Report Abuse Links opinion thread — Page 13

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?

"

Absolutely agree. All the other message boards I'm on the mods usually have the word mod listed under their names.

I've been here for almost 6 years now and couldn't even name one mod before this stuff other then that Rob owned and ran the place.

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 10:51 AM

Yeah, I understand the intent behind the list, but it was also assuming everyone who tweeted in support of Patti was also expressing 100% support in her entire blog post, and I just don't see that as being the case.

Frankly, I think it's about time this happened. I have been a member for a few years, but tend to post less and less because of the general bullying and nasty remarks made by some of the active members of this community. I know people who refuse to post here because of the snark and mean-spirited responses to otherwise innocent posts.

As a new poster, I was excited to talk about the shows I have seen. (I go to NYC 2-4 times a year). However, I have been shut down for posting in the wrong thread, not having seen 2 different cast members (sorry, I only have money to see a show once), etc. And the vitriol you spew to each other just blows me away.

So, my questions to you snarky posters--

1. Do you want to keep new posters away?

2. Do you feel fulfilled by being nasty? Do you go to bed at night with a feeling of satisfaction that you ripped somebody a new one?

I hope that this turns this community into something a little more civilized. I just don't understand the nastiness.

MV

and BTW, Phillylpinto was not half as bad as the abuse y'all heaped upon him/her. Just block the user, for pete's sake.

Updated On: 3/12/16 at 10:59 AM

Storify might be the best place if you really want to comb through and catalog the replies and mentions Patti's been getting. Not here. People here can't figure out how to paste a tweet, for goshdarn sakes.

The list thread, which apparently was born, lived, and died in the 7 hours I was asleep, seems to me like a misguided idea and a recipe for disaster.

LizzieCurry said: "Storify might be the best place if you really want to comb through and catalog the replies and mentions Patti's been getting. Not here. People here can't figure out how to paste a tweet, for goshdarn sakes.

"

I agree that posting the tweet without comment and letting the user decide if it was support instead of grouping everyone together would be better. That way, no one is debating whether it's valid or not and can make their own call and keeps personal opinion out of it.

I think it was kind of both. I enjoyed the lack of self-awareness, personally.

KathyNYC2 said: "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.

"

Agreed that evidence should be presented without comment and let the user make up their own minds. However, some people aren't on fb or Twitter nor do they know how to navigate so I do feel like posting it is ok as long as the posts only contain the information and don't continue as a debate. I'm not sure how the thread unfolded bc I was asleep.

I agree that the actors who gave Patti her support is a little difficult to determine who really wants the boards gone versus just thinks people should be nicer. Like 1 person I was disappointed with actually seems to have deleted their tweet, so it seems possible they thought what they said was not the best thing.

It was more about giving members of this community the opportunity to make an informed decision about supporting these particular performers in the future. There was definitely an element of parody, but I think the intention was good.

Kad said: "But to an outside observer, it looks like Nixon's enemy list.

"

And YES again.

Because you might have context for the list. But I hope you realize that not everyone would. This isn't a private discussion board. Anyone - member or not - can access it. And that thread would live forever. So a few years from now - when some people have stopped foaming at the mouth over something that is of little ultimate consequence to them - it will see still be around.

What if it was reversed. What if producers started posting a sign in front of their theater stating that they wouldn't sell tickets to a set list of usernames and posted their offensive comments and left that up in theaters indefinitely. That would be OK, right? You'd be cool with that?

Perhaps a poor analogy given the anonymity most people have on this site. But again - there seems to be a lack of objectivity from some who are getting way too personally offended. For many - YOUR name isn't being singled out. Your online personal/screen name is. It's not remotely on par with some of these performers you wish to blacklist for simply saying they agree with a fellow actor.