Where is everyone?- Page 7

[Kad]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 1:38pm

It's a good thing Lea Michele doesn't tweet about this board! There have been how many threads dedicated solely to topic of dragging her, both professionally and personally?  

The moderation on this board has always been spotty, questionable, inconsistent, and opaque. They bristle at negativity toward performers with social media following but defend the right of members to post inflammatory, racist garbage that derails every topic it enters. When conversations turn to politics or controversial topics, they lock them down.

The board has lost a great deal of its veteran posters- often people with years and years of experience as Broadway fans or industry people- and it allows aimless non-discussion like requests for recommendations or where to sit or other busywork threads to grow.

This board is unique in that it was a mix of people who knew Broadway intimately, as insiders or just dedicated fans for decades, and new folks. It's an old board, too; it is probably as old or older than many new members, with folks who have been here for most of that time. There is a sense of having earned their stripes and having seen it all, and a sense of familiarity and culture akin to a bar with a set of regulars.

Honestly, the people who can be coldest here are also generally people who know what the hell they're talking about.

 

 

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 1:45pm

romain2 said: "Let’s not forget that IMDb eventually got rid of their message boards.

I would hate to see BW following suit."

Unless I am unaware of their actual business model, the board here seems to be the main draw. If we were just the noisy, unruly appendage that provided them nothing but drama, it would be long gone by now.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 1:49pm

Also, the IMDB boards were objectively a nearly unmanageable mess, with literally thousands of boards on a site substantially larger than BWW could ever be.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 3:18pm

vanbrig said: ""Sometimes the mods can't catch everything" aka inconsistent. Basically exactly what myself and others have been saying. I agree that people should stick up for others, but if the mods say they’re going to do something, they should actually do it (and with fair an even hand). Sometimes they are fine, other times they are nowhere to be found, and other times they're going overboard protecting the sensibilities of actors. It's a mess."

 

Vanbrig I think you really need to pause, take a deep breath and think about what you're saying here.  By the logic you are using, should society just throw in the towel and say "Well, we can't possibly catch EVERY pedophile online, so we might as well make it legal."  Would you prefer a board where every post has to go through a committee before it can appear online --- or would you rather keep the current system that includes a mixture of the moderators, members self-policing themselves, and other members notifying the mods in the event a bad egg or two slips through the cracks?

 

[LxGstv]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 3:30pm

JSquared2 said: "vanbrig said: ""Sometimes the mods can't catch everything" aka inconsistent. Basically exactly what myself and others have been saying. I agree that people should stick up for others, but if the mods say they’re going to do something, they should actually do it (and with fair an even hand). Sometimes they are fine, other times they are nowhere to be found, and other times they're going overboard protecting the sensibilities of actors. It's a mess."



Vanbrig I think you really need to pause, take a deep breath and think about what you're saying here. By the logic you are using, should society just throw in the toweland say "Well, we can't possibly catch EVERY pedophile online, so we might as well make it legal." Would you prefer a board where every post has to go through a committee before it can appear online --- or would you rather keep the current system that includes a mixture of the moderators, members self-policing themselves, and other members notifying the mods in the event a bad egg or two slips through the cracks?

"

I can’t speak for Vanbrig, but my issue with it was the motivation behind it, as well as the execution.

When someone’s name in a thread pretty much gets a post deleted, it’s not just being done because it’s a violation of the terms, there’s more to it. And the mods have pretty much confirmed this as well saying that there are things we don’t and never will know about it. It’s selective.

And the execution was incredibly flawed, it’s one thing to lock thread which is usually the case and that’s ok, but threads were simply deleted. A whole preview thread for a show vanished, a thread that had a lot of information on the show. How can anyone that cares about this website and it’s content/information be ok with that? It’s one thing to delete random posts, a whole thread, quite different. Like I said in an earlier post, it would be similar to the King Kong production asking the NYT to erase their review because it wasn’t to their liking.

[NYadgal]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 3:48pm

There is, apparently, an ‘agreement’ in place, and the reason the actress reads these message boards is to make sure the agreement is being enforced. According to her Tweet.

It’s a great shame that so much history was deleted.

Sad days for those who care and believe that there is more good here than bad.

[JSquared2]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 3:50pm

LxGstv said: "JSquared2 said: "vanbrig said: ""Sometimes the mods can't catch everything" aka inconsistent. Basically exactly what myself and others have been saying. I agree that people should stick up for others, but if the mods say they’re going to do something, they should actually do it (and with fair an even hand). Sometimes they are fine, other times they are nowhere to be found, and other times they're going overboard protecting the sensibilities of actors. It's a mess."



Vanbrig I think you really need to pause, take a deep breath and think about what you're saying here. By the logic you are using, should society just throw in the toweland say "Well, we can't possibly catch EVERY pedophile online, so we might as well make it legal." Would you prefer a board where every post has to go through a committee before it can appear online --- or would you rather keep the current system that includes a mixture of the moderators, members self-policing themselves, and other members notifying the mods in the event a bad egg or two slips through the cracks?

"

I can’t speak for Vanbrig, but my issue with it was the motivation behind it, as well as the execution.

When someone’s name in a thread pretty much gets a post deleted, it’s not just being done because it’s a violation of the terms, there’s more to it. And the mods have pretty much confirmed thisas well saying that there are things we don’t and never will know about it. It’s selective.

And the execution was incredibly flawed, it’s one thing to lock thread which is usually the case and that’s ok, but threads were simply deleted. A whole preview thread for a show vanished, a thread that had a lot of information on the show. How can anyone that cares about this website and it’s content/information be ok with that? It’s one thing to delete random posts, a whole thread, quite different. Like I said in an earlier post, it would be similar to the King Kong production asking the NYT to erase their review because it wasn’t to their liking."

 

No, the KING KONG scenario really would not be at all similar.  A similar situation would be if Ben Brantley and Jesse Green traded jokes about the mental health of Christiani Pitts or repeatedly claimed that she is an unreliable person.  That's what was happening with Frozen,, and if you can't see the difference, then you're either "trolling" yourself, or you are being willfully ignorant of the facts.  I'm sure your precious "missing threads" will come back some day with the offending posts deleted. Until then, will not having them available at your fingertips really be life altering for you?

[LxGstv]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 4:07pm

It’s kinda hard to have a conversation with someone that has selective reading, but here it goes...

I didn’t see anyone making jokes about anyone’s mental health, even the screenshots on twitter mention attendance mostly. Sure, not all was in good taste, but it wasn’t incredibly offensive nor vulgar.

If Pitts had been off the night Brantley and Green attended the show, would they be able to write that she wasn’t performing when they saw it? It would be accurate. And a fact. Sure, it might give the impression she’s “unreliable”, but it’s still the truth. We are not dealing with alternative facts here.

A lot of people have expressed their frustration with the whole thread being deleted, including on this thread. The point is, if someone crosses the line, delete the post, there’s no need to erase the whole history of what was said because someone was upset.

 

edit: Just like to add, that if jokes were indeed made, I didn’t see any and that’s obviously never ok. But the mass deletion of threads is problematic. 

Updated On: 12/11/18 at 04:07 PM

[vanbrig]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 4:44pm

JSquared2 said: "Vanbrig I think you really need to pause, take a deep breath and think about what you're saying here. By the logic you are using, should society just throw in the toweland say "Well, we can't possibly catch EVERY pedophile online, so we might as well make it legal." Would you prefer a board where every post has to go through a committee before it can appear online --- or would you rather keep the current system that includes a mixture of the moderators, members self-policing themselves, and other members notifying the mods in the event a bad egg or two slips through the cracks?"

Holy moly, chill out. Don't put words in my mouth. Go back and take just a little bit to read through what I've said more carefully before you jump to comparing ANY of this with legal statutes related to serious crimes. A few things to note:

(1) What's with the "take a deep breath" nonsense? I don't need to take a deep breath, because I'm not offended by any of this, using angry language, etc. (even now, your post amuses me more than anything). I have, however, noticed that you often use phrases like "calm down," "dear one," etc. when debating others. So I'll see your suggestion to "take a deep breath" and raise you one of my own: Take some time to reflect on why you feel the need to speak down to others. 

(2) As far as your question goes: it's really not that difficult. I'd like to moderators to do the job they've said their going to do. Whether they want to make it a free-for-all, exercise a heavier hand, or whatever they choose, they should stick to it and be consistent. None of this wishy-washy "we'll look the other way on posts that have been reported multiple times over the course of a day while immediately deleting others that haven't violated anything." Again, not that hard.

The mods have even recently made a statement that basically acknowledges that this behavior has occurred in the past and making a commitment to change it. So I guess I don't have to think about what I was saying, because there was already validity in what I was saying. 

Updated On: 12/11/18 at 04:44 PM

[vanbrig]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 4:45pm

LxGstv said: "I can’t speak for Vanbrig, but my issue with it was the motivation behind it, as well as the execution.

When someone’s name in a thread pretty much gets a post deleted, it’s not just being done because it’s a violation of the terms, there’s more to it. And the mods have pretty much confirmed thisas well saying that there are things we don’t and never will know about it. It’s selective.

And the execution was incredibly flawed, it’s one thing to lock thread which is usually the case and that’s ok, but threadswere simply deleted. A whole preview thread for a show vanished, a thread that had a lot of information on the show. How can anyone that cares about this website and it’s content/information be ok with that? It’s one thing to delete random posts, a whole thread, quite different. Like I said in an earlier post, it would be similar to the King Kong production asking the NYT to erase their review because it wasn’t to their liking."

Exactly.

[romain2]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 4:54pm

Re: the IMDb boards which I brought up above.

I see your point that the IMDb boards became large and unmanageable. However I watched with sadness as one of the very best boards fell apart. People thought IMDb would never shut them down, claiming the Boards were adding to IMDb’s traffic. But IMDb did.

BW might be smaller, but as someone who watched one board implode and then disappear, I am seeing some of the same signs. I’m sounding very Cassandra I know. But many on IMDb took the boards for granted and misbehaved. I could see BW pulling the plug too. Many news sites have pulled comments sections.

So it all comes down to what’s important? Honoring the moderators’ requests and avoiding content that will have Broadway talent feeling bullied and publicly speaking out against the boards doesn’t seem too much to ask.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 5:07pm

NYadgal said: "There is, apparently, an ‘agreement’ in place, and the reason the actress reads these message boards is to make sure the agreement is being enforced. According to her Tweet.

It’s a great shame that so much history was deleted.

Sad days for those who care and believe that there is more good here than bad."

I found that implication extremely off-putting as well, as well as that being amongst the posts that was scrubbed. 

 

[VotePeron]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 5:22pm

NYadgal said: "There is, apparently, an ‘agreement’ in place, and the reason the actress reads these message boards is to make sure the agreement is being enforced. According to her Tweet.

It’s a great shame that so much history was deleted.

Sad days for those who care and believe that there is more good here than bad."

Wait...BroadwayWorld made an "agreement" with Patti Murin, and that "agreement" is now what's ruling this board? Wow. I was on BWW's side for all of this until I read that. That is not how to run a website. This is insane. BWW, would love an explanation on that agreement?

[Moderator]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 5:28pm

Hi all,

Just to be clear, we have no formal or informal agreements with anyone other than the pledges we've made in today's post to be good hosts of the board, and good citizens of the community. That is the same pledge that we made in 2016 and are simply updating and evolving our procedures with the times. 

We discussed that agreement, which is with everyone in the theatre community, in the post that we made earlier today. You can read that here: https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1113823

[NYadgal]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 5:36pm

Thank you for that clarification.

BUT

Patti Murin’s Tweet “...They made some changes, but not enough.  I read them periodically to see if what we agreed upon is still being enforced...”

If her Tweet is misleading, that’s not fair to BWW.

Updated On: 12/12/18 at 05:36 PM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 5:40pm

Yeeeeepppp

[LuPita2]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 5:41pm

It's a good thing Lea Michele doesn't tweet about this board! There have been how many threads dedicated solely to topic of dragging her, both professionally and personally?  

They were all started by the same bitter person who has been mysteriously absent the past few days.  Hmm.....Again, how very telling.

[wolfwriter]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 5:47pm

Been following all of this since it blew up (and wildly out of proportion)  but, welcome to our new world where one person is offended and everyone else has to fall on their sword. This reminds me of grade school where two kids would act up and the whole class would get detention.

I found this Deadline interview with Patti Murin, who suspiciously wields a bit too much influence on this board and despite saying she doesn't care what people think, apparently, she does, so I will not repeat my feelings about the show and her performance. 

"Of course you care what they say, you care what everybody says, but this is the first show that I was like, I actually don’t. I usually read every word of reviews, but this one I just kind of skimmed. I have a job I love. I happen to think we’re doing an incredible show, I love everyone I’m working with and so I don’t really need for anyone to come in from the outside and tell me what they think of my situation,..."

https://deadline.com/2018/04/frozen-patti-murin-broadway-anxiety-attack-missed-performance-1202374248/

[SweetLips22]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 5:55pm

I guess now if you make a comment about an employee of BWW--deleted--as mine just was.

No problem, as just learning the new rules. As well as spell check we'll now get a squiggly red line under anything that is slightly contentious--that will be the best and easiest way to keep every one in line.

Like getting tazered.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 6:21pm

Wow, just catching up with all this. Step away for a few days and I guess you miss a lot!

I have no problem with BWW trying to thwart attacks on other posters. We’re all here for civil discussion- but that also doesn’t mean we can’t make each other laugh with a catty comment now and then (I hope!).

I couldn’t care less about the personal lives of most actors/directors/etc and have no reason to attack anyone for reasons outside of what they are presenting on stage.

I don’t really think the term “constructive criticism” is the right fit for critical discussion here. I’m not a middle school English teacher helping a student fix the first draft of an Essay he or she wrote. I pay literally thousands of dollars a year to watch professionals create theater and I think our “job” here is to analyze, discuss and make each other think, but we aren’t here to provide construcive criticism to actors or producers.

I also hope that if we see something really awful- like a Home for the Holidays for example- that we can’t write about it without a healthy dose of humor. Like, could I not write, “Bianca Ryan only hit three notes all evening and all of them were wrong?” Does that become a “personal attack?” To just say she missed a lot of notes doesn’t express my level of disdain enough. I’m not saying she should be torutured and murdered for her performance, but are we still allowed to have some fun? Theater criticism has had a loooong history of snark intertwined with it- just watch All About Eve or read old decades of modern theater reviews. I just hope this doesn’t sanitize things too much, because that would be a real shame.

[NYCblurb]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 6:26pm

haterobics said: "GreeneStreet said: "And thats why Im leaving the boards."

Again? "

#CrazyPANTS

[Gloaming]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 6:45pm

From my perspective, it was proper and necessary for BWW to shut down "that" thread in its entirety.

But we can rejoice that all 87  "Hello, Dolly"  threads seem to have survived unscathed!

Updated On: 12/11/18 at 06:45 PM

[dmwnc1959]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 6:52pm

Gloaming said: "From my perspective, it was proper and necessary for BWW to shut down "that" thread in its entirety.

But we can rejoice that all 87 "Hello, Dolly" threads seem to have survived unscathed!"

 

All of a sudden I feel like putting on my Sunday clothes.

 

Updated On: 12/11/18 at 06:52 PM

[JBC3]

Posted: 12/11/18 at 10:43pm

this is too much drama
how do we delete our account?

[theaterlyfe19]

Posted: 12/12/18 at 8:01am

natashalost said: "Hey, while the moderator is taking questions-- Last night Alan Henry (one of the other mods) said he would continue to answer any of our questions through PM if we would like. I messaged him but receivedno response, which is understandable, so I will repeat my questions here.

I just want to connect with other Frozen fans and share my love for this show on here but every time I do that the thread gets locked or removed altogether. I understand this is important in moderating the board and now that some of the users who were the ones who instigated these uncivil conversations have left the site this may no longer be a problem. However, I want to talk about scheduled absences and when understudies are on because I like to spread the love for understudies and I know others appreciate knowing who will be on for the performance they are seeing. How can I do this while avoiding the uncivil conversations that could provoke a moderator to lock a thread?"

I'm sorry, but aside from official announcements saying certain shows have cast alternates (DEH comes to mind), I don't believe an audience is ever entitled to know if a lead is out or not. You pay for the ticket, you come to the theater to see the show, and if a lead is out, that's how it works. You're not entitled to knowing that. I remember this also happening with Audra in Shuffle Along. An announcement was made for her as well as to when she would not be performing, and I think My Fair Lady did this as well. Aside from those exceptions, I'd go into a show with the expectation that I will see a great show. The sense of entitlement that we have developed is really sad. Has anyone considered that actors could get in trouble with the production? Get your ticket, see the show, and be thankful.