Pussylicker2, Techman and Desertscrub - go fuck yourselves

45 comments

• RockAllNight

  •

  2 years ago

  Reviews of both Molly Browns and Grandview failed to discuss any pricing/mileage for lap dances/VIP. This is much more important than parking, cover, drinks, etc.
• Tetradon

  •

  2 years ago

  The "called a shill by scrub" might be the least exclusive club here other than "autistically threatened by SJG." My favorite rejection from a reviewer was that my review looked like a cheap knockoff of my own format.
• Warrior15

  •

  2 years ago

  I actually think that Members should have maybe a daily limit on the number of Reviews they can reject. desertscrub rejects virtually all of them. He has put Reject on a couple of mine, then after they got approved anyway, he apologized for not knowing it was my review. WTF ???
• rickdugan

  •

  2 years ago

  @Rock: That's a subjective opinion. Not everyone enjoys regular LDs. You're free to feel that way, but downvoting a review for lack of details because it excludes that one data point is ridiculous. If a club review provides useful information and a detailed accounting of the conditions at the time of the visit, it should be approved.
• Pussylicker2

  •

  2 years ago

  I'm sure nothing I say will get past your attitude and make it to your brain, but I'll try. I suggest you read the founders "review guidelines". I also wrote an article about what makes a useful review. I re-read your review. The useful information contained therein consists of: Sunday night, metal detector, $20 cover, $10 shot of jack, 7 girls, stage stayed busy, otc may be available. The main things missing are availability and cost of lap dances, vip, extras. In detroit, "private" dances are done on the floor and the dancer has to keep 3 feet away. In akron barside dances often include a reading from the beacon journal. That's a big difference. You didn't "go to the back", but your review didn't say it was possible to "go to the back". The fact that you had to mention 3 reviewers should tell you that maybe it's you and not us.
• Pussylicker2

  •

  2 years ago

  @warrior, I think there should be a limit on how many reviews one can APPROVE in a day. I see so many basically worthless reviews get approved, it seems that some people approve everything, perhaps without reading them. I read reviews carefully, often twice.
• rickdugan

  •

  2 years ago

  ^ I think you missed the specifics about the quality of the girls, which matters to those who enjoy eye candy. And that the Jack shots were short pours, making the club an expensive place to drink, which matters to those who like to drink during their club outings.. Or the seating options for those who value comfort. No, the fact that I had to mention 3 reviewers just means that there were 3 morons camped out in the unpublished review section today. You're too myopic to understand that not everyone values the same things in the same way that you do, so you discount the things that don't matter to you. For example, if I took your approach, I would reject almost every one of Papi's essay club reviews for Miami-metro clubs. Why? Because in Miami of all fucking places, with everything that is often available, how could one NOT take a girl into a timed back room and instead opt for ordinary LDs? Every time I read one of those reviews I walk away disappointed. But I would nonetheless have approved them because they contain other useful details about the club, girls, etc. Understand now?
• twentyfive

  •

  2 years ago

  I don’t really pay attention to shrubbery it’s just there, to hie the rats.
• Dolfan

  •

  2 years ago

  yay, another bitch about review adjudicators thread... scrub is just a fucking moron. On my latest review he approved but called it a fake review, alleged the club has been writing them for years and encouraged customers to stay away when in Orlando. The review was for a club in Palm Beach. On an earlier review he rejected it as a shill and a duplicate, while it was somewhat negative closing with the line "it'll be another 4-5 years before I'm back" I could go either way on the others. I get dance details being important, but I recognize my priorities are different than others and will generally approve or at least not reject reviews that have at least some concrete and potentially useful information included. There's no need for every review to contain every piece of potentially useful info every time. If someone covers drink/cover/parking type costs and some commentary on the dancers, that's enough. If someone skips the drink/cover/parking costs but goes into detail on dance options and dancer crew, that's enough too. If someone just says they had a great fucking time and can't wait to back, that's not enough club details. If someone just raves about the managers or one specific girl, that's likely a shill. @Pussylicker, I gotta say your article on what makes a good review is pretty suspect dude. 1) Is there mandatory valet parking? 2) Is there smoking allowed? 3) Is there food available? ...... 13) Overall quality and quantity of the dancers is important, of course. There's no fucking way Valet, Smoking, and Food are the top three criteria for a review while quality of dancers is bringing up the rear, even below 11) Is there a bathroom troll and what is the condition of the bathroom? Accept that your priorities do not reflect the general consensus.
• drewcareypnw

  •

  2 years ago

  @Rick, if it was just scrub, I would say that you got hit by the normal thing that happens: scrub is more suspicious of reviews than most reviewers. It’s part of the tuscl experience, learn to love it. However, if 3 people shit on your review, you should probably up your review game a bit. I used to get slammed frequently, adjusted my approach, and now I get approved. Feedback isn’t a bad thing.
• rickdugan

  •

  2 years ago

  Baloney drew. I've never had this problem before today. There were more than enough specifics about the visits, including the girls, various costs, other club details and overall conditions, that downvotes for "lack of details" were ludicrous. Two morons do not get to decide which details are important and which are not.
• georgmicrodong

  •

  2 years ago

  Wait, you didn't cover the color an length of her nipples? Or how long her pussy lips were? Or how her tongue felt on your dick?\ Well, <em>obviously</em> that kind of review should be rejected. Anymore, I almost consider any rejection by scrub to be a glowing recommendation for that club.
• Pussylicker2

  •

  2 years ago

  @dolfan - I actually explained my reasoning. I'll never go to a club that has mandatory valet because I can't give my keys to someone with my gun in my vehicle. I'll call a club ahead of a visit to find out. I agree that my priorities may be different than someone else's. I tried to include everything a reader may want to know. I don't mind the cigarette smoke, but many people do, so I consider it important enough to include. I'm going out for the evening, should I stop somewhere to eat or does the club have food? It affects my plans. As far as quality of the girls is concerned, yes that's important. But with as often as girls quit, get fired, go into rehab, you never know who'll be there. Besides, quality of dancers is subjective. @rickdugan
• Pussylicker2

  •

  2 years ago

  @rickdugan - you seem butthurt over it, like you're taking it personally. Your spelling and grammar were fine. But I'm pretty sure you did not read the founders guidelines before writing your review.
• rockie

  •

  2 years ago

  RD: I have always liked your contribution to the TUSCL review section, but Pussy & Tech are as fixated on ITC dance details as you are on a club's drink service. They are just a bad match for your mode of clubbing! Scrub is just a troll! I am not laughing at you, but it is amusing in light of your own perspective on when another reviewer fails to inform you the reader of said review! I am good with your reviews!
• rickdugan

  •

  2 years ago

  ^ They are general guidelines, not a concrete manifesto. If we rejected every review that included useful information just because it did not include precisely what you felt was most important, easily 90% of the reviews on this site would be gone.
• rickdugan

  •

  2 years ago

  @rockie: I admit to hating a lack of details on pricing and byob policies, but that by itself will not necessarily lead me to reject a review. When I hit the downvote button, it is because a review is so generic that the whole thing could just as easily be made up. A lack of pricing data is a big red flag because that's very hard to fake, but it can be overcome with enough specifics about the visit that it is clear that the reviewer was actually in the club.
• Tetradon

  •

  2 years ago

  @rick, I think that's why so many people see each review now, to water down the impact of individual reviewer preferences. I haven't read your reviews, but I think more reviews _are_ approved that _shouldn't_ be than the other way around. I accept that not everyone does the same things in a club. For example, you're an OTCer, I'm not. But there has to be some content that tells me a visit is worthwhile or not. I won't approve the "I walked in, place sucked, had a beer, walked out." Something about the lineup--number, quality, age, race--is critical. I will almost never approve a review that doesn't have this. If there were literally no girls on shift when you went, I hope you visited another time when there were. And wrote the review on an actual fucking computer, not your phone and not with text lingo.
• TheeOSU

  •

  2 years ago

  techman is a strange bird. His only criteria is dance prices only. It doesn't matter to him if the reviewer was in a club with zero dancers or for whatever reason never interacted with any dancers he will down vote an otherwise informative review if dance prices aren't listed yet approve a shit review only because dance prices were listed. You can make up fake dance prices and he will approve it. Sure dance prices are important but consider the whole review not just one item.
• TheeOSU

  •

  2 years ago

  Give some people a bit of authority/control and it goes to their heads, they suddenly think they're big wheels.
• uniquename

  •

  2 years ago

  I kinda assumed that getting called a shill by UselessScrub was a rite of passage around here.
• psycho_trick

  •

  2 years ago

  this is what i look for (cut way down from the review guidelines). just basic stuff. i think it's pretty lenient. entry -parking/patdown/id scan. prices -admission/drinks club -layout/stages/staff/crowd music -genre/volume dancers -number/types dances -options/prices/mileage
• RockAllNight

  •

  2 years ago

  Daily And for me anyway in almost reverse order of what’s most important
• docsavage

  •

  2 years ago

  I always use my own judgement when deciding what should or shouldn't be in a review that I submit rather than relying on the judgement of others. I've had all my reviews accepted but have often had one or two people reject the review. I don't get upset when someone questions my judgement on this or anything else because I think I have good judgement and most people don't so, of course, they won't agree with me. As exhibit A for my claim that most people have bad judgement, I would point out that in the last election the majority of voters actually thought Joe Biden, of all people, was the most qualified person in the whole United States to be the president.
• wallanon

  •

  2 years ago

  "I would point out that in the last election the majority of voters actually thought Joe Biden, of all people, was the most qualified person in the whole United States to be the president." That's not how it works. Technically you can write in whoever you want, but realistically the people who are going to win an election are among the few included on a ballot. Want better outcomes? Get better people on the ballot, starting with creating an environment where more qualified and effective people want to consider public service (and even politics). Take TUSCL, for example. How many people write reviews versus the number of people who use them? How does the site and community here incentivize more participation? Has transparency/open voting made the system for publication more effective?
• Dolfan

  •

  2 years ago

  @doc please don't bring politics into this. @pussylicker I read your explanations, and you're 100% entitled to your priorities, but the idea that mandatory valet is a more important criteria than anything dancer related in this scenario is just absurd. You can make the argument that specific descriptions of individual girls is more important the generalizations, but making the argument about your personal twelve priorities are more important than <b>strippers</b> to the general consumer of reviews on a <b>strip club</b> site isn't one I can lend any credence to. It should also be noted that at least one of these clubs hadn't had a review in the last 90 days. This is definitely subjective on my end, but the bar for a passable review drops substantially with time in my opinion. And even it drops even further for clubs like these that don't have enough reviews in the last 18 months to register scores. If a club has no reviews in the last 90 days and insufficient reviews in the last 18 months to register scores, the bar becomes basically a coherent string of words that convinces me the reviewer actually was there. If it simply serves as evidence the place is open it's got value. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to defend Rick and I'm pretty sure he couldn't care less if I or anyone else did. I'm merely engaging in this discussion in an effort to avoid reviews like these from getting rejected because I think they're worthwhile. I've seen a few for local clubs in the south Florida area that get very few reviews not get published & it's too bad, because while they weren't perfect reviews they were evidence that the place was at least open and contained one or two other pieces of potentially useful info, even if it was trivial shit like an assessment of the dancer quality and not critical things like the parking, smoking, and eating options, or even important items like the presence of a bathroom attendant.
• Daddillac

  •

  2 years ago

  I'm agreeing with rick here.... and that is difficult for me to do but he is right. There are far too many people only approving if it meets certain standards, usually there own standards veiled as founders. As for your gun, unless required by some other reason, I keep mine in a safe in my car when I valet. No problem, now if your occupation forbids that then maybe you should rethink going to strip clubs on company time
• Papi_Chulo

  •

  2 years ago

  I’m not one for censorship such as when there have been threads stating that if you start a thread you should be able to be block others from posting on it if you want – I like/prefer Founder’s hands-off approach but w/ this some people will take advantage – if there is one person that should have their review-voting privileges revoked is @scrub b/c he just indiscriminately shits on reviews just b/c he can and is allowed to - @scrub BS doesn’t really bother me (at worst one can just put him on Ignore); the biggest-issue w/ @scrub’s antics is how many people he may be turning-off from TUSCL that can o/w be good contributors (or become good contributors). Just like we all don’t have the same tastes when it comes to SCing, we are all not gonna have the same tastes when it comes to reviews – I agree with having to repeat the same details, often being a waste of time: I wish there site had a good way where the club-details could be *well* captured so TUSCLers that needed that info could refer to it; and then let the review just be about the visit w/o having to hit all the club-details – but in-lieu of there being a *good* way to capture the club details other than a review; I feel the details need to be included (and repeated) – reality is many reviewers will put the minimal effort into a review just to get the free-VIP; others just put the details important to them (including reviews that are solely love-letters of their favorite dancer) – so in-lieu of a good alternative way to capture the club details; then IMO/IME most reviews start tilting towards scant details w/ many reviewers using the old excuse of “hey it’s been document a 1000 times” – the more that excuse is used, the harder it becomes to have good reviews of clubs that contain enough details for those unfamiliar to the reader. But this is neither here or there – we’ve had these discussions b/f and everyone just stays in their camp of how reviews should be written.
• docsavage

  •

  2 years ago

  "If a club has no reviews in the last 90 days and insufficient reviews in the last 18 months to register scores, the bar becomes basically a coherent string of words that convinces me the reviewer actually was there. If it simply serves as evidence the place is open it's got value." I would agree with the above comment. I did one review of a small local club that hadn't been reviewed for almost three years, mainly just to show it was still open and there had been no major price or stripper quality changes since the last review. To make that clear, I even titled the review "Still open". I had two people reject that review. I just looked at the local reviews for the fourteen clubs in my city and it appears there hasn't been a single review for a month and a half for all of them put together. I would be happy to see almost any review. The system set up to approve reviews has resulted in few reviews getting written and approved where I live. There needs to be more encouragement, rather than criticism, of those who do make the effort to write a review.
• Papi_Chulo

  •

  2 years ago

  IMO the basics of the strip club are: + dancer looks – and not just give a general “they were hot”; but describe the dancer-crew via several characteristics so the reader better knows what to expect if they visit + costs – this not only helps for budgeting and know how much it takes to have a good time, but just as much helps in not overpaying and/or not getting ripped-off + mileage available – that way someone unfamiliar w/ the club knows what can be had in the club and what is not allowed and one can better make a determination w.r.t. hitting/not-hitting a particular club depending on what’s typically offered/not-offered IMO those are the basics that likely covers the biggest swath of readers – but I try to avoid down-voting a review if it o/w has some useful info even if it doesn't cover all the basics – when in doubt I tend to approve if it has some useful info; or at least abstain from voting, if I’m on the fence – while I believe dance-mileage and prices are important for most readers and should be included, it’s not an absolute must-have b/c just like I don’t expect for every reviewer to do VIP/extras and thus be able to offer that info; likewise I don’t expect for every reviewer to get dances and be able to report on that – it’s just that “most” of the time the reviews missing this info tend to have very little info and are often generic with not much worthwhile info.
• Papi_Chulo

  •

  2 years ago

  IMO there needs to be another way to capture/document the club details for those that think this is important and should be readily available – this way we can avoid the repeating of details for those that already know the details; but have those details available for those that need-them/want-them and like to provide them.
• nicespice

  •

  2 years ago

  This thread is great. And I concur with the comment above that we should be more lenient when it comes to reviewing clubs that are less “known”
• Muddy

  •

  2 years ago

  Speaking of tougher graders what happened to minnow and clubber. Somebody has to grade the reviews. I don't mind too much because you know what it just up the difficulty a little bit more and those guys make it harder for the bs reviews to get through. My issue is just when graders downvote because the review is not in the style that they right, they want those reviewers to write like they do which is total bullshit.
• wallanon

  •

  2 years ago

  "others just put the details important to them" If I can remember it, then it's worth putting in the review. Whenever I have the time and motivation to write a review anymore. And for some of the nitpicky shit I don't care about but some of you do I try and remember to take notes. For example, at Gold Club in Baltimore the dancer drinks are about twice what others clubs charge around town, except for the Block. So I noticed that, but the clubs that are around the average within a buck or two I probably won't remember the exact number.
• twentyfive

  •

  2 years ago

  If founder wants to encourage reviews he needs to do something about intentional shit stirrers, creeps abusing the board should be blocked, and if founder doesn't want to do this give us back the two way block, I haven't written a new review in months,because I don't think founder gives us his support, we support him, so it's only reasonable that he return the favor.
• Estafador

  •

  2 years ago

  i don't know who, what when where or why your considering shilling but if you are writing a genuine article or review, then perhaps the way you present yourself in written form is coming off as pretentious and shilling. Read the enviroment and apply your writing based on how the average tuscler would write. And even if you feel you write better than that, make sure you tailor and shill-y like terms and phrases that wouldn't force people to think otherwise.
• Hank Moody

  •

  2 years ago

  The fact that a review needs 4 downvotes in order to be rejected is pretty good protection that almost all of the good reviews get through, and also some shitty ones. On the flip side, occasionally the planets align and a dolphin gets caught in the tuna net and rejected. (Excuse the mixed metaphors.) If you hit 4 reviewers pet peeve you’ll unluckily get rejected. It can happen but the system generally works well even if I disagree with some of the votes or comments. This thread is pure gold though. 7-0 it’s a winner.
• Muddy

  •

  2 years ago

  There will never be peace on TUSCL, never. And I'm fine with that. This uncivilized clusterfuck is my online home.
• twentyfive

  •

  2 years ago

  I have no big complaint over the review process overall, my big complaint is founder allowing the bullshit that's prevalent on theses threads to spill over into the reviews, I think the stupid shit that The Sand Turd, and a few others start in the review section makes us look like a bunch of retards.
• rickdugan

  •

  2 years ago

  @Estafador: Sure, I could do all of that. Or...they can go fuck themselves. 😉 I mean seriously now. A review that provides intel regarding the quality of the dancers, the cash burn coming in and at the bar, and various other nuggets regarding the visit should not squeak in by the skin of its teeth.
• Harderlap

  •

  2 years ago

  I find it rather amazing and amusing that this lengthy thread was started by someone complaining about a review of theirs that was approved.
• rockie

  •

  2 years ago

  You needed to utilize your bartender to double down on the pour and the OHIO tandem’s quest for dance details. If Minnow was on the case, your recent contribution was going down on its first take. I have had at least 4 reviews shot down in the new era. In 1 case, I sent in the same review 2 days later and it received 7 attaboys So these days, I browse my phone for 15 minutes in the parking lot before a visit and all I get is that the bar hasn’t moved and all the challenges that exist navigating to the club in 2022! Ok, my phone did try to send me through an Army base one time on an attempted strip club visit and there was no note in that review. Tetra did offer a Nugget recently! The hot tip that a toilet bowl wasn’t properly affixed to the floor at a local club. That could be a good to know offering just like watching the step up in the same club!
• Tetradon

  •

  2 years ago

  ^ You're welcome, for next time you've gotta drop a deuce there and almost eat floor.
• rickdugan

  •

  2 years ago

  ===> "I find it rather amazing and amusing that this lengthy thread was started by someone complaining about a review of theirs that was approved." I'm complaining because two decent reviews were one vote away from getting rejected. Now I'll be the first to admit that they weren't my best work ever by any stretch, but they provided real intel about the dancers, costs and overall conditions during the visits. Worse though is that they almost rejected real reviews for clubs that, if we're lucky, are reviewed by someone only once a year. A lot of the clubs outside of larger urban markets are very thinly covered. We can't afford to lose real intel on these places just because a couple of jerkoffs don't think that anything else matters besides LDs. Tbh I wouldn't have re-written those reviews if they had been rejected. I already have over 4 years of VIP in the bank, so I wouldn't have been especially motivated to re-write those reviews all over again.
• rockie

  •

  2 years ago

  Tetra: Neither hazard would lead to a happy ending!