Profile for Craig

AC126748 said: "There are many members who are probably not even aware that you had any hand in the creation of this board. You may have had a hand in building it, but I think that There are definitely people in a better position to drive this conversation to you. "

 

Ah - so are you in favor of censorship or not?  I say that tongue in cheek lest you use that as a springboar

I think you're internalizing too much if that's what you think or have interpreted.  Perhaps it's been my absence on the board for an extended time that has given me a different perspective. I don't take things that Patti said personally. And quite frankly - the more vitriolic comments have always been on this board and an underlying issue - so again - this is really nothing new or something that hasn't been discussed by forum members - or members of the theater commu

I read what she wrote too.  She was calling more for a separation of BWW and the chatboards than to "shut it down" in its entirety.  I know this because I read it too. Bold emphasis is mine

 

"I am officially asking you, Broadway World, to take down your chat boards. Create a whole new website for them that has nothing to do with the incredible content you generate. But placing that negative bull**** next to a joyous article about a

PalJoey -

I think it was an overreach. And I think that Patti knows she over-reached.  But once it was out there - it was out there.  I don't think her intention was truly to shut message boards down. I think it was more that she wanted to shut the "trolls" down.  Her subsequent posts/comments/etc indicate as such as well.  Unfortunate that the first broadcast of the message was large in scope. Much like a "correction" in the NYT - the error

tazber said: "I was literally just coming to post that Addy.   No one's complained about free speech. I've heard it once in this entire back-and-forth, and that was Patti's own mouth on the radio show.  

I feel like their jumping to defend themselves against what they *think* will be our response.  

But it's not our response. We all realize this is a privately held organization, and Rob makes the rules about what is and what is not

I'm not biased. And I can't be the only one that can see beyond Patti's personal complaint and how it related to her (NERDS) to see the bigger picture. Because even Patti commented that its something she wanted to post a long time but was so inspired only after it hit right close to home re: Nerds.   It really doesn't matter what the impetus to right was. There were elements of her post that are 100% valid. Just

People got called out for being rude. It's NO different than when posters here call out others or performers for being rude. End of stor

What if it was reversed. What if producers started posting a sign in front of their theater stating tha

A blacklist has no place on these forums.  I suggest you keep your own list if you feel so strongly about who you want to support or not.  Your threat of not supporting shows with some of these performers reminds me of some of the tech forums where people are against one company and thinks they are scum but willingly buy other products that have that other company's parts.  You can do what you want with your money.  But if you want to suggest what they are doing is whi

Well there's another way to look at it.  And that is that everyone here should be helping to police the board so that those 4 or 5 people don't diminish all the good that does come from the board.  But usually that doesn't happen - in fact, people start bandwagoning instead.  

Most of those in support, I believe, love BWW in general.  They don't like the chat boards.  They are giving Patti virtual high fives and ink in support of the overall message - which is more about proper moderation than about removing the boards.  It's just there's a lot of noise about both.  I don't believe Rob would ever truly consider removing the message boards from this site.  And that doesn't need to happen. What does need to happen is that

JM226 said: "also... WHO is the arbiter of what is respectful, what is rude, etc.  if you have an army of moderators scouring the message board, doesn't it become a subjective practice???  what is the definition of light snark vs. ugly snark on here??? rob should provide a detailed guide and handbook if he wants to keep people coming here who, in turn, provide more traffic to his website, which profits off that from advertisers. he needs discussion both good and bad, bo

There's a rapidly growing lack of maturity over much ado about nothing in terms of what's different.  But maybe some people here are oblivious to the forum rules.  Not once has it been said that there can only be positive comments. Patti didn't even say it.  So stop the hyperbole. It seems as though some people are even more sensitive than performers since they can't take criticism themselves. That's very telling. Regardless of Patti's approach or anyone

Hairspray0901 said: "I feel like this is silencing BroadwayWorld posters of having any negative opinions. Unless they're positive, we will get reported on. Stupid. I was never a fan of Lea Salonga but after she called people here "b*tches" I will officially never be a fan. I think all of the praise Patti is getting from the "broadway" community is interesting. Do they not realize most of us here spend $$$ on their shows? We

Why some people are taking this so personally is beyond me.  Unless it means that you are concerned that you might get a warning or banned because of something posted.  Which, ultimately, is no differe

I'm amused how this thread got started.  For starters, what makes you think you're entitled to have a voice in the thread announcing a site change that was posted by the moderators?  Starting your own thread to discuss it was the right course of action. Howeve