. I will ban that faggot Lloyd Schoene and his san_jose_guy login forever. Once done I will relinquish any moderator powers, because the true problem will resolved. Before SJG there were no real threats of violence or advocation of killing others based on their religion, and rape was not romantacized.
People on TJAmigos talk about TUSCL and note that people "are calling each other faggot."
Most of our women members get run off quickly.
Most of the guys who post negative meta narratives are those with serious character disorders, they believe that everyone has to conform in their manner of thought and speech, otherwise they must be driven out.
Fortunately this is only online. Imagine what such types would be like f2f. Scary!
Is Athenian Democracy the remedy for "The Matrix" like dystopia which Dougster and his friends are driving us towards by continuing finanicalization? And is advancing technology the problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB4s5b9N…
I agree with Subraman's comments that a "cleaner" board with less trolls, would draw in more eyeballs, and more money in the long run.
I also think the trolls are a deterrent to new posters. I know desertscrub's antics are humerous at times, to those aware of his shtick, but I honestly think he does chase away a lot of new posters when he tells them to fuck off.
The discussion board is apparently a *minuscule* percentage of traffic to the site. The discussions don't drive traffic to the site, reviews do. At least according to page views.
I'm sure founder will comment at some point if I'm misremembering, or just plain wrong.
66 comments
Latest
I don't think it has to be full-moderation or no-moderation - if it's either/or then I'd choose no-moderation I just want to see the obvious trolls (txtittyfag(s), San Jose Gay, etc) not be allowed to post - but not moderate b/c someone has an opinion others don't like - just the trolls who only serve to clog up the board for no reason other than to troll
I don't think this would be a problem. I'm on one other forum that I've been on longer than I have here and that has never been an issue.
Oh, and ( in my Ash Ketchum voice) I choose YOU Chulo!
but why is it that TUSCL is the ONLY forum/discussion board i've ever visited with no moderator?
A moderator is a mixed bag for reasons already mentioned. I know the ignore feature isn't perfect but it's pretty effective.
I have been on lots and lots of forums which have active moderation. Problem is the interpretation of any rules is completely arbitrary. And so it ends up being a place where like mindedness is enforced. Most of the time the moderators are real shits, and they are on high horses. So it gets even worse, because people are arguing to protect their reputation and to prove that they are right. And almost never do these moderators spend enough time reading threads to really know what is going on. So while we have trolls, on most forums with moderators, the moderators are the trolls, and they have arbitrary powers.
So I say that Founder has set this up the best way.
We do have IGNORE, and I have used is sparingly, but it does work:
My Ignore List
DoctorPhil [restore]
DoctorPhil. [restore]
ime [restore]
Meat72 [restore]
san_jose_gay [restore]
I say the way we have it now is best.
SJG
TJ Street Photos
http://www.adelitasbartijuanamexico.com/…
http://www.losangelespress.org/wp-conten…
Yab Yum
http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww69/…
My Ignore List:
sflguy123
:)
i guess we've had different experiences----because i can't recall one forum i've ever visited that didn't have a moderator
i think you misunderstood me---so i want to making something crystal clear---the ONLY reason i'm in favor of having a moderator is because of the trolls who clog up the board and ruin it for everyone. if it weren't for that, i couldn't careless about whether we have a moderator or not.
i'm not sure if you've noticed, but sometimes this board is completely incomprehensible because all you see is FOUR different threads in a row that say "ricky boy is gay" title says it all by none other than dougster of course and whoever else that for whatever strange reasons gets enjoyment out of trolling a message board.
what's the point of having a forum/discussion board if you can't go on it without reading a shit ton of non-sense?
I think TUSCL is fine the way it is. And GoVikings, identify the people you consider malicious trolls, and IGNORE them. You won't see their posts or their threads.
SJG
I'm suggesting very minimal moderation. Just outright spammers or trolls, like the Indian packers and movers, txtittyfag, txtittyfag., etc. If a moderator determines that their pointless advertising or attack threads hold no value whatsoever, they should be banned from posting new discussion topics or only allowed to post one comment per day or something like that.
I think that might clean things up, but still allow for a wide range of topics and discussions for everything from strippers, to OTC, to sports, cars, restaurants, politics, etc.
It seems to me that fonder is content with the ignore button being the almighty tuscl moderator
You do know how to spell though, right? You're just one of Dougster's aliasas.
Yes I remember. I also remember that it was even worse when your didn't have to have a registered name to make a comment.
Do you want a nanny state, jestie?
Police and fire departments aren't "nanny states". They're local entities set up to deal with problems that left unchecked can disrupt everyone. You're average libertarian has no problem with that. Even some of the more extreme ones are fine with privatized police/fire. A paid moderator would be okay?
And Libertarians say the police can only get involved when violence or theft (which they say is equivalent) comes into play. Something impossible if people are just discussing things. (An exception might be if a psycho like SJG threatened somewhat. We'll have to check with little georgiemicrobrain to see what the Libertarian have to say chapter and verse on that one).
Obviously, founder doesn't want moderation, or he would have done so a long time ago. Discussing stripclubs, broads, dames, booze, juvenille hijinks, etc. is not on the same level, as a board on how to advance one's career, overhaul a V8, build a Heathkit (anyone remember those), or design a control panel for a RC model or drone, there comes a point where one needs to say enough is enough.
Today, Tuscl looks more like a junior high chat board than a germane DB on stripclubs, and how to get the most enjoyment out of them.
I recognize that moderation is an inexact science, with a degree of personal discretion the watchword. On a site like this, some degree of tomfoolery should be tolerated. If I were moderator (I'm not interested in being one), I'd wink at desertscrubs "greetings" to 0-0 newbs trolling for intel on best extras clubs. I would not tolerate posting/bumping multiple threads calling other members a faggot. Nor creating multiple aliases to spam the board. Nor too much of other nonsense that outnumbers the reviews that a member has posted. If you want to post about every time you took a shit in a fast food restaurant, or every time chicken fangers made you fart, gtfo
this board, and start your own blog about those subjects. Yes, the ignore button is a wonderful thing, but one shouldn't have to keep pulling up weeds. A weed killer is needed, just as long as it doesn't kill the grass, or good
plants.
SJG
Robert B. Reich: responding to "Entrepreneurs give you work." Entrepreneurialism stems from a degree of economic freedom. Wealthy individuals and CEO's are not the job creators. We have socialism for the rich, but most people live under a very cruel form of capitalism.
https://youtu.be/YFhismScVq4?t=25m2s
Sexybody Paint, courtesy of crazyjoe
http://newinki.com/these-female-body-pai…
Hank and Cupcakes, body paint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j2Gj0lP…
TJ Street
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3741/96200…
www.adelitasbartijuanamexico.com/zona_no…
www.adelitasbartijuanamexico.com/zona_no…
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5488/96200…
c2.staticflickr.com/4/3731/13904526145_d…
c2.staticflickr.com/4/3680/9633184654_2c…
SJG
Given that, he's not likely to spend much time on a section of the site that won't return the investment of time, effort and skull sweat.
I suggest those who are wish for a moderator learn to live with disappointment.
Besides, the only person I trust to moderate honestly and objectively is me.
One mod can't watch this forum 24 hours a day so to be thorough there would have to be more than one. My opinion is because all of us have various biases that none of us should be appointed as mods. The only fair way would be to bring in new unbiased people that would come in only to enforce rules without prior opinions of posters here.
There's lots of spam, trolling, and arguing here but I see at the bottom of the page that TUSCL has existed since 1995 and has managed to do that without mods so at the end of the day I say leave things as they are.
Lets just use IGNORE as needed.
So can we agree, no more complaints unless you already have all of the transgressors on IGNORE?
SJG
Sherri's Ranch, Pahrump NV
http://www.sherisranch.com/default.aspx
Yanis Varoufakis: Basic Income is a Necessity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgdtF3y…
Financialization has created a huge wedge between Capital and Labor, created a new form of Capital, Financialized Capital.
TJ Street
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3741/96200…
http://www.adelitasbartijuanamexico.com/…
http://www.adelitasbartijuanamexico.com/…
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5488/96200…
I've been on lots and lots of forums which have moderation. It stinks.
SJG
I would respectfully wonder if founder is thinking this all the way through. There is a reason websites like to capture conversation, even if the real income from that website is elsewhere -- it brings eyeballs, and lots of them, to the site. Which brings more eyeballs. Which creates sales elsewhere, and also opens up new opportunities. It's why at least some of the big sex-oriented sites -- the site that completely monopolized and the bay area scene to the point of making BP irrelevant in this area, for example -- bother to put it in at least a minimal amount of effort... it keeps eyeballs pouring in.
There's no reason tuscl can't dominated SC conversation on the web. But how many new posters do we get each year? Few, because "put them on ignore" doesn't do anything to keep a new poster who is just peeking in to see if tuscl is worth his time. In several SC forums I"ve been to, whenever there's a "what other SC sites and forums do you go to", there's mention of tuscl -- ALWAYS followed with "but those guys are brutal and the place is overrun by trolls". Every time, always. By contrast, positive mentions and a better signal-to-noise ratio, I would predict could bring in many thousands of eyeballs, many of whom would lurk (but are potential review writers and VIP membership buyers), some of whom would contribute to the forum. It doesn't make sense that every website with a thriving forum makes tons of money off it, and brings in a huge number of new clicks, but tuscl can't ... they just haven't given it a good run to see what will happen.
I see some merit regarding that.
People on TJAmigos talk about TUSCL and note that people "are calling each other faggot."
Most of our women members get run off quickly.
Most of the guys who post negative meta narratives are those with serious character disorders, they believe that everyone has to conform in their manner of thought and speech, otherwise they must be driven out.
Fortunately this is only online. Imagine what such types would be like f2f. Scary!
SJG
So is this another unbranded Deja Vu club? Or is it a club Deja Vu dumped?
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…
Is Athenian Democracy the remedy for "The Matrix" like dystopia which Dougster and his friends are driving us towards by continuing finanicalization? And is advancing technology the problem?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB4s5b9N…
I also think the trolls are a deterrent to new posters. I know desertscrub's antics are humerous at times, to those aware of his shtick, but I honestly think he does chase away a lot of new posters when he tells them to fuck off.
I'm sure founder will comment at some point if I'm misremembering, or just plain wrong.
I'm sure you're right. What I"m saying is, that that is an easily-explainable, self-fulfilling prophecy, and one easily addressed