Member on a Power Trip - (maybe trying to compensate for something)

LOL - that was a bit much

Ehh. So so review. I probably would not approved or rejected.

One can't just approve the A+ reviews and reject everything else - if it's a decent review but misseing a couple of things it should be approved and maybe make a comment on what you thought was missing that should have been included.

I use the A-F school grading for reviews:

A - review described the club well (coats, etc) and the vibe (good mileage, friendly dancers, etc) - reading the review I feel I know the club

B - pretty-good - gave me an idea of what the club is about but leaves me with a few unanswered questions

C - has some useful details but has a lot of info missing for me to be able to get a good grasp on the club

D - very generic with very few details - review can qlapply to any club in America - or the review just talks about the reviewer's fave and nothing else

F - really doesn't give a shit about writing a review and just put minimal info to get VIP

I will approve A-C reviews - some 'C' reviews I may not approove or I may just abstain from voting.

I would have approved it. perhaps I have low standards.

It was wordy, but lacked a lot of important details. Still, it covered the most basic details that I usually look for in reviews. I probably would have published it.

I'm pretty much in alignment with Papi as to how I approve or reject reviews. I probably would have approved this review.

As to the OP's suggestion to limit a user's ability to reject reviews, I'm against that. Although both Clubber and Desertscrub are notorious 'rejectors', there are far more users who will approve any review, including those that are obviously written to get VIP access.

I would have approved that Clubber you need to ease up a bit I went back and read some of your old ones, you wouldn’t have approved about 25-30% of your own reviews

Marginal review - a C on the Papi grading scale. As I do on marginal reviews, I would've scrolled past it without clicking red or green but if forced to decide I would've clicked green

Well he did omit the drink prices, but at least touched on just about every other checklist item. (Review was exactly 4 paragraphs with 3 - 7 sentences each).

I likely would have published this review. On the minus side, would have liked to see a more detailed dancer profile, and a description of how comfortable and private the VIP areas were. On the pus side, he did a good job at capturing 2 nuanced details (metal detector at entry, watered down shots with annoying shot girl). On the balance, a C plus on the Papi grading system.

Can we make the Papi grading scale a sticky post ?

I probably would have left that one alone and not voted either way, it's borderline at best, C- on Papi's scale. If I'm bored maybe I'd have looked at the club's other reviews and if there wasn't any recent ones or the recent ones lacked the info provided in there, I'd approve.

In any case, I don't see what the problem is. One member thought it didn't have enough details, he voted not to publish it. 4 others thought it did, so they voted to publish it. It was published. Are you butthurt because his opinion doesn't match yours? Or because you can now see the comments people leave?

Agree with Minnow. This suggestion needs to go to Founder. Grading of Reviews.

It's irrelevant whether you think a review is good or bad. It's about providing enough relevant details to be helpful. Review was fine.

Clubber and Minnow are fucking idiots that think every review should be a dear penthouse novella. It's almost like they are downvoting reviews that they cant jack off to.

Ya, C+ for me, easy choice to pass. And agree with minnow on a few nuanced details that may not be mentioned in every review, but that might either help me make the decision whether or not to go to the club (metal detector), and/or might help me set expectations while I'm there (annoying shot girl, watered down shots, wristband good for seductions). Also agree with minnow that I would have liked more detail on the dancers -- but as we've discussed and argued ad nauseum, I value dancer info far more than price info, in any case.

i totally agree with Pistola. and who cares if someone else is getting free VIP access? if there is something worthwhile in the review, it's good enough to get published. Little fish dick adds comments like "what did so and so look like"? why does he care what someone else's preference in dancers is?

I'd give the review a 'B'

GOOD

• mentions dance cost - I like getting lots of dances I like to be clear going in how much the dances are

• mentions the club gets crowded - lets me know it's a popular club thus probably a good/well-liked club - lets me know I may not wanna get their too-late

• mentions admission is good for the club next door

• kinda describes the dancer-crew

The combo of it being a popular club and with mostly hot dancers makes me think it's one of the better clubs

BAD

• would've liked a better breakdown of the dancer-vrew as a whole other than "most are hot" since hot can mean different things ti different PLs

He didn’t say if the prices were US or Canadian dollars, and what the exchange rate was. Jeez, what is TUSCL coming to?

man. maybe we need a standard 100 point checklist. anything less than 69 fails.

Yeah... like I said before, though some reviewers pick a lot of nits, there are others who approve absolutely everything including some obvious trash reviews.

It balances out.

Wait a minute - did he mention where the bathrooms where?

Nope, he didn't - should have been rejected.

Plus - how do I know if the bathrooms work the same way in Canada as in the US? SMH.

Ish that’s not particularly balanced SMH Papi I need to know if the troll hands out paper towels

Well, if you're going to limit the reviewing ability of those who are particularly harsh, then you must also find a way to limit those who approve everything.

Perhaps rather than a pass/fail grade, each user scores the review on a scale (1-5,1-10, whatever). If the review gets published, then the review's overall grade is viewable to VIP members along with a list of users that did the grading.

What constitutes a passing score or grade is up to founder.

That said, I think you're still going to have users that consistently pass or flunk nearly everything by default. But perhaps this blunts their impact.

Tweaking the voting process will likely create undesired side effects - it's meant to be majority rules, not everyone agrees or everyone disagrees, on a review

With any voting process there will always be those thst are not happy with the outcome.

^ I agree it works

So you want to limit Clubber's power to reject reviews? Because you think he's too harsh? What if he proposed limiting your power to approve reviews because you're too easy?

Now that TUSCLers are approving reviews, we should expect that not everyone will agree that a review is acceptable. We have different standards. I don't think a person's motives or character should be questioned.

If someone sincerely believes a review should be rejected, then we should respect his opinion. Only if someone were rejecting reviews out of personal grievance or some other unfair reason would we be justified in limiting that person's power.

Clubber's judgement is only one of many. If enough other people approve the review it will still be published.

I personally thought the review was completely adequate. It came from a member that has provided over 200 reviews, that is a lot of info.

What we need is the ability to see who is currently logged-in to the site.

Clubber and DesertScrub are logged in = Shit, I think I'll wait to publish. MickeyM is logged in - Cool, I get one up-vote almost automatic.

LOL

Clubber and DesertScrub are logged in = Shit, I think I'll wait to publish. MickeyM is logged in - Cool, I get one up-vote almost automatic. — TUSCL quote of the day

@Justin T- You need a new pair of reading glasses. Subject reviewer has a grand total of TWO reviews , with a 10 year gap between the 2 reviews.

Still when grading submissions, have no idea who the person is,or whether it's the persons first, or 200th review, they get graded on their stand alone merits.

My mistake. I thought 623 was the author.

I wish Founder would chime in as to if the above review meets his minimal standard. Would put the issue to bed going forward.

My 2¢.

I don't recall that particular review (couldn't find it, no club location), but doesn't appear I rejected it. Normally a review like this I will approve, but still comment that it is not up to the TUSCL standards set by founder.

Here's the review in question tuscl.net and btw you did reject it clubber.

This was far from a stellar review but I think it provided some basic info about the prices and lapdance expectations as well as helpful info about security, watered down shots and overcrowding. That's pretty much what I look for in a review, some basic info about what to expect in terms of dances and pricing with some info about possible downsides to the club.

Bad reviews should be rejected - but I try to take the PL-view that if a review is marginal and offers some worthwhile details, it should be published even if one thinks it's incomplete on details - reviews are the lifeblood of TUSCL and it may be contraindicatory to reject too-many reviews b/c they are not the best that could be written - this is not the NY Times nor are we dealing w/ foreign-policy here, thus greater leeway is probably the way to go vs being too-much of a purist.

Or maybe just missing out on a good chuckle. One recently rejected review was a total bust but made me laugh. The last line was something like... "we stayed until we left". The rest was garbage and even I rejected it which is rare but in hindsight wish the rest of you could have read it

Papi,

That's why it is a consensus. That will still allow marginal "reviews" to be published, but if everyone felt that way no need having a vote as all would be approved.

You must read some that get approved that are meaningless even now.