Report Abuse Links opinion thread- Page 12

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:10am

 

I have frequently criticized individual posters on the board for excessive nastiness toward individual performers or being prematurely critical of early previews--

 

--AND I have (perhaps) been guilty myself of (perhaps) excessive criticism of certain productions and performances (Arthur Laurents's WSS)--

 

BUT I find this clamor to "TAKE DOWN THE BOARDS!" among theater artists I respect to be disturbingly fascistic.

 

There. I have said it. Rob has done a masterful job of responding to the outcry and instituting reforms. But, hey, Broadway performers, "Take down the boards!" does NOT have the heroic ring of Ronald Reagan's "Tear down this wall." It is stifling dissent, and it is as ugly as the ad hominem attacks you are protesting, perhaps uglier..

 

Thanks, Rob, as always, for the gift that this website has been and continues to be.

 

 

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 09:10 AM

[NYadgal]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:20am

Agree!!

 

Add me to the list of people who are disappointed to see these artists calling for this action.   

I'm also disappointed to see this story being picked up by other "new" outlets.   If the NY Times article offered a comments link (I didn't see one), I would have left one in FULL support of BroadwayWorld and Rob.  

 

Well said, PalJoey.  As always, very well said.  

[Craig]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:29am

Most of those in support, I believe, love BWW in general.  They don't like the chat boards.  They are giving Patti virtual high fives and ink in support of the overall message - which is more about proper moderation than about removing the boards.  It's just there's a lot of noise about both.  I don't believe Rob would ever truly consider removing the message boards from this site.  And that doesn't need to happen. What does need to happen is that people should post with respect.  Some here seem to think that means they can't say what they want or that it means it has to be rainbows and puppy dogs.  That's very black and white. It's also wrong.  It means that words matters. And that some people have not chosen their words with much thought - but in an effort to one up another in hyperbole. It serves no purpose.  There are many ways posters can dissect a show, performance, etc.   Some here certainly are all bent out of shape when it's turned on them, aren't they?

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:47am

I think there are two things that bother me here about "Patti's Rant".

1.  She has largely ignored all the positive comments, discussions  and even reprimands (from amongst posters) that do happen.  Specifically, the thread about her show closing was OVERWHELMINGLY supportive of the cast & crew.    Just like an elementary teacher punishing the whole class because 4 kids misbehaved for a substitute, this is blaming the whole for the behavior of some.

 

2.  As a number of posters have pointed out, her own blog and twitter is full of the same type of comments she's calling people out for on this site.  I believe the adage, "Physician heal thyself," is apropos here.

 

 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:47am

I think there are two things that bother me here about "Patti's Rant".

1.  She has largely ignored all the positive comments, discussions  and even reprimands (from amongst posters) that do happen.  Specifically, the thread about her show closing was OVERWHELMINGLY supportive of the cast & crew.    Just like an elementary teacher punishing the whole class because 4 kids misbehaved for a substitute, this is blaming the whole for the behavior of some.

 

2.  As a number of posters have pointed out, her own blog and twitter is full of the same type of comments she's calling people out for on this site.  I believe the adage, "Physician heal thyself," is apropos here.

 

 

[Doody Fisher]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:54am

can someone direct dear Patti to datalounge? she might find it better than BWW forums. especially the thread where her husband is sexually objectified :)

[Craig]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:55am

dramamama611 said: Just like an elementary teacher punishing the whole class because 4 kids misbehaved for a substitute, this is blaming the whole for the behavior of some."

Well there's another way to look at it.  And that is that everyone here should be helping to police the board so that those 4 or 5 people don't diminish all the good that does come from the board.  But usually that doesn't happen - in fact, people start bandwagoning instead.  So there is a level of culpability when forum members don't report threads or posts.  Is it the forum members job to do so, no. But it doesn't say much when the community at large sits by and does nothing about it either.  Because it does reflect on the whole community. For better or worse.

[Pootie2]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:55am

mpkie said: "Hellob said: "We need to keep a list of who is #withpatti in case you don't want to spend money on them"

...

The list is actually way too huge now as the misinformation spreads like wildfire, so it looks like we would have to boycott theater. But I would definitely appreciate this list to be compiled, so that if I ever got to meet them at stage door I could politely correct them as to how UTTERLY WRONG they are.

 

Is there no one on the theatergoers' side or is that professional suicide??"

 

Yes, it's depressing how many of the performers whom I formerly greatly respected have dropped a notch in my eyes for their blind following, essentially brushing off Broadway fan discussion wholesale without ever having read a discussion board in their lives.

 

Matthew Murray of Talkinbroadway.com supports us, but none of the actors follow critics and certainly not him. I wish the New York Times article would be updated with his points, but oh well.

 

 

tazber said: "Murray makes so much sense but it's being drowned out by the self righteousness of Murin and her minions.

Reading her twitter feed makes me feel like the one sane person at a Trump rally."

 

So much this.

dramamama611, Murin is just hypocritical. Sad.

 

 

Edit: Wait a minute, Patti Murin follows Matthew Murray on Twitter? That is amusing.

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 09:55 AM

[AC126748]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:56am

Or maybe this board should be properly moderated, which it hasn't been for years. Physician heal thyself, indeed. 

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 09:56 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:57am

Craig said: "Most of those in support, I believe, love BWW in general.  They don't like the chat boards.  They are giving Patti virtual high fives and ink in support of the overall message - which is more about proper moderation than about removing the boards.  It's just there's a lot of noise about both.  I don't believe Rob would ever truly consider removing the message boards from this site.  And that doesn't need to happen. What does need to happen is that people should post with respect.  Some here seem to think that means they can't say what they want or that it means it has to be rainbows and puppy dogs.  That's very black and white. It's also wrong.  It means that words matters. And that some people have not chosen their words with much thought - but in an effort to one up another in hyperbole. It serves no purpose.  There are many ways posters can dissect a show, performance, etc.   Some here certainly are all bent out of shape when it's turned on them, aren't they?"

 

Well said, Craig.

 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 9:57am

Did someone report the list thread? I was going to add Mr Nic Rouleau.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:07am

Both posts, very well put Craig. Thank you.

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:14am

Call_me_jorge said: "Did someone report the list thread? I was going to add Mr Nic Rouleau.

"

I'd also like a list thread. It's fine if these actors want to stand by and support the nonsense Murin has said but I'll gladly save my hard earned money instead of giving it to these bunch of whiners next time they have a Broadway show open. 

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 10:14 AM

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:18am

Call_me_jorge said: "Did someone report the list thread? I was going to add Mr Nic Rouleau."

 

Nic's tweet was phrased differently than a lot of other people's. I don't think that was necessarily a total ringing endorsement of the boards being GONE. (Like I said last night, I don't think everybody who thanked/said something positive about Patti's post was also saying RAH RAH NO MESSAGE BOARDS.)

RIP the list thread. It got to at least 15 pages, didn't it?

[Craig]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:22am

A blacklist has no place on these forums.  I suggest you keep your own list if you feel so strongly about who you want to support or not.  Your threat of not supporting shows with some of these performers reminds me of some of the tech forums where people are against one company and thinks they are scum but willingly buy other products that have that other company's parts.  You can do what you want with your money.  But if you want to suggest what they are doing is whining and what posters here are doing is something different - then you aren't being objective. They might be in a profession that opens them up to criticism. But the moment you post on a forum - you open yourself up to criticism as well. 

[Hellob]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:29am

Call_me_jorge said: "Did someone report the list thread? I was going to add Mr Nic Rouleau.

 

"

It appears to be gone which is not right. As long as the post is just a list of people, why wouldn't we have the right to know who has jumped on the #shutemdown boat? The bottom line is that the actors need us more than we need them and we should be able to know if we want to give our money to this person. Taking down the list is censorship. 

[Kad]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:31am

I'm not seeing objective criticism from Patti et al. I'm seeing a demand for control over how people talk about them, which is totally different. 

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:34am

Craig said: "A blacklist has no place on these forums.  I suggest you keep your own list if you feel so strongly about who you want to support or not.  Your threat of not supporting shows with some of these performers reminds me of some of the tech forums where people are against one company and thinks they are scum but willingly buy other products that have that other company's parts.  You can do what you want with your money.  But if you want to suggest what they are doing is whining and what posters here are doing is something different - then you aren't being objective. They might be in a profession that opens them up to criticism. But the moment you post on a forum - you open yourself up to criticism as well. 

 

"

A list of people who gave their support to Marin publicly on Twitter should not be censored here. There is nothing about it that is against the rules here other then your opinion. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't want to give their money to some of these actors now. If they don't want us here anymore then we have every right to say hey this is the list of actors you can choose not to spend money on if you wish. If you don't care then keep supporting them. Absolutely ridiculous that the list won't be allowed here. 

 

[Marianne2]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:37am

AC126748 said: "Or maybe this board should be properly moderated, which it hasn't been for years. Physician heal thyself, indeed. 

 

"

Agree with this. I think some of the bandwagoning occurs because people get frustrated with certain posters who are allowed to troll for so long. There are so many screen names I can think of who were straight up trolls who stayed around for too long.  They interrupted every single thread just to have their voice heard and did not contribute well to the topics. I have been to other forums where I posted seriously and maybe didn't think twice before posting a couple of things that weren't even trolling,  just not in good nature, and got warned by the mods rather quickly.  I mean within 15-20 minutes.  

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:38am

Kad said: "I'm not seeing objective criticism from Patti et al. I'm seeing a demand for control over how people talk about them, which is totally different. 

 

"

Exactly, which is why I'll gladly never give her another dollar of my money. I saw Lysistrata Jones and didn't even realize that was her who was in it so I couldn't care less if I never saw her on stage again. Am I allowed to say that or is poor Pattis feelings going to get hurt again?

[Hellob]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:40am

Craig said: "A blacklist has no place on these forums.  I suggest you keep your own list if you feel so strongly about who you want to support or not.  Your threat of not supporting shows with some of these performers reminds me of some of the tech forums where people are against one company and thinks they are scum but willingly buy other products that have that other company's parts.  You can do what you want with your money.  But if you want to suggest what they are doing is whining and what posters here are doing is something different - then you aren't being objective. They might be in a profession that opens them up to criticism. But the moment you post on a forum - you open yourself up to criticism as well. 

 

"

I respectfully disagree, if someone wrote a list of people who are a certain political party or sexual orientation or race, etc then that's wrong. However, when someone criticizes your hangout without telling the whole story and others respond with calling names or treating her like she's Norma Rae definitely deserves to be noted. If you care then don't go to their shows, if you don't, proceed. Why was it ok for her to name posters and tell them to "introduce" themselves but we aren't allowed to name the supporters? I do care about censorship in this way because it's again telling us that actors have more respect than us to BWW. 

[Kad]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:41am

If performers were actually being harassed or the subject of libelous talk, I would understand the outrage. 

But this is, at worst, snark and gossip. The people who bear the worst of the talk are the members themselves. That is worthy of being addressed. 

 

This is also legitimately the most disengaged moderator team I have ever seen on a message board. Who are they? How many are they? Do they regularly give a glance to the board? Do they even look if they're not called on? 

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 10:41 AM

[Pootie2]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:46am

Kad said: "If performers were actually being harassed or the subject of libelous talk, I would understand the outrage. 

 

But this is, at worst, snark and gossip. The people who bear the worst of the talk are the members themselves. "

 

This.

 

I didn't see the list at all; was it on the off-topic board? User-generated suggested blacklists should be fine because (1) they're nonthreatening, (2) they serve to centrally inform those who specifically seek it, when the information is otherwise spread across too many sources, and (3) people have a right to spend their money on whom they wish, or not. It's no different than best-of threads, worst-of threads. All of these things are easily ignored if you're not interested.

 

Speaking of which, I wonder if the "unpopular opinions" thread(s) will be deleted wholesale or half the posts removed; I don't read those threads because they're going to be specifically negative, but they shouldn't be heavily censored or removed either, otherwise what's the point of a community board when you can't vent opinion on both sides.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:48am

Alexander Lamar said: "So has there been any news about where those posters who want to post/read without censorship are going? I know some posters here have an IT background, had anyone created a new board yet?"

 

I doubt that's going to happen, but I was impressed with how the UK Theatre Board came together after WhatsOnStage decided to drop their board. I just don't see that happening here.

 

I think a lot of the problems here stem from BWW starting out super grassroots, for fun, and with lots of volunteers. And I'm not sure how much of that has changed (how much content is generated by paid staff? That's rhetorical since I doubt I'll get a real answer). And are people actually being paid to be mods here? Were they before? Are they now? I'm not asking that out of outrage, but I am saying that when someone has to do something as an actual job rather than in their free time, the results can be very different (and more consistent).

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 10:48 AM

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 3/12/16 at 10:49am

I didn't like the list. I read it and it wasn't accurate. Some names were there that were later pointed out shouldn't be there at all...but like a headline that shows up on page one and then a retraction that posted at the bottom of page ten, the name is forever out there.  I didn't feel it was right and it didn't feel like censorship at all to remove it.  It felt to me like the right thing to do.

 

I don't need or want a list..I am entirely intelligent and able to learn for myself who I want to see in the theater and who I don't. If someone reads an article or comments by someone like Patti, please feel free to leave a link so I can read what was said..and make up my own mind.

 

 

 

 

 

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 10:49 AM