Now that we are approving reviews, and due to the current FOSTA climate, shall the rule-of-thumb be to reject reviews that mention extras including the word "extras" even when the dancers' names are not mentioned?
Shall we treat the Tijuana and German FKKs the same?
Thoughts?
No. What good would that do? There's pages and pages of navel-gazing going on about it on the TUSCL boards that are all indexed by Google.
According to Wikipedia, "In political jargon, a self-licking ice cream cone is a self-perpetuating system that has no purpose other than to sustain itself. The phrase appeared to have been first used in 1992, in On Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones, a paper by Pete Worden about NASA's bureaucracy." And because there's Google, "navel-gazing" is "self-indulgent or excessive contemplation of oneself or a single issue, at the expense of a wider view."
I think it would make a difference if we start policing ourselves going-forward, at least till the dust settles
I think we should decline a review that mentions a specific sexual act for a price - as abqspencer mentioned.
I’m inclined to approve reviews if they mention extras - but don’t mention the specific act or price.
If we are going to start rejecting reviews I think Founder should then maybe make a section for rejected reviews.
I think it is alright if a reviewer hints at getting extras, but is vague about it, i.e. “I had a good time” or “I left with a smile on my face.”
Given the current climate, I don’t think it would be a good idea to mention specifics about what you got and what price you paid. Anyone who feels they do need such information should PM the reviewer asking them if they would like to share specifics.
In regards to places like Tijuana or Germany, I don’t think the filter needs to be applied since it is all perfectly legal there.
I would lean on the conservative side of rejecting a review that explicitly mentions extras in detail.
Honestly, this feels like an issue where founder should weigh in.
Would need like level of fun available that gives you some idea. Standard fun = just high milage Low/ Mid / High/
"In regards to places like Tijuana or Germany, I don’t think the filter needs to be applied since it is all perfectly legal there."
That's possibly not true. A website that specifically covered the Tijuana scene (I forget the name) just closed shop due to FOSTA. I would assume that happened after they talked to a lawyer and determined that they had enough exposure to a lawsuit to warrant shutting down.
From what I'm reading, if it's an American-hosted website, or has an American owner, and hosts any content that violates FOSTA, then it falls under the FOSTA shadow. It's a ridiculously broad law that will only be narrowed via court challenge.
What's the point of this site if you're have to censor your reviews that much? It would make the site less helpful if you didn't even have a decent idea of what was available. I didn't think "extras" just by itself was enough to incriminate anyone, unnamed or not. It should be obvious what it implies, but it's not that much less vague than other implied phrases. Better safe than sorry, i guess, but it kind of defeats the purpose of what this site is about.
Do we even talk about things that are more than a "just by the book" lap dance, whatever that is? Technically, those things may not be legal, even if they're not "extras". We can probably keep an eye on stripclublist and see what happens to that site as there is almost no moderation of the comments. But a lot of BS too.
I thought the point of this site was to help SC customers handle life, not drag names of clubs/dancers/etc through the mud.
This is the problem with FOSTA, it's censorship (either directly or indirectly). We are now debating what we can or cannot say in an open forum where anyone enter in understands and accepts the topics. We are talking about "talking in codes" and PMing for details, but the PMs can also be read and censored by FOSTA, so how far is this going to go?
I don’t get it you guys seem to be walking around looking for black helicopters or some shit, this stuff is past borderline and getting into full blown paranoid. Really you guy think that they are after you, who’s this mythical they.
Your not truly paranoid if their really out to get you!
^^^No the saying is “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you”
Has FOSTA had any effect on actual businesses besides websites and making it harder for prostitutes and johns to find each other? As in raids or undercover operations? Let's just say that any strip club review site is shut down for whatever idiotic reason and all you have left is the individual club sites and FB, twitter, etc. I would guess that less than 10% of PLs even use review sites, except maybe Yelp (which i can't imagine ever being shut down). I don't think shutting down the sites will have any real effect on clubs, except maybe the opposite of what they intended. Possibly more "working girls" entering the strip club either as customers or dancers.
Relax guys! Take a load off! You need a rest fellas! youtube.com Don't worry about that! Put your feet up! You might have noticed some changes about your country. Don't worry about that, the changes will continue!
I think FOSTA has to affect the way we discuss things on this site. We want to be sure we don't promote prostitution or human trafficking on TUSCL.
I would reject reviews that:
Better safe than sorry.
I am no lawyer (thank God) and do not fully understand FOSTA, but I think it could be risky for TUSCL to appear to promote prostitution even in places where it is legal (TJ, FKK clubs).
I agree that Founder should lay some framework here. I think we are being way too paranoid. But Founder needs to tell us if we are doing something wrong. He's going to know if anyone is actually putting any heat on on the site. If not, then we carry on as we were.
I realize this is primarily a support site for men with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Try to rub to cents together to buy a clue, though. Outsourcing your sense of right and wrong to founder isn't even close to a reasonable proposition.
^^^ Fuck you Jackie !
Fuck you Jackie !
Day = made :) :) :)
Desertscrub... Go here:
all as a result of this witch hunt... tjamigos shut down a week ago and a G rated site is available. tijuana talk.
Since most sites have shut down, I think this site should be kept strictly as a strip club review site. Names shouldn’t be mentioned publicly for any reason UNLESS it’s to expose a specific individuals as a ROB, unscrupulous, disrespectful etc. Specific services etc should be left to PM only.
Just my opinion.
I don't think it's paranoid to have this debate given the number and breadth of websites that have shut down because FOSTA is such a broadly restrictive law. I'm not worried about anyone coming after me, but I don't want to be part of the reason why TUSCL runs into legal trouble.
The landscape has changed. That's not paranoia; that's a fact.
"Outsourcing your sense of right and wrong to founder isn't even close to a reasonable proposition."
We're not debating right or wrong. We're debating what potentially registers as a contact on the FOSTA radar. Seeking guidance from the person who owns, operates, manages this site is the respectful thing to do.
Specific services etc should be left to PM only.
Brought to you by the crack team at LegalZoom? Or the guys smoking crack at the laundromat down the street from the club?
@25
About a year ago there was a well publicized case in Seattle where LE went after the website operator and the reviewers of the site
We're not debating right or wrong. We're debating what potentially registers as a contact on the FOSTA radar. Seeking guidance from the person who owns, operates, manages this site is the respectful thing to do.
Everything always comes down to right and wrong.
With FOSTA and #MeToo, many LE and DAs are probably more than willing to throw a fair amount of people under the bus for political gain
We'll have to wait to see how things shake out, but I'm with others in that "discretion is the better part of valor" for now
Don't worry. Undercover operations revealed all women offering sex here were actually male juice trolls. The johns first got alarmed when credit cards were not accepted but buckets of chacken wings were.
Next we will hear about a chacken wing law.
@Papi I get the same amount of credit or blame as anyone here but I just don’t see anything here as rising to a level where anybody needs to worry about this shit. The folks that went after Backpage had an axe to grind because Backpage made them look foolish over a long period of time and it was personal. I don’t think founder is concerned about anything here , he has the means and ability to protect himself from anything we might do here by just blocking any material that causes him any concern. He did it recently by kicking out a few who were causing a problem for him and I’m sure he’d not lose any sleep if he needed to do it again. I noticed a few who think sending PMs will keep their privacy but the folks that might have a problem would have no trouble at all getting those PMs, so much for that plus founder has already stated he will cooperate with LE if any hint of a crime is committed. Why don’t you guys take your cue from him as I’m sure he will not be shy if he feels anything here is stepping over any lines. Now let’s get back to having some fun and fuck the paranoia!
Have to agree with 25. If Founder was concerned, then he probably would be saying something. The fact that he is not, makes me think we are worrying too much.
Part of the utility for a site like this is to give a potential patron an expectation of the experience available at a particular club. Hustler vs Dollie's in Washington Park is usually a completely different experience. Cheetah's vs Diamond Dolls in Pompano should be viewed with different expectations. Is there any consensus on a acceptable way to make this distinction?
On an unrelated note, everything I have ever written here was a work of fiction. I have never even been to a strip-club. I hope to go to one soon, ... with my wife, ... Morgan Fairchild, ...whom I've seen naked.
If you think that any fosta action would be limited to the last week or two of reviews your naive.
In order to inoculate this site you would have to scrub every review, discussion, article etc. for the last 25 years removing all references to p4p opportunities.
Reviews stating got FS and spent less that a hundo aren’t promoting sex anymore than saying you went to the local bar and met a girl that fucked you silly, and you spent less than a hundred.
I say carry on, if this site is targeted for termination it will happen regardless of what anyone writes in the next six weeks.
While I respect Papi for expressing concern, I was thinking of writing "the horse is way out of the barn to worry about closing the door now" but 623 said it much better.
It seems many major sites have closed shop - one would think they know a lot more about potential vulnerability than we do as just users. I guess not everyone sees it the same way.
IMO we have gotten used to "a way of life" on TUSCL but now the rules have either changed or at least more murky - I guess not everyone sees it the same way to which I express a heartfelt and sincere "fuck you jackie" :)
I don't know why anyone is concerned.
"Everything written on this site should be considered a work of fiction."
That takes care of everything.
Gotta agree with 623 here. Simply censoring our reviews from now on and omitting the world 'extras' isn't gonna keep this place safe from the wrath of FOSTA. Like he said, all the past discussions, reviews, and articles would all have to be removed.
If this site isn't safe from FOSTA there's nothing we can do now to save it. Obviously I'm hoping it is safe, but that remains to be seen.
IDK - I think continuing w/ the same type of posting post-FOSTA is sorta the equivalent of giving FOSTA the TUSCL middle-finger. Supposedly Backpage was given several warnings over time which it chose to ignore and not change practices till it was finally confiscated.
But as others have said, if Founder has not posted new guidelines, then it is what it is.
^^^ It would be nice if on his next upgrade @founder would allow the site to support emojis I’d post a middle finger at FOSTA and sleep like a baby ;)))
@papi, I think it's better to be safe than sorry. Self-policing is in all of our interests. I don't think the main risk is to the users of the site, but the site itself may be at risk. I would also be extra careful for anyone discussing takeout, and I'd probably reject that review if it got into any specifics. In general, I think the best approach is to name names if there is a ROB but otherwise keep things on the DL. Because that info is relevant to all customers. A girl's name or what she may or may not do for this or that customer isn't all that important because some girls have good days and bad days or don't dig older/younger/white/black customers.
I vote no...if nothing is explicit I think it should be allowed.
If someone is posting "got a HJ for $60", then by all means, reject it outright. Names or not...