All That Chat board down- Page 4

[buddy 11432]

Posted: 1/18/11 at 12:15pm

It's Tuesday, and the site is still not back online. I believe that some of the regulars will return, but the more casual can easily find other sites. I do not quite understand Ann's 'volunteer' status. Props to her, if she's been working all those years for free.

[newintown]

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

Monitoring a site for free 24 hours a day just sounds creepy to me.

[esparza 333]

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

This is horrible!! I wonder how many will leave the site

[buddy 11432]

Posted: 1/18/11 at 5:20pm

All That Chat is not the only Internet site that calls it's moderators/owners 'volunteers.' Does anyone understand the economics involved...are they really just 'volunteers'?

Posted: 1/18/11 at 6:24pm

That "FORBIDDEN" icon/image made me laugh. "You are forbidden to shower with the other girls. FORBIDDEN." That's so ATC. It captures all that is wrong with the site and its "administration".

I hope it never comes back. But, like bed bugs, it will.

[kchenofan]

Posted: 1/18/11 at 7:00pm

"All That Chat is not the only Internet site that calls it's moderators/owners 'volunteers.' Does anyone understand the economics involved...are they really just 'volunteers'?"

Most moderators are just volunteers. I have a few friends that are moderators on different websites and don't get paid. That's not to say that ATC moderators worked for free.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 1/18/11 at 8:06pm

I have a feeling these "delays" are their way of keeping the site closed down until they get enough "donations" to pay for that monitoring service that apparently wasn't in their budget.

Posted: 1/18/11 at 10:20pm

I believe that. Let the little people pay to keep the site secure. The same little people that they'll belittle, dismiss, and ban -- once the checks clear. Unless you're in their inner circle, you'll never be accepted. Merely tolerated. Why anyone would give those gorgons money, I'll never know.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 1/18/11 at 10:37pm

I can't profess to know the reason ATC went down. All that I do know is that I was a staff writer for ATC "Philly" from 2001-2003 and met a few really nice folks Wayman Wong, Tim Dunlevy, and a few nice regional writers, before leaving to write for BWW.

I rarely posted more than a handful of times and never got involved with any nastyness. I was always treated with respect and dignity. I visit there from time to time.

I think these 'boards' are what you put into them. If you want trouble...you'll find it! If you want theater info. well...you'll find that too.

I don't see why there should be so much wackiness over any of this.

Updated On: 1/18/11 at 10:37 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 1/18/11 at 10:56pm

Well-said, PB ENT. I've never worked for ATC, don't know anyone there, and they don't know me. While I've had some spirited discussions there, I've never had any issues with the mods or other denizens of ATC since its inception. Here, name-calling and other sorts of childishness is rampant and regrettable - like kicking another forum when they're down, and comparing them to gorgons and bedbegs, calling them creepy, and absurdly suggesting the board is down to raise money. It's really juvenile and petty, and makes me miss ATC.

[gordie]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 12:39am

"I believe that. Let the little people pay to keep the site secure. The same little people that they'll belittle, dismiss, and ban -- once the checks clear. Unless you're in their inner circle, you'll never be accepted. Merely tolerated. Why anyone would give those gorgons money, I'll never know."

Yeah, I learned this recently the hard way. What jerks those moderators can be, in terms of what/whose posts they allow and what/whose they delete, with bogus explanations.

Such karma, it finally caught up with them. And I let them know.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 12:41am

and absurdly suggesting the board is down to raise money

How is that absurd?

[Gingersnap2]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 8:15am

For some reason, I was never actually able to post at ATC. I originally registered a few years ago and, for some reason, I was never able to post. A couple of years later, I registered again with a different e-mail address because I'd lost my original account information. Again, I wasn't able to post.

Anyhow, I have this rather vivid memory of seeing a well-dressed older man approach an actor after a concert. He started into this long speech about how he'd been banned from ATC. He wanted the actor's help in getting his account restored. The actor was looking at him as if to say, "Who the hell are you and what does this have to do with me?"

[buddy 11432]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 9:08am

"...and absurdly suggesting the board is down to raise money"

Like any Internet business ATC, isn't forthcoming about its financial side... therefore I am beginning to wonder myself. The longer the site is down, isn't it more likely that people will contribute, except those who have given up.

Posted: 1/19/11 at 9:25am

"ghostlight", put up the mask and its pretty!

[holden]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 9:25am

I have to say that I'm surprised at the hostility to ATC that has been shown in this thread. I've been reading ATC regularly for at least ten years; while there have always been disagreements as there are in any large and diverse community, I have found the forum very informative and have had great interactions with people from ATC, online and in real life.

Although I do not know the organisation's current financial situation, I have no trouble believing that those organising it are (still) volunteers. I understand that it is not at all uncommon for such a site to be volunteer-run, and certainly ATC does not seem to run the type or volume of advertising that would be likely to make its owners wealthy, especially with the volume of traffic that it would appear to get.

It seems to me that ATC and BWW have always approached things from slightly perspectives, in a very good way that adds to the diversity of discourse about theatre. Can't we just look forward to having the ability again to use both?

Posted: 1/19/11 at 9:38am

Let's be clear: much of the hostility is aimed not at the ATC community, but the administrative staff. They're brittle, dismissive, and clique-ish. They moderate inconsistently and have, clearly, pissed off a number of people.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 10:47am

"It couldn't have happened to a more deserving group of trolls, hags, and thugs. The pomp and arrogance and self-pride of some of the posters is off-putting."

Seems to me you saved a more than a little hostility for the ATC community, Rebecca. BTW, I have no idea what "put up the mask and its pretty!" is supposed to mean. As to administrators, this board does the same. People who work for them, or long-time posters get away with posting some really nasty stuff. The only difference I can tell is that ATC has stricter policies in general.

LizzieCurry, seems to me that deliberately keeping the board closed in order to raise funds is a very bad idea. Every day that passes since the hacking, they lose more people. Already some likely won't return for fear of being infected or hacked themselves. It's bad for business.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 11:39am

Yes, but there's no point in ATC reopening without the monitoring software, otherwise the same thing could just happen again. They've already said they don't have the funds for the monitoring service, and began collecting. I don't see how it's at all outside the realm of possibility that they're going to wait to reopen the site until they have raised the necessary funds for the monitoring service.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 12:11pm

Fair enough, adamgreer. I read this:

"I have a feeling these "delays" are their way of keeping the site closed down until they get enough "donations" to pay for that monitoring service that apparently wasn't in their budget."

as your saying they had a choice in the matter, and somehow insinuates that they're doing something underhanded. Sorry if I misread you.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 12:31pm

Since when has something being a very bad idea stopped ATC? Remember when they banned the use of names of fictional characters as handles?

[scott68]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 12:46pm

Rebecca, your username is truly amazing.

Posted: 1/19/11 at 1:33pm

ghostlight writes:

"Seems to me you saved a more than a little hostility for the ATC community, Rebecca."

..in response to a post of mine where I suggest that the majority of the criticism is aimed at the administrative staff.

ghostlight, I didn't write "much of MY criticism". Rather, I referred to this entire thread. Much of the criticism in this thread is aimed at the administrative staff. They are, in my opinion, bananas.

[bk]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 1:34pm

I am most amused that anyone with half a brain would think that anyone at talkinbroadway and ATC makes one cent off that site. They do not. Their only income is banner ads and that basically pays to keep the site live. No reviewer is paid there - no one is paid there, just as no "reviewer" or reporter is paid here.

The posters at ATC skew older than here - here there seem to be mostly teens and mostly teens who are aspiring performers. While each board has its amusing moments, I find both rather intolerable most of the time and read each only occasionally because occasionally something interesting gets posted, but, more often than not, to see just how ridiculous things can get - the age of the Internet is not always to the good and these boards are living proof of it.

[broadwaydanwi]

Posted: 1/19/11 at 1:37pm

Amen to that, bk!