#51
Posted: 12/11/18 at 10:48am
Sounds like a fantastic compromise, Mods.
Let’s hope we get some normalcy back now. :)
Let’s hope we get some normalcy back now. :)
#52
Posted: 12/11/18 at 11:51am
Not enough people have paid attention to what (Insert Clever Name) said above, IMO. BroadwayWorld was so primitive that it wasn't until, what, last year (?) that they reminded you of your password by EMAILING IT TO YOU, and they didn't implement https until just about as recently. I have a lot of doubts about a lot of the rest of their technological security.
"This thread reads like a series of White House memos." — Mister Matt
#53
Posted: 12/11/18 at 12:03pm
uncageg said: "The point is...they need it.
For whatever reason, they feel they do."
It's personal information. Moderators should be transparent about why they need it when they ask for it.
It's nice that the moderator's have lifted the PM restriction, but I still find it unacceptable that banned members are expected to provide some form of personal identification to come back.
#54
Posted: 12/11/18 at 4:48pm
There have been issues with privacy and PMs on BWW in the past. There is no such thing as 100% secure.
I never, ever link one account to another, and never use the ‘Facebook Login’ as an option.
I wasn’t online during all that went down the last couple of days, but there appear to be some extreme reactions, none of which indicate support for the majority of BWW members who post in supportive and meaningful ways.
I also find the idea that there have been agreements made with various individuals (one, at least, that we know of) which need to be ‘monitored and enforced’ to be off-putting. It creates a fundamental dislike for and distrust of the BWW posting community which is, on balance, unwarranted.
In my opinion.
I never, ever link one account to another, and never use the ‘Facebook Login’ as an option.
I wasn’t online during all that went down the last couple of days, but there appear to be some extreme reactions, none of which indicate support for the majority of BWW members who post in supportive and meaningful ways.
I also find the idea that there have been agreements made with various individuals (one, at least, that we know of) which need to be ‘monitored and enforced’ to be off-putting. It creates a fundamental dislike for and distrust of the BWW posting community which is, on balance, unwarranted.
In my opinion.
"Two drifters off to see the world. There's such a lot of world to see. . ."
#55
Posted: 12/11/18 at 5:20pm
Fetus said: "It's personal information. Moderators should betransparent about why they need it when they ask for it.
It's nice that the moderator's have lifted the PM restriction, but I still find it unacceptable that banned members are expected to provide some form of personal identification to come back."
I completely agree. It is unacceptable to ask for personal identification for a chatboard when websites with much more sophisticated, but still infallible, security (Google, Facebook) do not ask for that. And it's not acceptable to make this requirement apply only to people that the unnamed moderators arbitrarily decide violated their vague guidelines and under-the-table agreements with artists. I'm all for more decorum on bww, but this is not the way to achieve that.
#56
Posted: 12/11/18 at 7:51pm
I wasn't here for whatever went down but sorry, no.
Gonna tap out.
Best of luck.
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95