This is one of the pre-designated reasons to reject a review. To me, this means that explicit services are tied to a particular dancer by name. I don't care if a review is explicit, as long as a dancer is not mentioned by name. I rejected a review this morning that I thought was pretty good, but it mentioned a particular dancer by name and the extra services provided. It showed up in the published reviews anyway, so obviously my view on this is not prevalent. To those of us screening reviews, what does this mean to you?
Comments
last commentI agree. That is one reason I don't post on USASG.
Log in to vote
I think most of us agree about not posting dancer-names in the context of extras - but not sure I'll reject a review b/c of it if it's a good-review but perhaps it's best to do-so so the behavior stops.
Under the current FOSTA environment I don't think reviews should be too-explicit to begin with whether the dancer name is tied to it or not but not sure I'm willing to start rejecting reviews based just on explicit details.
Log in to vote
I’m inclined to agree with not tying extras to particular dancers in the reviews. However, I would recommend that Founder post a paragraph or two on what details should merit a rejection.
Log in to vote
He is leaving that up to us.
Log in to vote
I’ve rejected reviews that mentioned specific extras that the reviewer got, and at prices well below market value for the club they were reviewing. At least one of these reviews mentioned a dancer by name. These reviews ended up getting published anyway.
Log in to vote
I reject any review where a dancers name and explicit details of her exploits are revealed.
Log in to vote
Honestly I would appreciate you not being a fucking fag and rejecting legitimate reviews of mine due to the spam
If it becomes an issue I may have to fuck up the site again
Log in to vote
I reject most of flagooner's reviews mainly bc he's flagooner
Log in to vote
Exactly... do you want the site fucked up again? If I don’t have my VIP from reviews in order by the time Founder gets back from Vegas it’s going to be even worse than before
Log in to vote
Dr. Evil, I agree with you. I don't think we should be publishing reviews that are telling the world what extra services are being provided by specific girls. I do want to hear that certain things happen in certain clubs and I want to know what the price is. But I dont' need to know the girls name.
Log in to vote
I feel like reviews that are to explicit should not be published simply because it draws attention to the club,and or a particular girl. If you say.... I went to club whatever and had a good time in the booths,VIP, is acceptable,but saying that you got FS or a BBBJ ect.is going a little to far.
Log in to vote
How about a covered BJ?
Log in to vote
Names and explicit extras aren't cool . Why do the local cops' job for them.
Log in to vote
Safer to write extras and pm the reviewer for details. I like to read them but in this FOSTA era , we have to be smart.
Log in to vote
It's best not to mention names. But, I don't agree on specific acts. LE knows damn well what goes on in high mileage clubs. As long as they don't get complaints from the general public, they have better things to do. Cops use hookers as sources of info on what is happening in the underworld. In return, the girls are allowed to operate. Plus, in more than one town, you know club owners pay off.
Log in to vote
I agree with Evil. Unless the review is calling out a ROB, I'll reject if review is too "randy baby" and save the mojo for PM's to PL's I know or trust. Also will share with those who will pay me 1 billion dollars or make same said donation to the Dr. Evil PL Foundation of Foreign Affairs.
Log in to vote
Well if the dancers didn't give extras there wouldn't be anything to be overly explicit about.
Log in to vote
In a previous thread, Founder said names, extras weren't a problem. To doctor evil's question, I personally think more info is better but reject explicit if it reads like a vicious attack. Calling out Robs is important but IMHO slandering without apparent cause is not.
Log in to vote
Founder has not put a limit on how detailed / explicit reviews or discussions can be, but I still think it is a bad idea.
Log in to vote
Here is what Founder said in his Jan. 2, 2012 post on review guidelines:
“You can also go into detail of the private dances. Just be careful not to mention names as it may get your ATF in trouble.”
I don’t have ATFs, but I don’t want to get any girl in trouble for going the extra mile, so to speak, so again, I think explicit details are OK, just not tied to a particular name. And like Warrior15 said, price info is especially valuable as it gives an idea of the going rates at a club, although we know what they will ask for can vary widely (which is actually why this is especially valuable info—kind of like those online services that tell you what cars are actually selling for, versus the MSRP, so you know how to bargain when you walk into a dealership).
I do agree that ROBs should be called out by name.
Log in to vote
I dont usually vote one way or the other on those "explicit" reviews, names or not.
Log in to vote
i’m conflicted... a name and specific details adds to the excitement... butt probably better to be vague .
chessmaster... nice avatar!
Log in to vote