The BWW Tech Support Thread- Page 20

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 3/24/26 at 9:41am

I just started getting subscriptions again last night, and subscribing now brings up the "thank you for subscribing" dialogue as well as the email to confirm the subscription again.

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 3/24/26 at 1:50pm

I posted recently (sinister teashop) and it showed my post as belonging to “Claudia Draper” which was the character Bab’s played in “Nuts”. Kind of fabulous but also odd.

Updated On: 3/25/26 at 01:50 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 3/25/26 at 3:06pm

Is anyone else experiencing something really bizarre with account logins?  This has happened to me twice in the past few days.

I’ve gone to BWW, where I was already signed in from a previous session, only to realize I’m suddenly logged into someone else’s account - someone I don’t know and definitely don’t have login credentials for.

Has anyone else run into this? Is there some kind of security issue going on? I know there’s probably nothing especially sensitive in a BWW account, but this still feels pretty concerning and unsafe.

Updated On: 3/25/26 at 03:06 PM

[TheatreMonkey]

Posted: 3/25/26 at 3:52pm

I had a similar odd experience last week -- when I clicked on "View Sent Messages" I was looking at someone else's sent messages! I couldn't read them, but I definitely wasn't in my own account at that time. It resolved after a couple of days, but didn't give me a good feeling. 

[Matt Rogers]

Posted: 3/25/26 at 5:41pm

John Adams said: "Matt Rogers said: "Why did you people delete the Hugh Jackman thread about how he performed at Rupert Murdoch’s party and then also deleted the thread askingwhy you deleted it?????? [...] Absolutely despicable."

This is the thread for Tech Support issues - not for your personal rants. If you want to know "Why", read the rules. The answer is clearly stated there.

You do not pay for the servers that host your thoughts (free of any charge to you). You have generously beengranted access to post on their servers. They are maintained and monitored by people who DO pay for them.

IFthey should choose to randomly delete every other word, of every odd-numbered post, on every other Monday, IT IS THEIR OPTION TO DO SO as owners of the site and its servers - but they don't.

You have the option to post elsewhere if you don't like or agree with the very reasonable rules that have been established for posting.

I don't understand why you would think you are entitled to not only bite the hand that is feeding you, but to be so demanding re: your incorrect assumption that youdeservean explanation beyond what is clearly outlined in the established rules for posting.

That is a real duck (sp) move.

Mods and moderation of the Board may not be perfect, but neither are you. Regardless of what is perfect or what is not, the BWW site does NOT belong to you.

It is my opinion that you should be more respectful of the person/company/people who are respectful enough of you to allow you to use their services and equipment openly and freely."

LOL. 

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 4/5/26 at 9:38pm

Nurse, it's out again...



Is there really no way to restrict an IP from making an account here? 

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/6/26 at 6:29pm

Dynamic IP addresses are more common than static, so restricting by IP address wouldn't be effective.

I wonder though, if implementing a verification code, or OTP system at log-in might strangle the troll(s). I don't know if that would be cost-effective for BWW to implement, though.

Having to keep track of each unique email or phone associated with each individual username would quickly hinder a troll's ability to log-in successfully.

Also, it would allow mods to track users with multiple usernames assigned to a single email or phone.

Also, restricting number of accounts per email could help (as email is a current requirement for membership. I suspect that trolls with multiple accounts might be using services that issue temporary emails to register. Perhaps sending mass "verification" emails to members would weed out those who have registered with temp or currently invalid email accounts. 

Updated On: 4/6/26 at 06:29 PM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 4/6/26 at 7:02pm

John Adams said: "Dynamic IP addresses are more common than static, so restricting by IP address wouldn't be effective."

I mean, I've been on plenty of forums before where it's been effective. It's not 100% and there are ways around it but it's more work in the way of the person making the attempt. 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 4/6/26 at 10:22pm

I think the best way to neutralize these trolls would be to ignore them. There are so many threads where someone makes a stupid comment, and then three or four people attack that stupid comment. I find the responses much more obtrusive than the original post.

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/6/26 at 11:02pm

TheatreFan4 said: "John Adams said: "Dynamic IP addresses are more common than static, so restricting by IP address wouldn't be effective."

I mean, I've been on plenty of forums before where it's been effective. It's not 100% and there are ways around it but it's more work in the way of the person making the attempt."

Yes, there are ways around it, and for every (1) successful account deletion, the troll just simply replaces it, so (IMO) it becomes a game of whack-a-mole. 

As I've written before, I believe the best offense is ignorance (as kdogg also writes). I also try to make a conscious effort not to preach or scold in threads where I see other posters feeding the troll. Less is more.

But... your situation is different. The troll is sending you PMs, which definitely is a situation that should not (and likely cannot) be ignored. I solved it for myself by electing not to accept ANY PMs from anyone. I know that's not a solution that works for everybody.

I wonder if there is a way to preempt delivery of PMs until the receiver grants approval. For example, before the PM reaches an Inbox, there might be a preemptive message saying, "[UserX] wants to send you a private message. Do you want to accept?", followed by an option to select "Yes" or "No" (maybe "Always" or "Never"?).

Again, this is my own, curmudgeonly choice, but I just find it easier to set that option "Allow Private Messages" to "No" in Account >> Settings.   

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/7/26 at 2:13pm

What's the point of this thread if no one's going to assist with the tech issues? LOL

Being logged in to someone else's account out of nowhere seems somewhat concerning...