We've had threads moderated by the OP in past versions. In practice it eliminates dissenting views and makes the board much less interesting. Obviously it's your board and your call.
^ You can't force people to like one another, but you can enforce tolerance, if you tolerate intolerance, it's impossible to enforce civility'
What I mean by that founder, you had a two way ignore, I'm going to guess as an experiment for a short time, did it create the atmosphere you were attempting to, your website your choice, I mean that respectfully, The decision is yours founder.
Founder asked: "Question: Should 'MEMBER A' be allowed to post to a thread started by 'MEMBER B' if 'MEMBER B' ignores 'MEMBER A?'
No. If a user has ignored another user, then that ignored user should not be able to participate in threads started by the person who ignored them.
If someone gets ignored by a few people, then there's still plenty of threads for them to participate in and they have the ability to start their own threads. If someone gets ignored by over a hundred users (like desertscrub), then that's the price you pay for that behavior.
I think that this would reduce the level of off-topic contentiousness and decrease some of the impact made by troll profiles that exist solely to troll.
It could work as an honor system among contributing members to not abuse it. But to just block somebody who disagrees with you, then your a little bitch. So it should be public information so that everybody else could call that thread starter out. But if it’s to just block a malicious troll who contributes absolutey nothing then I’m all for it. Then they’ll just give up and go away eventually.
I’m more in favor of a temp ban for like month where you just can’t post on the board or post on pictures, especially dancer photos (talk about a quick way to drive off dancers) if it’s universally agreed upon by contributing legit members across the site. They could still utilize the rest of site. That alone would do a ton of good. Do we need to see some piece of shit that we can’t get rid of to post under some dancers selfies to say that she’s ugly repeatedly? Is that necessary?
“ Question: Should "MEMBER A" be allowed to post to a thread started by "MEMBER B" if "MEMBER B" ignores "MEMBER A"?
Yes.
Is the answer “no” any different than the two way block that was in effect for a while? I didn’t like that. Currently ignore allows the poster to ignore anyone he wants to. Don’t think posters should be allowed to force other to ignore him.
===> "No. If a user has ignored another user, then that ignored user should not be able to participate in threads started by the person who ignored them."
This 100%. In the absence of this prohibition a troll can pepper post 100 times, blowing up and continuously bumping a thread to get attention.
I also liked the Hide Comment feature that was briefly introduced. It allowed someone to put a misbehaving participant at the kiddie table without having to fully ignore the member. The threads became much more civil when this feature was available.
I'll say what I said years ago on the topic of broader diversity and dancer participation. If this is truly your goal, then IMO either you need some type of moderation (which is likely not feasible) or you need to build other ways for users to have more control over their experiences. Allowing users more control over their own threads strikes me as a happy middle ground, but of course that is your call.
“Question: Should "MEMBER A" be allowed to post to a thread started by "MEMBER B" if "MEMBER B" ignores "MEMBER A"?
No.
An often used excuse for not utilizing ignore is that it makes threads in which the ignored person posts unreadable, since other users participating in the thread respond to the ignored user. This solves that problem. The ignored user is welcome to start a new thread if they so desire, their voice isn't being silenced. Perhaps you can do an option? Either at the profile level to prevent all ignored users from commenting on your threads or a user by user ignore/block option. I guess you could do it by the thread too, a tickbox when creating the thread to block ignored users or a toggle when reading to show/hide them or something. But, IMO, it's simpler to just block it to start.
You've gone through this cycle many times, now. In a perfect world, ignore is used to get rid of someone whose only purpose is to be disruptive. In practice ignore means (1) I don't like your opinion, or (2) I don't like you, or (3) I don't want to be challenged. As I said above, it leads to a bland forum.
===> "In practice ignore means (1) I don't like your opinion, or (2) I don't like you, or (3) I don't want to be challenged. As I said above, it leads to a bland forum."
I actually disagree. While I think that there were definitely a few who did this, IMHO these features were used largely for the purposes intended. Also, as someone who has 11 people ignoring him for some reason, some of whom are likely dancers, I have no problem if they would prefer me not to participate in their threads.
Consider this: Why haven't more of the dancers who posted pics on this site participating in the discussions? Heck, why aren't they coming on here to blatantly market themselves, which I'm sure many of us would welcome? I think we know the answer in part - because virtually every thread turns into a shit show before too long, with people like the moron running the MackTruck account posting stuff like "I dump a load in your basement" and other off topic nonsense.
Just a few thoughts. Personally I think that long-term ability to attract more people into the Discussion room far outweighs the potentials for abuse, but it's your dime and if you want to pay for never-ending Romper Room then that's your prerogative.
The way people go at it on this board you think that feature would not be abused - you think the "honor system" of "nah I wouldn't block people I just disagree with" would be adhered to?
You've provided enough ways for people to choose whether to see or not see certain posts - I don't think anyone should choose when, where, and what, others can post - either way there will be abuse but what you are proposing would IMO add additional abuse and is tantamount to censorship of opinions.
If there isn't a way to get rid of the trolls/aliases by somehow detecting fake accounts, then what makes most sense is to stop feeding the trolls and not get into it w/ trolls for months and years on end.
I like the clean design. It's probably a good idea that the design and color scheme doesn't scream "adult site" for people who want to do a little research in more public venues.
I allowed location access, but still got a "500. Internal Server Error." I know that you said a lot of things are incomplete.
I'm hoping that the "Photos" section will allow users to filter so that they can choose to see only dancer photos, etc. I don't care about the babe or meme galleries that some members create, so I like the ability to filter out those images and just view photos from verified dancers.
Overall, it's much easier to read and less cluttered.
“Question: Should "MEMBER A" be allowed to post to a thread started by "MEMBER B" if "MEMBER B" ignores "MEMBER A"?
I would prefer NO because as others have mentioned when a troll that you have on ignore posts on your discussion and turns the thread into a flame war it can make the entire thread unreadable because others are going back and forth arguing with the troll.
As for the new site, I have a few initial observations. I like that you replaced the previous home page with the What's New content instead of just static links with rotating random pics.
I love the idea of being able to find clubs through a map instead of having to go to the state and hope you know what county the city is in. Right now that feature brings up a 500
Internal Server Error message because I assume it is still a work in progress. Can't wait to see how it works in the final version.
Love the larger previews on the pictures page. It make's longball's beauties even better.
I don't see the top 40 lists, strip club dancers page or personals section listed anywhere. Is that because they are only visible when logged into the new site or are they going away? I couldn't care less about the personals page but I like the top 40 lists and it seems like the dancer profile page would be important for the site.
Overall it looks good, keep up the great work @founder.
Papi ... You cite basic human nature as a reason why it's unrealistic to expect users to adhere to an "honor system" policy. But then you completely ignore basic human nature when stating "what makes most sense is to stop feeding the trolls...".
Giving the Ignore feature the smallest of teeth is not 'censorship'. If I'm blocked by a few people, then I still have plenty of threads where I can participate. I can also start my own threads and interact with the vast majority of people who don't have me on ignore. But, if I rack up over 100 'ignores' based on my shitty behavior, and that means I can't participate in the threads started by those users, then that's not censorship ... that's a consequence.
And I think it's appropriate for shitty behavior to have a noticeable "sting" or consequence here as it does pretty much everywhere else in real-world living.
w.r.t. not knowing someone is responding to an Ignored poster; that is a simple fix - whenever an Ignored poster posts just put a statement such as "Ignored Member Comment" or something like that and then one knows the subsequent poster was responding to an Ignored member.
"Question: Should "MEMBER A" be allowed to post to a thread started by "MEMBER B" if "MEMBER B" ignores "MEMBER A"?"
Answer is "NO" to the concept. And "YES" to the new rule, if incorporated. I, for one, "ignore" very few people. Even the ones that hate me and are often rude. But the assholes who just derail threads for the fun of it.... yeah, they need to be put on the sidelines.
===> "The way people go at it on this board you think that feature would not be abused - you think the "honor system" of "nah I wouldn't block people I just disagree with" would be adhered to?"
The issue is not whether there will ever be abuse. It's whether the harm caused by the occasional abuse outweighs the potential benefits of broader site participation. I know where my vote is.
as far as the rest of Papi's post, if the current form of ignore worked, this discussion board wouldn't be a shit show. But it is.
I posted the above from the new site and it carried over here. I was able to log in to the new site after performing an account recovery from the new site and then generating a password that satisfied the requirements listed on that page.
If it's not a lot of work, make it an option for each user. I don't care if people I ignore post on a thread I start, cause I won't see it anyway. But if they don't want my posts on their threads, I don't mind being blocked from them.
You won me over Papi as the both of us appear on that Top 40 ignore list we both might lose some access to the site right off the bat. There has to be something done though, complete free for all has had its issues I’m all for letting the players play but I still think a drunk ref in the background would do some good rather than none at all.
Also I'm for, in order to encourage reviews, anybody that leads a top 40 list is crowned king and ruler of site and is free to do and say as he pleases. All PL's must swear a oath of loyalty and fealty and all dancers on the website must allow that man, whoever it is, to sow his royal oats with them.
I was able to log in on the first attempt using browser with only user name and password. No e-mail, no links, anything. Have not trice the phone version.
Looking forward to the evolution of the enhanced site. The site looks clean.
I noticed there are a few less words on the thumbnail of reviews before you open it. If anything, would prefer that a few more words show up.
I was able to log in after recovering my account through the new site. Just a note: I am seeing threads and comments from folks who I have on ignore, so there's that...
---> Question: Should "MEMBER A" be allowed to post to a thread started by "MEMBER B" if "MEMBER B" ignores "MEMBER A"?
There are those I've had on ignore since almost day one of joining. I don't feel that I miss anything when they post and would not feel they'd bring any value to my threads with their responses.
1) A selection on the main screen for which discussion board.
2) If you really want discussions on your site about strippers and pl's find a way to make the political discussion board to to take extra click to get to. Let's keep it on point.
Damn, I almost never do this, but I've read comments from others and apparently it's pretty common. I just accidentally hit "approve" on a really suck-ass review, after listing everything that was missing and/or wrong with it.
It would be cool if there was a pop-up that says "Are you sure you want to approve (or reject) this review?" Hopefully this one will still get rejected by others.
No, re ignored member being able to post on the ignoring member’s thread.
Really nice tweaks. Like the find a club consolidation, simpler main menu, and smaller font.
Big picture, the addition of dancers on the site with their pics, ads and engagement, brought terrific positive “feminine energy” to the site, creating more of an “adult forum” feel, versus a “high schooler club”. Suggest finding more ways for that feminine energy to mesh with the abundance of masculine energy.
73 comments
Latest
What I mean by that founder, you had a two way ignore, I'm going to guess as an experiment for a short time, did it create the atmosphere you were attempting to, your website your choice, I mean that respectfully, The decision is yours founder.
No. If a user has ignored another user, then that ignored user should not be able to participate in threads started by the person who ignored them.
If someone gets ignored by a few people, then there's still plenty of threads for them to participate in and they have the ability to start their own threads. If someone gets ignored by over a hundred users (like desertscrub), then that's the price you pay for that behavior.
I think that this would reduce the level of off-topic contentiousness and decrease some of the impact made by troll profiles that exist solely to troll.
Yes.
Is the answer “no” any different than the two way block that was in effect for a while? I didn’t like that. Currently ignore allows the poster to ignore anyone he wants to. Don’t think posters should be allowed to force other to ignore him.
This 100%. In the absence of this prohibition a troll can pepper post 100 times, blowing up and continuously bumping a thread to get attention.
I also liked the Hide Comment feature that was briefly introduced. It allowed someone to put a misbehaving participant at the kiddie table without having to fully ignore the member. The threads became much more civil when this feature was available.
No.
An often used excuse for not utilizing ignore is that it makes threads in which the ignored person posts unreadable, since other users participating in the thread respond to the ignored user. This solves that problem. The ignored user is welcome to start a new thread if they so desire, their voice isn't being silenced. Perhaps you can do an option? Either at the profile level to prevent all ignored users from commenting on your threads or a user by user ignore/block option. I guess you could do it by the thread too, a tickbox when creating the thread to block ignored users or a toggle when reading to show/hide them or something. But, IMO, it's simpler to just block it to start.
You've gone through this cycle many times, now. In a perfect world, ignore is used to get rid of someone whose only purpose is to be disruptive. In practice ignore means (1) I don't like your opinion, or (2) I don't like you, or (3) I don't want to be challenged. As I said above, it leads to a bland forum.
I actually disagree. While I think that there were definitely a few who did this, IMHO these features were used largely for the purposes intended. Also, as someone who has 11 people ignoring him for some reason, some of whom are likely dancers, I have no problem if they would prefer me not to participate in their threads.
Consider this: Why haven't more of the dancers who posted pics on this site participating in the discussions? Heck, why aren't they coming on here to blatantly market themselves, which I'm sure many of us would welcome? I think we know the answer in part - because virtually every thread turns into a shit show before too long, with people like the moron running the MackTruck account posting stuff like "I dump a load in your basement" and other off topic nonsense.
Just a few thoughts. Personally I think that long-term ability to attract more people into the Discussion room far outweighs the potentials for abuse, but it's your dime and if you want to pay for never-ending Romper Room then that's your prerogative.
https://app.tuscl.net
There are LOTS of things that are incomplete. It's a work in progress. :)
You've provided enough ways for people to choose whether to see or not see certain posts - I don't think anyone should choose when, where, and what, others can post - either way there will be abuse but what you are proposing would IMO add additional abuse and is tantamount to censorship of opinions.
If there isn't a way to get rid of the trolls/aliases by somehow detecting fake accounts, then what makes most sense is to stop feeding the trolls and not get into it w/ trolls for months and years on end.
I attempted to search for strip clubs by map:
https://app.tuscl.net/listings/map
I allowed location access, but still got a "500. Internal Server Error." I know that you said a lot of things are incomplete.
I'm hoping that the "Photos" section will allow users to filter so that they can choose to see only dancer photos, etc. I don't care about the babe or meme galleries that some members create, so I like the ability to filter out those images and just view photos from verified dancers.
Overall, it's much easier to read and less cluttered.
I also attempted to log in via a new "Private" window. That also did not work.
I would prefer NO because as others have mentioned when a troll that you have on ignore posts on your discussion and turns the thread into a flame war it can make the entire thread unreadable because others are going back and forth arguing with the troll.
As for the new site, I have a few initial observations. I like that you replaced the previous home page with the What's New content instead of just static links with rotating random pics.
I love the idea of being able to find clubs through a map instead of having to go to the state and hope you know what county the city is in. Right now that feature brings up a 500
Internal Server Error message because I assume it is still a work in progress. Can't wait to see how it works in the final version.
Love the larger previews on the pictures page. It make's longball's beauties even better.
I don't see the top 40 lists, strip club dancers page or personals section listed anywhere. Is that because they are only visible when logged into the new site or are they going away? I couldn't care less about the personals page but I like the top 40 lists and it seems like the dancer profile page would be important for the site.
Overall it looks good, keep up the great work @founder.
Giving the Ignore feature the smallest of teeth is not 'censorship'. If I'm blocked by a few people, then I still have plenty of threads where I can participate. I can also start my own threads and interact with the vast majority of people who don't have me on ignore. But, if I rack up over 100 'ignores' based on my shitty behavior, and that means I can't participate in the threads started by those users, then that's not censorship ... that's a consequence.
And I think it's appropriate for shitty behavior to have a noticeable "sting" or consequence here as it does pretty much everywhere else in real-world living.
Also, a minor thing but I noticed you can't like the last message posted, the buttons are missing.
Answer is "NO" to the concept. And "YES" to the new rule, if incorporated. I, for one, "ignore" very few people. Even the ones that hate me and are often rude. But the assholes who just derail threads for the fun of it.... yeah, they need to be put on the sidelines.
The issue is not whether there will ever be abuse. It's whether the harm caused by the occasional abuse outweighs the potential benefits of broader site participation. I know where my vote is.
as far as the rest of Papi's post, if the current form of ignore worked, this discussion board wouldn't be a shit show. But it is.
Remember... there are MANY things not available. You don't need to tell me, I already know :(
+ told me to enter my email
+ I entered my email
+ it sent me a link
+ I clicked on the link and it told me I needed to be logged in
+ I couldn't log in
I think that is how it went
Also, make sure you are using your nickname and not email to log in.
Please include filtering of the Photo section. I particularly don’t want to see photos posted by members on my ignore list.
'Question: Should "MEMBER A" be allowed to post to a thread started by "MEMBER B" if "MEMBER B" ignores "MEMBER A"?'
No they should not. A has no business on B's post. The only reason I can think of to allow A to post to B's thread is to encourage drama.
Added benefit: with this feature, many trolls will have the wind sucked out of their sails... no one to argue with.
From what i could see, I like the clean, simple look. If it takes a new password, I'll do that later when the site is officially live.
2) No, ignored users should not be able to post on the ignorer's thread. That is the best and surest way to starve the trolls.
Looking forward to the evolution of the enhanced site. The site looks clean.
I noticed there are a few less words on the thumbnail of reviews before you open it. If anything, would prefer that a few more words show up.
There are those I've had on ignore since almost day one of joining. I don't feel that I miss anything when they post and would not feel they'd bring any value to my threads with their responses.
1) A selection on the main screen for which discussion board.
2) If you really want discussions on your site about strippers and pl's find a way to make the political discussion board to to take extra click to get to. Let's keep it on point.
It would be cool if there was a pop-up that says "Are you sure you want to approve (or reject) this review?" Hopefully this one will still get rejected by others.
Really nice tweaks. Like the find a club consolidation, simpler main menu, and smaller font.
Big picture, the addition of dancers on the site with their pics, ads and engagement, brought terrific positive “feminine energy” to the site, creating more of an “adult forum” feel, versus a “high schooler club”. Suggest finding more ways for that feminine energy to mesh with the abundance of masculine energy.
Could you maybe make it so comments on reviews for clubs you follow show up in the My Feed link? Right now the reviews show up, but not the comments.