O'Brien's Reason for Cutting the Final Scene of Act 1 in

No bueno, Jack. No bueno. I mean, yes I understand it was great, but still. I want to know how Ted Chapin feels.

That sounds like removing a problem rather than solving it.

By O'Brien's logic, we should have an intermission after every really good number in a show.

<<edited by BWW staff for a personal attack>>

Updated On: 5/10/18 at 03:18 PM

These forms read like a censored book at a Christian college now. Edited for a personal attack? This board SUCKS now. And, in case you're wondering, this IS a personal attack against this board. Some 1984 garbage...

Have fun when there's no one left to look at your ever encroaching obnoxious ads, Broadwayworld.

Sondheimite and BroadwayConcierge, one of the things that users have said repeatedly over the last few days is that they would like transparency and explanations as to what is deleted from this board. So, rather than removing entire posts-- which often robs the board of other valuable contributions in those posts-- we are making it clear when an action has been taken.

We know that some people will complain about that, but others will complain if we simply delete and don't address, and still others will complain if we take no action at all. We understand that everyone has an opinion, and we welcome that.

So, when possible, we will leave a post up with the note that any content that violates our rules has been removed. If the post as a whole comes down, we will inform the poster via private message.

If you have other suggestions as to what might be a best practice for how to address things like this, please feel free to send me a message.

...I think the fact that moderators feel that a poster calling a director an "idiot" for their choices is something that needs to be taken care of is the issue here.

Particularly when, say, there are over a dozen spam messages in the Off-Topic board that have been there for over an hour.

BroadwayConcierge said: "BWWMatt, the transparency is great, and I appreciate the steps you've been taking toward it. My issue is that you guys seem to be deciding what warrants being taken down without grounds. What's the difference between my calling a director an "idiot" and an earlier user calling him a "fool" (in a post which has been left up above)? Does one term—both of which are directly critical—simply prickle your skin less?"

Honestly, in this case, yes. This is obviously not a science (not that it's art either), but when considering what is or isn't a "personal attack," to me, you have to consider both words, whether something is "personal," and if it is an "attack."

So, yes, while both "fool" and "idiot" are obviously personal, I do think "idiot" is more of an attack than "fool" is. Now, I will give you that since both were used discussing an individuals work that we probably couldn't have aired more on the side of leniency there. I know everyone has their own opinion on how they would like to see the boards run, but we are trying. Certainly we will make mistakes, we are human, but we genuinely want to learn from those mistakes so that we can avoid making them again in the future.

broadwayboy223 said: "Translation: "I'm a horrible director and didnt know how to stage the last scene""

You can disagree with the choice, and you can even say he should not have ben allowed to make the choice. but declaring Jack O'Brien a "horrible director" seems patently silly and uncalled for. He's had a distinguished 40 year career directing everything from Stoppard to Shakespeare to Hairspray, and often (Invention of Love) brilliantly. I'm sure he could and did stage the last scene of Act One (it's not a particularly tough one) capably, and then cut it. Is it a wise or valid choice? Arguable, but in every John Raitt tour I ever saw of Carousel (and I saw a few) it was cut, so it's not a new idea. Does it define Jack O'Brien as a "horrible director"? Don't be ridiculous.

How do you know how much money I paid to see the show, JSquared? Do you know that I didn't buy a ticket through TKTS or TDF?

Regardless, my point is that if I pay even a single penny to see a Broadway show, I should have the right to discuss it frankly with others, including on this forum. I'm just irked that I paid money, saw an element of the show I personally found "idiotic" (which is, truthfully, putting O'Brien's direction lightly), and am being told it's too mean for me to use that word. That I can criticize the show, yes, but I have to use "less attack-y sounding" language.

BroadwayConcierge said: "I think calling a seasoned director's direction "idiotic" is completely warranted by a ticketbuyer and theatergoer in a discussion forum that is intended to discuss theatre."

Believe it or not, I 100% agree with you, and I think you have perfectly articulated the line between what we think is acceptable, and what maybe isn't. If you had worded the post in question like you did above, it would not have been an issue for us at all (even though, I again think we probably could have let it slide the first time). While it seems semantic to some, there is a difference for us in "attacking" (and of course I'm using that term loosely) a person's work, and "attacking" that person.

The same is true in the other thread, where we edited or deleted people calling each other racist. While that is obviously a level or 12 up from calling someone an idiot, there is a big difference between saying someone is racist, and saying that something someone says/believes is racist.

I get that this seems like we are splitting hairs here on this, but I truly believe that if you call someone a racist (for example), that ends the discussion whether you want it to or not, because it makes someone automatically defensive.

However, if you say that you believe that what the other person thinks is racist (and then hopefully explain why), that leaves the other person the opportunity to step back and disassociate with what was said, so that the dialogue can continue in a hopefully positive manner.

So, in neither case were we trying to "censor" anyone's thoughts about "Carousel" or from calling out opinions that they felt were racist. We just want to keep all threads on a plane where we are discussing the topics, and not insulting others. I hope that makes sense.

I really do appreciate that, Concierge (can I call you Concierge?). Trust me, we don't like having to delete stuff, and we even more hate having anything that is offensive posted on the board, but it's part of having a message board.

I appreciate your (and others' willingness to contribute as we work on these things, it does make this a much better process.