Fun Police

[05Venturer]

Brlesq - 12/23/2018  2:32 PM

tuck0411 - 12/23/2018  10:54 AM

Kid Montana - 12/21/2018  7:43 AM

Somebody call the Whaambulance.  Poor lil tuck was getting dogpiled by a bunch of meanies, he needed rescuing.

Hardly.  From my angle, the "meanies" were dogpiling themselves and looking pretty silly in the process.  But it was all in the name of "professionalism", of course...  

Tuck, its hard to disagree with you that many of the comments lacked "professionalism".  There were probably better ways of getting the point across. But since these couple of threads began on 12/21, you have posted 4 more reviews, and all of them were much more about reviewing a cigar and much less about the ambiance, so that is certainly appreciated.  Personally,  I think that your scoring of cigars is fair and objective, and you rate dog rockets appropriately as dog rockets.  You certainly put an effort into writing the review, and everybody does them differently.  Keep doing it this way and I doubt there will be more objections.      

And please note, this particular thread (Fun Police) wasn't aimed at you or even about you.  It was about a having an admin freeze a thread that clearly has not gotten out of control, or an admin that deletes threads or posts that no longer suit them. Many of us view that kind of totalitarian censorship as a much bigger transgression than any review you will post, and the site has had a lot of good members leave because of this BS.  Four+ years ago this site used to have A LOT more forum activity and members posting, and was a lot more fun to visit daily.  Most topics were fair game unless they were clearly discriminatory or NSFW. And rarely did the front page have a stale or day old topic on it. But then the the pussyfication began, and the effort to make sure that everything was politically correct and that no one's feeling ever got hurt drove away some great guys.  So that's why many folks remain frustrated.

Oh, and IBTL!

Yes, Being the OP of this thread it was in no way pointed at Tuck. I do apologize for the direction this took. I was really voicing my frustration and feelings about the direction things seem to be going here of late. Too much political correctness that seems to be flowing over into the place where we used to be able to be "normal".
Merry Christmas

[DonM]

I am not sure what you mean by normal, Kent  and well said, Bruce.  

If anyone wants to place blame on the recent subjects of reviews, I will assume responsibility in pushing it to an extreme (although I might have allegedly had a little help).  I have never been known to be a "Hemingway" in regards to  my posts.

As mentioned, I have noticed the changes in the reviews as well Tuck.  It is appreciated and there will be no more "heckling" from me on the subject. *Edit* Yes I did see your review of the Camacho Diploma.   I can also respect your dislike to my satire post as it was a bit overboard to say the least.
 
Having been on CG for nearly 10 years, there was a time when being "Politically Correct" was never in the equation in the forums.  Rarely was a thread frozen or a post deleted.  Times have definitely changed  

[05Venturer]

there was a time when being "Politically Correct" was never in the equation in the forums. Rarely was a thread frozen or a post deleted. Times have definitely changed

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is what I meant by "normal"

[Vroomp]

(**%$@#!$*~!

I always seem to miss the good stuff when I'm away~!!!

  Hey Tuck, Don't listen to any of those guys............  Do what ya want~!

[Brlesq]

Vroomp - 12/24/2018  11:31 AM

(**%$@#!$*~!

I always seem to miss the good stuff when I'm away~!!!

  Hey Tuck, Don't listen to any of those guys............  Do what ya want~!

Welcome back Brad!  How nice were those federal parks in PR??  

[DRuff]

Brlesq - 12/24/2018  11:52 AM  

Vroomp - 12/24/2018  11:31 AM  

(**%$@#!$*~!

I always seem to miss the good stuff when I'm away~!!!

  Hey Tuck, Don't listen to any of those guys............  Do what ya want~!

Welcome back Brad!  How nice were those federal parks in PR??    

   

[tuck0411]

DonM - 12/24/2018  7:23 AM

I am not sure what you mean by normal, Kent  and well said, Bruce.  

If anyone wants to place blame on the recent subjects of reviews, I will assume responsibility in pushing it to an extreme (although I might have allegedly had a little help).  I have never been known to be a "Hemingway" in regards to  my posts.

As mentioned, I have noticed the changes in the reviews as well Tuck.  It is appreciated and there will be no more "heckling" from me on the subject. *Edit* Yes I did see your review of the Camacho Diploma.   I can also respect your dislike to my satire post as it was a bit overboard to say the least.
 
Having been on CG for nearly 10 years, there was a time when being "Politically Correct" was never in the equation in the forums.  Rarely was a thread frozen or a post deleted.  Times have definitely changed  

Thanks for your comments, Don.  I'd just point out, though, that "politically correct" is exactly what some of you guys want me to be.  You want me to conform to what your idea of a worthy review is.  It's not much different than the pressure from the admins to keep posts within certain boundaries.  Am I right?  So, from that angle, I think it's a bit hypocritical to want boundaries on reviewing style while not wanting boundaries on post content.  For what it's worth, I still haven't figured out why anyone even cares what someone else says in a review.  Why is it worth getting worked up over?  For myself, I do think there should be certain boxes checked in a review and the review should be yanked without points awarded if those boxes are not checked.  I'm thinking in particular of the latest "review" of the 5 Vegas Gold Maduro Robusto from yesterday.  Why is that sort of nonsense allowed and where is the thread taking that guy to task??  But if the necessary boxes are in fact checked, what else is said of an extraneous nature, "ambiance" if you will, should not be questioned, IMO.

At any rate, happy holidays and I hope everyone enjoys their day off tomorrow.  And with that, I'm going to retire to my smoking lounge...  

[tuck0411]

Vroomp - 12/24/2018  8:31 AM

(**%$@#!$*~!

I always seem to miss the good stuff when I'm away~!!!

  Hey Tuck, Don't listen to any of those guys............  Do what ya want~!

Thank you, I think I will.  

[junglepete]

quote - tuck0411

"Thanks for your comments, Don.  I'd just point out, though, that "politically correct" is exactly what some of you guys want me to be.  You want me to conform to what your idea of a worthy review is.  It's not much different than the pressure from the admins to keep posts within certain boundaries.  Am I right?  So, from that angle, I think it's a bit hypocritical to want boundaries on reviewing style while not wanting boundaries on post content.  For what it's worth, I still haven't figured out why anyone even cares what someone else says in a review.  Why is it worth getting worked up over?  For myself, I do think there should be certain boxes checked in a review and the review should be yanked without points awarded if those boxes are not checked.  I'm thinking in particular of the latest "review" of the 5 Vegas Gold Maduro Robusto from yesterday.  Why is that sort of nonsense allowed and where is the thread taking that guy to task??  But if the necessary boxes are in fact checked, what else is said of an extraneous nature, "ambiance" if you will, should not be questioned, IMO.

At any rate, happy holidays and I hope everyone enjoys their day off tomorrow.  And with that, I'm going to retire to my smoking lounge...   [/QUOTE]"



Note - The review you mentioned above was noticed this morning. A PM was sent to the reviewer to change his review to include the basic criteria that we ask for: "Please note that there is a minimum number of characters required (150) in order to submit a review so that your experience may provide others with some helpful information. A very brief synopsis regarding flavor, construction and burn will suffice, but feel free to be as detailed as you desire." The reviewer is given some time to either rectify the review or have it removed.

[Brlesq]

junglepete - 12/24/2018  8:11 PM
Note - The review you mentioned above was noticed this morning. A PM was sent to the reviewer to change his review to include the basic criteria that we ask for: "Please note that there is a minimum number of characters required (150) in order to submit a review so that your experience may provide others with some helpful information. A very brief synopsis regarding flavor, construction and burn will suffice, but feel free to be as detailed as you desire." The reviewer is given some time to either rectify the review or have it removed.

We're making progress. Merry Christmas, all!

[DonM]

tuck0411 - 12/24/2018  10:57 PM

DonM - 12/24/2018  7:23 AM

I am not sure what you mean by normal, Kent  and well said, Bruce.  

If anyone wants to place blame on the recent subjects of reviews, I will assume responsibility in pushing it to an extreme (although I might have allegedly had a little help).  I have never been known to be a "Hemingway" in regards to  my posts.

As mentioned, I have noticed the changes in the reviews as well Tuck.  It is appreciated and there will be no more "heckling" from me on the subject. *Edit* Yes I did see your review of the Camacho Diploma.   I can also respect your dislike to my satire post as it was a bit overboard to say the least.
 
Having been on CG for nearly 10 years, there was a time when being "Politically Correct" was never in the equation in the forums.  Rarely was a thread frozen or a post deleted.  Times have definitely changed  

Thanks for your comments, Don.  I'd just point out, though, that "politically correct" is exactly what some of you guys want me to be.  You want me to conform to what your idea of a worthy review is.  It's not much different than the pressure from the admins to keep posts within certain boundaries.  Am I right?  So, from that angle, I think it's a bit hypocritical to want boundaries on reviewing style while not wanting boundaries on post content.  For what it's worth, I still haven't figured out why anyone even cares what someone else says in a review.  Why is it worth getting worked up over?  For myself, I do think there should be certain boxes checked in a review and the review should be yanked without points awarded if those boxes are not checked.  I'm thinking in particular of the latest "review" of the 5 Vegas Gold Maduro Robusto from yesterday.  Why is that sort of nonsense allowed and where is the thread taking that guy to task??  But if the necessary boxes are in fact checked, what else is said of an extraneous nature, "ambiance" if you will, should not be questioned, IMO.

At any rate, happy holidays and I hope everyone enjoys their day off tomorrow.  And with that, I'm going to retire to my smoking lounge...  

It appears that the issue that you are referring to on the 5 Vegas Gold review is being addressed by the admin JunglePete.  In addition, I see  that you are still unhappy about previous posts or comments and I reluctantly choose to ignore your comments for further discussion.  I did make an attempt to make amends and obviously that was not good enough for you.  

Merry Christmas

[tuck0411]

DonM - 12/24/2018  6:18 PM

tuck0411 - 12/24/2018  10:57 PM

DonM - 12/24/2018  7:23 AM

I am not sure what you mean by normal, Kent  and well said, Bruce.  

If anyone wants to place blame on the recent subjects of reviews, I will assume responsibility in pushing it to an extreme (although I might have allegedly had a little help).  I have never been known to be a "Hemingway" in regards to  my posts.

As mentioned, I have noticed the changes in the reviews as well Tuck.  It is appreciated and there will be no more "heckling" from me on the subject. *Edit* Yes I did see your review of the Camacho Diploma.   I can also respect your dislike to my satire post as it was a bit overboard to say the least.
 
Having been on CG for nearly 10 years, there was a time when being "Politically Correct" was never in the equation in the forums.  Rarely was a thread frozen or a post deleted.  Times have definitely changed  

Thanks for your comments, Don.  I'd just point out, though, that "politically correct" is exactly what some of you guys want me to be.  You want me to conform to what your idea of a worthy review is.  It's not much different than the pressure from the admins to keep posts within certain boundaries.  Am I right?  So, from that angle, I think it's a bit hypocritical to want boundaries on reviewing style while not wanting boundaries on post content.  For what it's worth, I still haven't figured out why anyone even cares what someone else says in a review.  Why is it worth getting worked up over?  For myself, I do think there should be certain boxes checked in a review and the review should be yanked without points awarded if those boxes are not checked.  I'm thinking in particular of the latest "review" of the 5 Vegas Gold Maduro Robusto from yesterday.  Why is that sort of nonsense allowed and where is the thread taking that guy to task??  But if the necessary boxes are in fact checked, what else is said of an extraneous nature, "ambiance" if you will, should not be questioned, IMO.

At any rate, happy holidays and I hope everyone enjoys their day off tomorrow.  And with that, I'm going to retire to my smoking lounge...  

It appears that the issue that you are referring to on the 5 Vegas Gold review is being addressed by the admin JunglePete.  In addition, I see  that you are still unhappy about previous posts or comments and I reluctantly choose to ignore your comments for further discussion.  I did make an attempt to make amends and obviously that was not good enough for you.  

Merry Christmas

No, I'm not unhappy at all.  Quite the contrary.  Your comments were appreciated and your amends were accepted, and if they were not, I wouldn't have thanked you for them.  At this point, I'm merely making conversation for the purpose of further getting us all on the same page, assuming that's possible when we're all clearly quite opinionated on the subject.  I suppose we may be as close to being on the same page as we're likely to get, though, so I won't comment further on the subject.

Again, happy holidays and I mean that sincerely.

[jharrisx5]

tuck0411 - 12/23/2018  7:18 PM  

DRuff - 12/23/2018  5:54 PM  

tuck0411 - 12/23/2018  8:44 PM  

DRuff - 12/23/2018  2:32 PM  

Tuck,

As much as you are entitled to write your reviews how you like, I am entitled to have my opinion of them and express it. I didn't feel it necessary to call you out directly, but you figured it out pretty quickly and responded.

Knock yourself out, talk about the traffic jams, and include as much extraneous info as you feel is needed to get it to the point you're looking for. I just don't get it.   

The locking of the thread was heavy handed and without merit, but that doesn't seem to matter these days.

Hey man, it's kind of ironic that I'm still being taken to task for my review style in a thread entitled "Fun police", eh?  I'm trying to have fun, both with the smoking and with the reviewing.  Is this hobby not supposed to be fun?  I get that some take it more seriously than that and think we should strive for "professionalism" with the reviews, but that just ain't me and never will be regardless of how many folks complain about it.  Like I said, if you just can't handle my style, don't read my stuff.  But I will read yours, if you'd get around to posting some, and furthermore, I won't give you any grief over your style, either, and that's a promise.  

 

Interesting you say that, as I have done quote a few Geek critiques. Reviews are not really my bag, I much rather being part of a group review and comparing findings. Check out my feedback and you will see them, if you are interested. Feel free to give me grief, being from New Jersey originally and working in NYC, you would be hard pressed to hurt my feelings.

 If you'd like, join the hangout we are on now, the link is on the front page https://hangouts.google.com/call/g7msewchbgkjnnbt6x2kjljyjea?no_rd . It's a Google Hangout, all you need is a webcam, we'd be glad to have you.  

Thanks, Doug, appreciate the invite.  I don't own a webcam, but if I come across a good deal on one, I may make an appearance in the hangout.

 

 Use your phone to log in...I do it sometimes