There really needs to be a way to stop the rubber-stamp review approvers who know nothing about the club they're adjudicating. I have very little knowledge of IT or what it takes to make website changes, but @founder is always working on it, so maybe he can find a way to get rid of these assholes.
Here’s an example of what I mean. tuscl.net See my comment at the bottom. Dude has clearly never been there before. But he's not the problem, it's the adjudicators. What else are you there for except to authenticate the experience that's being reported?
I don’t know what the answer is, but maybe there should be a “top 10 list” of adjudicators; how many they’ve approved vs. rejected, and how many of their own reviews have been approved and published. Put that into some statistical model and then have a tolerance factor. This whole website is based on free speech, but this isn’t about that. It’s about checks and balances on the Judiciary committee, which means the fucking retards who approve everything they see.
Okay, I’m a little high. But still, a valid point I think. Maybe it’s as simple as members taking more pride in themselves?
We do important work here, and we can be so much better than this.
Raise the bar, assholes.
Replies (1)
Whew! Glad I wasn't one of the approvers... 😏
However, @misterorange brings up a good point about adjudicating clubs we've not been to. Aside from Atlanta, Florida, California, Michigan, and New Jersey, I often can't judge a club review from direct experience. I instead rely on inclusion of key bits of information - vibe, patrons, dancers, prices, and actual experiences. But aside from some well-known details, like Baby Dolls Dallas has seven stages, I wouldn't readily know if a review is factually correct for a club I never visited.
Not sure how to combat that. Only adjudicate clubs we've actually been to?
Join the conversation
Sign in to reply to this discussion.