Is Anyone Here Also A Member Of All That Chat?

[themysteriousgrowl]

After Eight has got a long road to hoe if wants more respect on this board.

[best12bars]

LOL

Don't force me to make that violation again, growl!

I can't imagine trying to "hoe a road," even if that's a common mistake with the phrase.

It's as nonsensical as digging a ditch with a hammer. Clearly a white-collar error.

[best12bars]

(double post)

[artscallion]

"I still don't get how they approve people... based on your name, email, and potential username? There's no application."

Many years ago I was a member of Finishing the Chat on Sondheim.com. There was some discussion there about some drama or other over at ATC involving them making fun of us for some reason (contrary to what ghostlight claims, I've seen MANY discussions on ATC about FTC and BWW. The moderators just end up deleting them. So he probably missed them.)

In any case, I applied to ATC so I could join in the discussion of FTC using the same username I used at FTC (and here for that matter.) I was denied with no explanation. I applied again with the same info but a different username and was accepted. So I can only assume that they saw my participation in the discussion of their thread and assumed I was joining with ill intent. So I imagine they approve or deny you based only on what they can know about you from monitoring other boards. If you've no history on another board with that name, they probably just approve you.

[themysteriousgrowl]

"Clearly a white-collar error."

You just count yourself lucky he's not resentful that others possess knowledge that he lacks.

On the subject of ATC approvals -- I knew there was ongoing, sometimes-playful-sometimes-not animosity between the sites, but I had no idea it was taken so seriously by some, to the point that membership approval might be affected.

[Mister Matt]

Years ago, I was on ATC. I got bored and left after about a week. BWW appeals to me for its broad range of topics and dynamic personalities. Perhaps ATC isn't as nasty as it used to be, but it was well-known for quite a long time for its negative tone.

[AEA AGMA SM]

I haven't spent much time on that board at all (like many I was turned off by the layout/formatting), but even though many seem to be saying there are more industry members on ATC, I have always heard more people in the industry view the board as exceedingly negative and nasty. This board seems to be viewed as a bit more harmless, though at times also a bit more juvenile, at least in my experience with other people who are aware of the existence of both boards.

[Jordan Catalano]

Over the years (even before I started posting here) I had applied numerous times there and was never accepted. No idea why.

I think the idea that BWW is more "juvenile" comes from the fact that (besides a couple old school marms roaming around) most of the posters here aren't knocking at heaven's door, unlike the virtual retirement home known as All That Chat.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Well, there might be that, Jordan. But I think it does come down to the fact, that other have already mentioned, that ATC is much more heavily moderated a lot of the "off topic" threads get quickly deleted over there.

While I do wish that there was a touch more control here I do like the fact that control of the board is not left to an arbitrary set of un-written rules. If only there was a happy medium.

[Jordan Catalano]

Yeah I don't know about that, actually. I know I've had my fair share of posts deleted but there are times when I simply respond something and it's deleted just for shlts and giggles. Sometimes it happens all day long and it really pisses me off.

[artscallion]

I think the rules are clearer at ATC. You definitely know what not to post. Here it's a little more vague. I was pissed the other day because after days and days of posts trashing Morgan whatever her name was, someone started a thread about her going to LA for a job. I spent some time photo shopping a pic of the Hollywood sign to read #HORRIFIED instead of HOLLYWOOD. It lasted about 20 seconds before the whole thread disappeared.

[followspot]

LOL! I would love to see that graphic, artscallion!

[artscallion]

I'd post it but I'm afraid it'll get this thread deleted.

[My Oh My]

Sounds like I'd have a blast on that board.

...for the 5 seconds I'd be allowed membership on it.

[HeightOfNonchalance]

I actually prefer the All That Chat format. Sure it looks quaint, but if you view it in the "Flat Mode" it's simple to navigate within topics, and you can easily see the new topics because they're sorted by the date of the first post; or you can sort by the date of the latest post when you desire. It's uncluttered and user-friendly.

[ghostlight2]

"(contrary to what ghostlight claims, I've seen MANY discussions on ATC about FTC and BWW. The moderators just end up deleting them. So he probably missed them.)"

I check in on both boards almost every day, artscallion. On occasion, BWW is mentioned. In fact, there's a reference (undeleted) over there now, referring to an informational thread here, about the Delacorte line, I think. There certainly was not a thread talking about this one, as you suggested there would be. The "rivalry" b/w the two boards is mostly one-sided. Also, if the entire "Morgan" thread was deleted, they had a problem with the thread. Otherwise, they would simply have deleted your post, if that was the problem.

"I knew there was ongoing, sometimes-playful-sometimes-not animosity between the sites, but I had no idea it was taken so seriously by some, to the point that membership approval might be affected."

Are you making that assumption only from artscallion's story, growl? ATC uses all kinds of criteria when making approvals (isp info, for example. You can't create 2 accounts from the same provider). If artscallion had asked ATC why his username wasn't acceptable, they would have responded. I can't use "ghostlight" b/c of ghostlight records, for example.

"I think the rules are clearer at ATC. You definitely know what not to post. Here it's a little more vague."

I wish BWW would simply enforce the rules they have. There are rules here that are broken every single day, often many times in the same day by the same posters. If BWW enforced their rules, some posters would have been banned long ago.

"I've had my fair share of posts deleted but there are times when I simply respond something and it's deleted just for shlts and giggles. Sometimes it happens all day long and it really pisses me off."

He says, breaking the same rule twice in one post.

I guess the thing that bothers me most is the threadjacking and personal attacks here. I mean, I have no love of After Eight, but this thread is 4 pages long, and the better part of an entire page consists of attacks on him.

[themysteriousgrowl]

"Are you making that assumption only from artscallion's story, growl? ATC uses all kinds of criteria when making approvals (isp info, for example. You can't create 2 accounts from the same provider). If artscallion had asked ATC why his username wasn't acceptable, they would have responded. I can't use "ghostlight" b/c of ghostlight records, for example."

What assumption? I said "might." I'm not excluding the possibility based on his information and personal inference, but without evidence to the contrary it doesn't really seem to be a provable issue. Just because you were given a reason that your username wasn't accepted doesn't mean everyone will be granted that courtesy. Or is there a written rule somewhere? I do admit I haven't looked deeply into ATC's rules because I've never been interested in joining, but from this thread I gather the process is somewhat informal.

"I mean, I have no love of After Eight, but this thread is 4 pages long, and the better part of an entire page consists of attacks on him."

Oh, cry me a river. He's disrepectful day in and day out and has no problem issuing his own attacks. So, before we rush to quantifying negative posts about anyone as an "attack," let's not forget to take into account that when you openly and unapologetically behave like an assho!e, you're going to reap what you sow -- or, as After Eight might put it, reap what you sew. He gets that stuff because he gives that stuff. That's not bullying. That's returning like with like.

Allow me to add to Riedel's list of the worst kinds of posters --

6.) Those who dish it out and then can't take it.

[Jordan Catalano]

You're wrong. I'd sent MULTIPLE emails asking why my membership was denied an never once got a response.

[artscallion]

"I check in on both boards almost every day, artscallion...The "rivalry" b/w the two boards is mostly one-sided."

Your checking in once a day means nothing when posts are deleted after a few minutes of existence. It just means I saw them and you didn't. Your claims that they didn't happen because you didn't see them are funny.

"Also, if the entire "Morgan" thread was deleted, they had a problem with the thread. Otherwise, they would simply have deleted your post, if that was the problem."

I know that. I wasn't suggesting my post was the reason it was deleted, just that it happened to be the post I was pissed about disappearing because I had put some effort into it. My point was that the deletion was part of the "unclear rules" considering pages and pages of similar "Morgan" threads/posts were left to flourish. This thread had nothing particularly offensive or different from those.

"If artscallion had asked ATC why his username wasn't acceptable..."

There was no indication that my username was not acceptable. So I had no reason to ask such a question. My requests was just denied without explanation. I applied again with another username because I was assuming they denied me because of the thread on FTC and were connecting me to it through that username, since there was no other discernible explanation for the denial., including some random other copyrighted use of the term artscallion.

[Kad]

Whomever compared this to Pepsi vs. Coke was dead on.

It doesn't really matter which you pick and they're both bad for you in the long run.

But Coke is better.

[ghostlight2]

"Oh, cry me a river. He's disrepectful day in and day out and has no problem issuing his own attacks. So, before we rush to quantifying negative posts about anyone as an "attack," let's not forget to take into account that when you openly and unapologetically behave like an assho!e, you're going to reap what you sow -- or, as After Eight might put it, reap what you sew. He gets that stuff because he gives that stuff. That's not bullying. That's returning like with like."

Of course it is. I'm not saying he's any better, but he was demeaned in this thread before he ever posted in it. He's frequently brought up in threads and attacked. So is Blactor. And Corine. BWW tends to hold grudges (talk about not letting go of things!) and often attack in groups, and now, instead of this thread being about ATC, a large portion of it is about a poster.

"You're wrong. I'd sent MULTIPLE emails asking why my membership was denied an never once got a response."

I'm sorry, Jordan. I stand corrected. Contrary from what you might glean from my posts in this thread, I've had many run-ins with TPTB at ATC, specifically with Ann. I have always gotten a prompt response. I'm sorry the same has not been true in your case.

eta: LOL, Kad, FTW !

[Jordan Catalano]

No need to apologize. And that "you're wrong" came off bitchier than I intended it to. Lol.

[ghostlight2]

No blood, no foul :)

[themysteriousgrowl]

"Of course it is. I'm not saying he's any better, but he was demeaned in this thread before he ever posted in it."

Oh, that's the problem you have, specifically?

I see now. I don't understand it, but I see.

[PitPro2004]

I used to be a member for a few years. At first it was fun and definitely a good place to hear great stories and learn a few things.

Then I found out the hard way that you had to be a good friend of either Ann, VJ or...Mike was it? For some reason, if you were a friend of theirs you could say whatever you wanted. If you weren't and your post even lightly smacked of politics you were gone quicker than the blink of an eye. I felt this was discrimination and when I vented my feelings, politely and professionally, my account was locked.

I was never a big fan of Ann's because I felt her posts were just plain snotty. No loss here though; some of those personalities, well....it was amazing their heads could fit thru the door, I'm sure.

[Auggie27]

I find their deletions capricious. Days will go by with multiple threads on the same topic, and little or no administrator action. Then suddenly, they seemingly crack down and start ripping out entire threads. Happened this a.m. with INTO THE WOODS. The new thread was no more repetitive or redundant, and included some thoughtful (enough) and fresh discussion -- as much as there is at this stage, 2 days before opening -- but damned if it didn't get pulled in its entirety. It felt like a public wrist-slapping for a particular poster, rather than a measured attempt to address content. But I think deleted posts and threads are often, ultimately, based on a gotcha to specific, higher profile posters. People with a daily presence sometimes wear out their welcome I guess. Still, I find the administrators' intrusive comments can be prissy and not terribly informed. The actions can feel designed to police behavior rather than help sustain a climate of respectfully shared opinions.