A RECOMMENDATION FOR ALAN HENRY

[Alan Henry]

Hi All

Again - just to clarify: we're not here modifying and censoring discussion. We don't want to misrepresent what a user has said, etc - and avoid selectively pruning discussions except in cases of obvious troll behavior or a direct rule violation.

Sometimes - an entire topic is just in bad taste and goes against our rules and what we want the board to be - and a discussion forum about the behavior of a specific minor of no notoriety whatsoever is definitely something I think we can all agree on is not something that belongs here.

We've heard your feedback about letting you know why a message is deleted and we will DM accounts when we have to delete a message as part of our process there going forward. 

Obviously it's not feasible for us to DM every single person when an entire thread is removed for a rule violation and we can't really specifically outline what was said without breaking our own rules.

I think we can all agree removals here are isolated incidents and not the norm for civil and insightful discussion. We're all welcome to our opinions - let's express them with thought and care.

If you have specific questions or suggestions please feel free to email me directly at alan [@] broadwayworld [.] com. 

[SweetLips]

I miss those day when I finally had the courage to post and got shot down in flames for being a troll, sock puppet, my typing mistakes and for asking advice on who to see.

Now all is so bland I rarely even look at the chat board. As mentioned 'where will I sit' etc etc fills the board it's not worth my time scrolling down past all these silly questions to find an actual theatre discussion.

I so miss Sue and the other outrageous contributors that caused such inflamatory comments to make this board come alive. Its now like a souffle that didn't rise.

At least I have become adept at 'skim reading'.

The world has become so regulatory and controlled that language is being changed so as not to offend.

PS....talking of editing, is there any way we can substitute RR from interviews so we can get the celebrities without the interviewer?...that would be awesome...Thank you

[dearalanaaaa]

I'm relatively new here. But in my time being here, I've seen multiple interesting and engaging threads removed simply because moderation doesn't like them.
Namely the Javier muñ*z thread that got removed because... I'm not exactly sure, I don't remember violating the terms when I had posted in that thread but now it's disappeared. Staff here locking a thread just because "oh we disagree with discussion of a preformer outside of their show" is completely unjust.
The SpongeBob fan thread was another thread that was removed for no particular reason. I see that as an issue when fan stalking is an issue on a larger scale, and should be discussed. It pertains to Broadway when fans chase cars, follow actors home, throw eggs at them, and everything else.
Moderation needs to step it up quickly, or new members like myself may be less likely to stay.

[Kad]

The minor in question used publicly-accessible social media and positioned herself as a "public figure" in the Broadway fandom world, which she then used to harass performers and others on platforms with far greater reach than BWW. The fact it came to a bizarre head just made for internet rubbernecking. So, no, we can't all agree on this one.

The repeated skittish behavior of overreaction to things like this makes me think BWW received a legal threat at some point- or believed they were open to one.

or, more cynically, it comes from a belief that it could hurt their access to Broadway performers for publicity. That would certainly be more in line with moderation that has been more responsive to actors not liking what they see here than they have been to longstanding trolls and board disrupters.

[BWWMatt]

Hi Kad and dearalanaaaa, I don't speak for Alan (obviously), but I can speak to both of the threads that you mentioned. If you recall, both of these threads were left up and running, with only minor pruning, for quite a while. In fact, in both threads, posters had predicted that they would be shut down far earlier than they eventually were. 

The reason that they were not taken down earlier is because, like you, we felt that there was tremendous value in the conversation being had. However, in both instances, when the conversation began to repeatedly turn towards the mental health/instability of individuals, that's when it ventured into the territory of what we considered a personal attack; which clearly violates our rules.

I will agree with you that deleting the threads-- rather than pruning and/or locking-- was probably not the best decision, and after discussing internally, I think that we have agreed that this should be the starting point for action in the future. Obviously if things get out of hand, we reserve the right to delete a thread, but it should be the last resort. 

As Alan said, from now on, we will also take strides to communicate with individual users why a specific post has been deleted. Also, in threads when the conversation is veering towards topics that we think might violate our rules, we will make that clear in hopes of preventing a constructive conversation from derailing. 

Like many of you, I first came to BWW via the message board, so I have a tremendous fondness for the conversations, debates, disagreements, and knowledge found on these pages. So I hope that we collectively can find ways to continue to make the best of the platform, while also making sure that it is not a place that revels in some of more negative instincts of the internet and social media. 

Echoing Alan, both of our DMs are always open, and we welcome feedback, suggestions, recommendations, etc. 

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

I think our believing that you take this seriously would be a lot easier were the subject of this thread not mocking its title openly on his Snapchat account.

[dearalanaaaa]

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "I think our believing that you take this seriously would be a lot easier were the subject of this thread not mocking its title openly on his Snapchat account."

What's his snapchat @? Or will you PM me a screenshot? This sound really unprofessional, I'm disappointed.

[Alan Henry]

Just so it’s on the record, my Snapchat post is just a lighthearted “I’ve made it in showbiz” - in reference to the fact that having a thread made in your name is usually reserved for someone more significant than myself.

I assure you I’m not mocking anyone.

You’re welcome to check for yourself at “alanhenryto.”

Again - we hear you RE more transparency re deleted posts and will advise you when those occur. If you have specific questions as to why something was removed please get in touch.

I’m going to only be answering specific questions here going forward - as I think we’ve sufficiently outlined our position.

[Liza's Headband]

You always claim to have sufficiently addressed an issue when, in reality, you've only regurgitated the same old nonsense. 

But I fear this thread will get locked or my post will be deleted if I continue, SO I'LL JUST SHUT UP.   

[BroadwayConcierge]

Chiming in to thank BWWMatt for his thoughtful, specific contribution to this thread which clearly shows an openness and willingness for continued dialogue from the mods. I genuinely appreciate it.

Alan, respectfully, you say pretty much the same thing every time you post.

[Anakela]

Alan Henry said: "

With that said, I cannot publicly post comments that have been removed or mention what they contain or allude to because obviously, those would be something we had to remove to begin with.

"

Why, though? Seems simple enough to me. Delete what you needed to delete, and then replace it with:

Mod: [removed for language]

Mod: [removed link to bootleg]

Mod: [removed for personal attack]

Mod: [removed for personal attack on a non-famous person]

etc, etc, etc.

No, obviously you're not going to remove where someone posted the word f***, and then write "someone posted the word f***, so that's what I deleted here. -Alan." I don't think anyone is asking for that. But why can't there be some actual public transparency as to why something was deleted?

 

[ghostlight2]

^^^This.

[Kad]

BWWMatt, thank you for your thorough and specific response.

Pruning is absolutely necessary on a message board; however, it often happens here without explanation or warning.

Having stated rules and guidelines is all well and good, but there's been inconsistent enforcement of them throughout all the years I've been a member, to the point where... no, I wouldn't just assume a post vanished because it broke a specific rule.

[Alan Henry]

I've brought this to the team and we're going to edit comments to note the rule violation as suggested above whenever possible. Thank you for the continued feedback.