Report Abuse Links opinion thread

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.

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".

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.

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? 

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

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 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.

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.

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,

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. 

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.

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

Obviously.

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