Report Abuse Links opinion thread

[LightsOut90]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 10:54pm

because we apparently don't get a voice in the actual thread. I thought I would start an actual thread for people to respond to the implication of a report abuse button.

[gypsy101]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 11:05pm

I still don't see the button!

[WaltG2]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 11:08pm

LightsOut90 said: "because we apparently don't get a voice in the actual thread. I thought I would start an actual thread for people to respond to the implication of a report abuse button."

 

I see nothing wrong with it. Let people report whatever they want.

 

Where the issue would come in is if posts are modded to the point of censorship.

 

gypsy101 said: "I still don't see the button!"

 

"Quote Message" is between it & "Reply to message".

[Kad]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 11:17pm

For some reason I just assumed we had this feature already.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 11:18pm

Not on every single post.  Now we can accidentally hit "report" every time we mean to hit "reply."  I'm getting carpet tunnel from doing that since #pattislaw passed.

[WaltG2]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 11:19pm

Kad said: "For some reason I just assumed we had this feature already."

 

And THIS is how we know the change will affect nothing.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 11:22pm

There has been a form where you could fill out a complaint for general abuse on the board, but now you can report an individual message in the thread. When you click on report message it does ask you to write out the reason you are reporting the message. 

 

What I want to know is what will be done about a reported message. If a message is deemed "abuse" will the poster be warned or notified. If it is not deemed "abuse" will the offended party receive an explanation for why the post didn't cross a line? 

[Kad]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 11:22pm

Until Rob complies with Murin's decree that we should be sent to the forbidden zone, at least.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 11:24pm

Is light snark acceptable but medium snark not?  Not to patti, we all know it's not to patti, and she's why we're all here, but is there a snark rule on BWW as long as the boards are still attached to the amazing site with the amazing content and the love of theater creators the very reason this site exists for the creators?

Updated On: 3/10/16 at 11:24 PM

[Pootie2]

Posted: 3/10/16 at 11:42pm

I don't like the location of the link. Would be nice if that were a bit separate, like aligned left.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 12:46am

I wonder if people are going to click it as often as the hordes supposedly do when it comes to digital lottos. How dare they!

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:13am

Regarding the button and the "snark," can someone explain to me what exactly we did wrong?

 

[WaltG2]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:15am

10086sunset said: "Regarding the button and the "snark," can someone explain to me what exactly we did wrong?"

 

Nothing.

 

Go read Rob's post on the matter in the Patti thread.

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:19am

The new era of Broadwayworld- "Tattle Tale Thread Lock City". 

Congrats, Patti or whatever your name is. Ain't censorship fun??

[tazber]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:22am

10086sunset said: "Regarding the button and the "snark," can someone explain to me what exactly we did wrong?

 

 

 

"

Nothing. I mentioned in another thread that the "objectionable" posts didn't violate any rules of conduct.

 

Someone has suddenly found themselves with a lot of time on their hands and decided to crusade for a safe space.

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:28am

WaltG2 said: "10086sunset said: "Regarding the button and the "snark," can someone explain to me what exactly we did wrong?"

 

 

 

Nothing.

 

 

 

Go read Rob's post on the matter in the Patti thread.

 

"

I did read Rob's post and the entire thread. 

Someone complains about our posts, makes no mention of the positive statements said supporting the cast and crew upon the announcement of the closing and now we need to self censor the level of snark.

To me, makes it seem like we did something wrong. 

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:30am

tazber said: "10086sunset said: "Regarding the button and the "snark," can someone explain to me what exactly we did wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"

 

Nothing. I mentioned in another thread that the "objectionable" posts didn't violate any rules of conduct.

 

 

 

Someone has suddenly found themselves with a lot of time on their hands and decided to crusade for a safe space.

 

"

Well said Tazber. Thanks.

[WaltG2]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:30am

10086sunset said: "I did read Rob's post and the entire thread. 

 

Someone complains about our posts, makes no mention of the positive statements said supporting the cast and crew upon the announcement of the closing and now we need to self censor the level of snark.

 

To me, makes it seem like we did something wrong. "

 

You may want to reread Rob's post, as it explicitly says that the timing is the only thing that had to do with Patti--it was coming anyway, regardless of what she said.

 

[10086sunset]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:38am

WaltG2,

I understand what you are stating.

I guess my reaction is more towards how does one define heavy snark versus light, playful snark.

In the end, it will all work itself out. 

 

[followspot]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:42am

Does this only apply to Patti Murin abuse?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:44am

I wonder if politicians complained about all the negative posts about them on CNN's or Time's websites, would they be banished to a forbidden zone?

 

Not likely. As Rob knows, it's the traffic generated from this website that sets the bar on advertising rates and the appeal to advertisers. Quite a lot of that traffic is generated through the message boards. Just look at the number of views, posts, etc. Nothing hidden there.

 

I'm sorry she took it to heart, but public figures, public art, public opinions are always "public" for scrutiny, not just adoration. If you don't like it, then don't be "public." Dance around your living room like nobody's watching ... because they aren't.

[ClydeBarrow]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:48am

Matt Rogers said: "The new era of Broadwayworld- "Tattle Tale Thread Lock City". 

 

Congrats, Patti or whatever your name is. Ain't censorship fun??"

 

Did you see your shout out on the never trending #BwayMessageBORED? Still sad that didn't take off.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 10:50am

followspot said: "Does this only apply to Patti Murin abuse?"

 

Obviously.

 

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 11:11am

I don't think adding this feature is going to slow traffic down a lot on this site. What I hope is that this feature will help the problem and those people out there who just read the boards decide to join them. And hopefully it will shorten some threads that get out of hand so we don't have to scroll through pages of arguments to find posts that are back on topic.

 

As far as accidentally hitting "report" instead of "reply", just pay attention to what you are doing. I had no problem hitting reply to post this. Also I am sure you can back out of it. Yup, it is a bit sad that it has come to this as it was not needed when these boards started. And even after the discussion over the issue and Rob's post, the snarkiness continues.

 

Thank you Rob for giving us this option. Also, isn't there a block option if you don't want to see certain posters?

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/11/16 at 11:13am

Yes, the block option is still around, but you can still see a blocked poster's post in a thread if you hit reply.