Should Theatre Australia Members Only be allowed to post

There have been an increasing number of incidents where 'anonymous' posters have used the freedom offered by the ITA's website to be offensive and downright rude. Most of you who use the site from time to time will have come across the term 'not verified' next to a name used in a posting, this indicates that this person does not have an account or has not logged on. Some people feel that the ITA's website is losing it's credibility by having postings which are offensive, others stand up for free speech. Under a 'members only' scheme, people would be required to have an official email address (which would need to be verified)before they can join and post. This means that those in our community who choose to post 'knee jerk' reactive comments would be slowed down. Although it is relatively easy to set up free email accounts, it still requires a degree of effort and it would allow 'offensive' posters memberships to be terminated or suspended. Now there's a thought, I wonder what the general consensus is, no doubt I will find out.

I don't have a major problem with that (which will probably surprise some people). I happily registered and have as far as I can remember only posted once anonymously (when my computer was defiantly not allowing me to log on). I defend peoples right to more or less say what they want but have never really been comfortable with the anonymity. (that didn't look right but the spell checker isn't complaining). I think it will reduce the number of just plain unpleasant posts. I still feel that we should be very careful not to censor people because we don't like what we see written down. Whatever we do as performing artists some people are going to hate it and some people are going to love it. Some people express their feelings in different ways than others and come across as offensive. Some posts on this site have been described as malicious that is a hard thing to prove as often it is not known who they are and you cannot ascribe malicious intent unless you can prove a motive. Some of these people almost certainly see themselves as being blunt and honest even though we do not see them that way but some of them are giggling school kids waiting for exactly what they are given, a pompous angry response. That gives them the opportunity to continue and claim the moral high ground. Some of them seem to have what they believe to be a genuine grievance, unfortunately they don't seem prepared to identify themselves in order to resolve that grievance. One poster on this site has been repeatedly asked to come along and identify themselves and to serve on the committee they are attacking. I know myself that unless you are part of the charmed circle that won't happen. You won't get elected. I am sure that there is no deliberate attempt to create a clique but we vote for who we know and like and unknowns or people who see themselves as opponents are often rejected. I speak from the position of having been on both sides of that situation. I have been a part of what someone once referred to as a "self perpetuating oligarchy" and have been part of a small group attempting to break into a similar closed group. Perhaps the poster has a point if you sit back for a while and think about it. I don't know the situation in WA but I will say that sometimes with the best intention a situation can arise where a group begins to look like a closed clique. If you are on the inside you sometimes can't see it. Please do not believe that I am criticizing the ITA or suggesting that you are in anyway a clique. I don't know I can't comment. I am not even sure what started me on this line. To go back to the original question maybe making people register in order to post isn't as good an idea as I originally thought as it may stifle what could be healthy criticism as well as the more unpleasant stuff. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Well thanks for the first response. Could I just clear up something to start with. I'm newish to the ITA, when I first joined it was as an adjudicator and I didn't know anyone on the committee, I volunteered (that was two/three years ago). I then took over the newsletter (ITA Link) because no-one else wanted to do it at the time. This year at the AGM I put my hand up for the committee and yes there was a vote (more applicants than required this year)and I did get on, last year the situation was very different there weren't enough people. It's interesting also that most people will vote for someone they know or have heard of, rather than someone who's a complete unknown. Perhaps if you are an unknown it's good to canvas people with your intentions and seek their supportive vote. I've noticed that if you are prepared to help, in most cases, people will 'bite your hand off'. Talking about needing help, I need contributions for the LINK, so if you have something interesting or informative or just plain fun (with a theatre stance), especially pictures,then let me know, please, I promise I won't turn you away because I don't know you. I'd also like to point out that I agree that we should all be able to take constructive criticism (my gripe is with destructive criticism) and more to the point we should all work together for the betterment of this thing that we enjoy, theatre. I'd also like to say that I don't think there is a simple solution, I was just asking the question.

While I agree that making people join would reduce 'bad' posts/members, I doubt it would do much. Take the last few months: three people joined the site, and then proceeded very quickly to spam people via the internal messaging system. Another member signed up and suspiciously seemed to only ever do one thing: look at the female members' profiles. Even spammers are taking their time to register, so I don't think it will make anything different on a great scale. I am one of the few members on the site with special moderator status, and can check a number of backend things, so I can say without doubt the above is true - and I have reported the activities to Grant. I think ultimately we must keep that in mind: while we do our best to be democratic and not censor people, we also have to rely on Grant's judgement and report anything we might consider extremely bad behaviour. Perhaps we should also consider a set of terms and conditions, which include a small list of guidelines as to 'Theatre Australia etiquette'. Ultimately, it's not a matter of making people register: it's making them be respectful. And you can't do that by making them register to the site. (Perfect example: at collectZing.com, one person from the European region kept signing up using different Yahoo accounts and IP addresses. He then proceeded to spam the site with links to other sites. His two flaws: always using a Yahoo account, and always using the same password. We banned the guy about 10 times, but still he kept coming back.) Mini-monster puppets customised just for you! at Puppets in Melbourne

Is that it seems in this discussion we are talking about whether or not it would be 'censoring' opinions, but what is not mentioned is that by forcing people to register, we may be doing something else: Reducing the vibrancy of conversations, and not encouraging people to actively contribute in a positive way. While yes, the more controversial threads often bring out the worst behaviours, they also bring out some of the best, allowing non-members to speak up and provide an alternative viewpoint that is not disrespectful. There's a difference between having an argument and having a debate, and we should also be talking about the vibrancy of debates, not just the destructiveness of arguments. Mini-monster puppets customised just for you! at Puppets in Melbourne

Which was my final conclusion as well. We need the debate I think and perhaps some of the younger(not necessarily in years) members may be loathe to post some comments if their seniors are going to be able to identify them. Isn't it interesting Na that you and I from Adelaide and Melbourne are so far the only ones to comment on Alan's original post. Where are the Sandgropers in this discussion. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Well, it is the weekend. Most people aren't on the net on the weekend (especially in this weather). Sad to say that I'm busy working on my website, and getting frustrated to boot. Also, what percentage of members/visitors actually contribute to conversations in general? Not many. Mini-monster puppets customised just for you! at Puppets in Melbourne

Well, here's one sandgroper who's been away at rehearsals for most of the day and missed most of this discussion until checking in just now. I have indeed recently joined and happily admit that I've looked at a few profiles, some of them naturally being those of female members. I certainly hope that this doesn't mark me out as some kind of voyeur with suspicious motives. Being new to the forum and fairly new to computers in general, I was not aware that the viewing activities of members could be tracked in such a fashion, which, I have to say, I find a little unsettling. I hasten to add, however, that this does not mean I suspect Na's comments of being directed at me. I am all in favour of the proposal that only registered members be permitted to post comments. Knowing that true identities can be easily verified by reference to profiles, may just encourage members to be more mindful of their behaviour and ensure a more politely conducted forum. It seems to me that allowing the 'unverified' to post comments here is simply inviting the sort of nasty and abusive verbal combat that has been going on in recent months. I know only too well how easy it is to be drawn into verbal slanging matches and saying things that, later, I wish I had not said. Believe me, I'm quite capable of matching nastiness with equal measure and more, but I really would rather not have to. So yes, make people accountable for themselves and I'm sure we'll all be much happier and get along with each other so much better.

"I have indeed recently joined and happily admit that I've looked at a few profiles, some of them naturally being those of female members. I certainly hope that this doesn't mark me out as some kind of voyeur with suspicious motives. Being new to the forum and fairly new to computers in general, I was not aware that the viewing activities of members could be tracked in such a fashion, which, I have to say, I find a little unsettling. I hasten to add, however, that this does not mean I suspect Na's comments of being directed at me." First point: this person appeared to me to be suspicious. Doesn't mean they are, I simply requested Grant keep an eye out for the member and check to see if they are in fact doing anything dodgy via this site. The other reason they appeared dodgy is because the member filled out their profile in a way which to me suggested a person simply signing up to read other people's profiles. It's also the only thing they did when they visited the site over a course of several weeks; and most of the profiles they were checking were young members (all of them were women though). I know from experience that people who do sign up can be dodgy: on other sites I have seen members who use a quite R-rated name, a password that is also R-rated, and then proceeded to load info on their profile that isn't appropriate to general audiences. All I'm saying is that it's better to be safe than sorry, and that in this case I notified Grant and left it to his judgement as to what to do with the member. Second point: No, it wasn't you. Three: as I said before, I have special moderator status. I can view the history of members and see what pages they visit. However, I don't simply spend all day checking what other people are up to. I use it in cases of suspicious behaviour; last month, when a member was spamming via the messaging system, I could track what pages they viewed to figure out that they weren't just spamming me. In that way I could not only warn other members, but also figure out a way to stop them from continuing. I have also used it to figure out if newbies have checked the FAQ, or, in the case of my blog post last year, to create a list of statistics on the use/abuse of the site by newbies. I don't abuse the backend system, but I'm sure if everyone had the access, there would eventually be abuse (power corrupts, etc, insert cliches here). "I am all in favour of the proposal that only registered members be permitted to post comments. Knowing that true identities can be easily verified by reference to profiles, may just encourage members to be more mindful of their behaviour and ensure a more politely conducted forum." This argument doesn't work either. Registering doesn't mean you offer honest information about yourself. Anyone can make up a profile (ie. go google Fake Steve Jobs) and be believable. Only if you attach registration to proof of identity, like references, confirmed address, credit cards/ID cards, can you heighten the likelihood of profiles being honest. Even then, in this day and age, a small percentage will still be fake. Again, for me, it comes back to creating an atmosphere of respect, rather than worrying about the issue of building walls. Mini-monster puppets customised just for you! at Puppets in Melbourne

Yes, fair enough comments, Na. I was, of course, forgetting for a moment that dishonesty is sadly becoming a more and more prevalent attribute of this modern society of ours. Pleased to meet you, by the way!

Yes, there's an inevitable rise of dishonesty... but we're talking about the net here. There's always ways of getting around any 'proof of person' that are placed on sites. Nice to meet you too! Mini-monster puppets customised just for you! at Puppets in Melbourne

Tony, I realise your comments were generalistic but I just felt I should point out a few home truths because I'm sick of seeing the word "Clique" or "Click" or words to that effect appear on this site unchallenged. This is certainly not aimed at you but I'm posting this because my concern is that a certain troll has curdled people's thinking and I feel it important to establish some facts. Three years ago I was just a member of a small regional community theatre in W.A. Within a few months of returning from the "bush" I decided to get back into theatre here in Perth. Prior to going "bush" I had only ever performed at one theatre - Stirling Players. The people I had performed with 5 years earlier had gone onto other things in life and I really didn't know anyone in theatre in Perth. I went to auditions at Garrick - I got a role and I met some people who in turn introduced me to other people. I then auditioned for a role at Playlovers - I got a role and I met some people who introduced me to other people. I never felt at any time that there was a "clique". I'm not even good at meeting people but these theatre communities embraced new members with honest enthusiasm. I felt right at home. I was then asked to become treasurer for the ITA because I have a finance background and because no other bugger wanted the job. I met more people (it's amazing how many people you meet if you put yourself out there). From my observations there are certainly theatre groups that have the same old faces running them. It is also my observation this is often because they are left to run things. Many people are very happy to just turn up and perform. I am also aware that there are currently some groups that are undergoing "a change of management". This is good - the infusion of new blood and ideas will help these groups grow. I'm sure that if I had put my hand up this year to be on the committee of Garrick or Playlovers, my interest would have been taken seriously. There's no trick to getting involved and no barriers from what I can discern - just put your bloody hand up and you'll likely find yourself elected. The ITA seems to have been subject to a fair amount of invective these last few months. Let's look at some of their committee; Tracey Royall - like myself recently returned to Perth, wants to get involved - didn't know a whole lot of people in Perth theatre before she started auditioning and getting back into things Felicity May -like myself recently returned to Perth (there's a trend happening her) and simply wants to get involved. Last seen doing backstage at Old Mill and someone asked if she'd like to join the ITA committee. Tyler Jones - appeared in Eurobeat last year. Young fella who seems very enthusiastic, not to my knowledge someone who was elected due to any "Clique" mentality - just someone who has energy and represents the next generation of community theatre. Of last year's committee only 3 remain on board. If there was a "Clique/Click" in operation, last year's committee would be hanging on to power like there's no tomorrow. Democracy reigns. It seriously beats the heel out of me as to why some people may feel there is a closed mind mentality here in WA, that there are power-mad fiends running things at every theatre. It's simply bulls**t. Seriously. It also amuses me that no one who has raised the matter (certainly not the troll but more disturbingly those that seem to sympathise with some of what he's said and who seem to have a genuine interest in theatre)has provided ANY examples of this type of behaviour. The reason is simple - it doesn't exist. One other thing I think I should mention. There was also a suggestion that members were leaving the ITA in droves. In 2007 there were 31 member clubs. In 2008 there are currently 34 member clubs. The number of individual members has also grown. I would put it to you once again that the suggestion members were disgruntled or dissatisfied with the ITA is bulls**t. I can say as an example that the member clubs were very grateful to the ITA for the time and effort they put into investigating the new liquor laws introduced last year and how these affected the clubs themselves. Just an example. Tony, I respectfully disagree with your opinion that you have to be "known" to be elected to any station in theatre. Sometimes you simply have to be enthusiastic and passionate and thats all it takes. Undoubtedly it helps to be known but then again - its usually those who are seeking to contribute that get "known". From a personal point of view I am constantly surprised by how many of these anonymous people seem to know details about me and my personal life outside of theatre. I never sought that attention and frankly am uncomfortable to think my life outside of theatre is under the microscope. Anyway, with regards to Alan's suggestion - I would like to think this may cut down on the trolls but having seen their tenacity when it comes to their attacks, I'm not convinced it will work. I'm going to try and make a concerted effort to not personally feed the trolls. Scout's honour. I think Na is right - ignore them, moderate their comments down, and kill them with our indifference. I don't buy into the thought that we risk moderating down genuine arguments or critique - it's usually pretty bloody plain who the trolls are. I'm all for free speech and opinion but I'd personally be happy to see moderation down or even deletion of every post from those such as "The Ripper" or "Sting" going forward. I've bitten my tongue the last few days despite a very personal barb aimed at me by Sting. Let's just moderate them out of existence and leave it at that. My two cents worth anyway

I have to say that I take no offense at your remarks as i hope you took none at mine. I do not know the Perth scene and as I hope i tried to make clear I was postulating. Situations sometimes arise because there is no one else who wants to do the job or because perhaps one person simply has a vision that pushes on. There is no intent to create a clique and from the sounds of it there is no clique. I was just commenting that to an outsider there can sometimes seem to be a charmed circle that you need to enter. I don't entirely agree with moderating off everything that a single poster puts on, as you suggest. But I do agree that both Ripper and Sting often go too far. Although I do not believe that all posts labeled with Stings name are the original Sting. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

Thanks for taking my reply as it was intended - simply setting the facts straight. As I see it, certain posters may have encountered difficulties or got on the wrong side of people in certain theatre groups and that has warped their sense of reality. Sadly, as we've seen, this can colour the views of outsiders who visit the website. Just finished a performance this arvo where the majority of the cast did not know one another prior to this production even though many had been involved in the Perth theatre scene for many years. We may have known of each other by name but had never had the chance to work together. It's a cast and crew of some 20 or more people and it's been great to hear their perspectives on the Perth scene. All seem to want to be involved going forward and with ages ranging from 19 through to late 60's, it's a great microcosm of the community in general. The biggest grumble seems to be the availability of a drink at the bar after Easter Friday's performance which is beyond the control of the theatre itself given the restrictions of their licence. If that's the biggest problem we face then I would suggest we have a healthy and vibrant theatre community. Whilst tempers have frayed at times due to the pressures of wanting to perform the best show possible, everyone has stayed friends and we enjoy each other's company. To get offside this group, you'd really have to push the envelope. I don't agree with how every theatre in Perth operates but the quibbles are easily overcome - go to a theatre where you feel your contribution is welcome. If you find yourself shunned time and again, maybe it's not the theatre that's at fault - perhaps the problem lies closer to home. As regards moderating down all comments of recognised trolls, here's my view. By their past comments they have surrendered the right to be heard - end of story. If they aren't the owners of all comments posted under their pseudonyms, why haven't they spoken up as such? I can only assume they delight in the chaos caused in which case I restate - they add no value and should be shunned. Getting rid of the dead wood is easier than changing the current system which may do little to fix the original problem - that's my point. I respect that people such as Tony and Grant have a very strong opinion on censorship and believe me I'm in that camp myself but for that sort of environment to work, everyone has to appreciate that their opinions carry weight in an open environment and it seems we are faced with a decision on how to deal with those who don't respect that. If we do nothing, the website becomes a joke. I think that's what Alan is suggesting and I must say it's indicative of the feedback I've heard. In fact it was a topic at the ITA AGM. The question becomes a simple one - is metaphorically turning our backs on the trolls a form of censorship or simply commonsense?

I don't believe making people register will cut down on trolls. I believe it may cut down on spammers (as Na pointed out though - this may not be the case). Trolls are there to do harm. No matter what it takes. I myself have 4 different email addresses. One I use when entering competitions or newsletters that require an email address (to cut down on junk in my regular email) and another I use for complete cover up of my real name (when using websites like ebay, paypal etc). I do however use my full name for this website. But my point? If I wanted to cause trouble on this site - i would just use one of my false name email addresses. Most people who use the internet on a regular basis will have more than one email address. Especially those who use it to create havoc and chaos. Thats my bit. Sky

Beginning censorship even for the most cogent of reasons puts a foot on a very slippery slope. Sure Trolls like Sting and Ripper are a pain in the neck and some of their remarks are just plain offensive or abusive. Actually outside of Rippers obsession with what he insists on calling a "click" some of his comments have been interesting if a little blunt. Come to that Sting even managed the occasional good insight, the trouble is that they immediately got attacked in quite unpleasant terms themselves and they responded accordingly. So Ok so we moderate every comment Ripper makes, which appears to have happened on at least one thread. Object achieved he seems to have gone away, but you haven't solved his dissatisfaction with what he sees as a clique. He is therefore still angry. So now we've lost him. Maybe good. So who is next? Is someone going to go along moderating all of my posts that mention censorship and complain about loss of freedom of speech because they find me boring or just plain annoying? It could happen. I can think of one person who would like to but he doesn't seem to actually be a member here. Then what? We've already discussed the dangers of moderating reviews you don't like because you don't like them. It has happened. It will happen again. After Grant bowed to pressure and censored one thread a number of other members took it upon themselves to moderate quite harmless posts because they didn't like them. Don't get me wrong I do not disapprove of the moderation of abusive or genuinely offensive posts or posts that are clearly a personal attack on a person, not a criticism of their performance. Just think for a while. It may be your posts that someone will be baying to have censored at some point. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

When you think about it, the only reason suicide bombers, killers, and school shootings occur, is because the person/people involved feel they haven't been listened to or won't be listened to unless they do something dramatic. (Not suggesting Ripper et al will end up like that, of course. Just saying that giving everyone an opportunity to be heard is a good thing, even if you don't like what they have to say or how they say it) I think we take freedom of speech too much for granted. I agree with Tony, let's moderate in moderation. Mini-monster puppets customised just for you! at Puppets in Melbourne

Having people join to post certainly can hinder the constructive comments, perhaps an occasional jewel that I, for one, would not like to miss. It's a simple fact of life that artists live within a world that requires them to be thick skinned. Abuse exists. Perhaps more in the theatre world than anywhere else there is an influx of temporary residents who are dabbling in the stage and REALLY not expecting to be shredded as a result. It would be nice of the 'trolls, kobolds, orcs, goblins' to ease off. Having the ability to identify who posts? (Perhaps as suggested by compulsory membership) Can I direct thoughts to not so long ago when a Neighbours actor who on screen wasn't treating his girl too well, and was consequencially recognized and beaten up for his characters actions! :jawdrop: IT'S TV FOLKS. Yes but not all have a grip on the R World! (In light of the modern world trolls better keep their identity guarded.) But it would behoove us all to post thoughtfully as what we ponder over builds our own being. LaLa Craig

Hey Na! New profile pic...nice...is he mouthless due the conversation on freedom of speak or purely coincidental?

Thanks! Actually it's a little bit of puppeteer madness... We used some 'hides' (mini flats with a small ledge, behind which the puppeteer stands), and the puppeteer who used this particular puppet liked making him 'bite' the ledge. The wider shot is actually of her biting the bench with him! As for me using it here, it was just convenient. First photo I saw when I went hunting for a new one. Mini-monster puppets customised just for you! at Puppets in Melbourne

 

I've held off contributing to Alan's topic because I've wanted to see how it pans out but it's worth adding some more to the discussion.

Firstly, this is not the "ITA's website" as such. In recognition of the much broader community that it represents and serves, in 2001 the site was relaunched as Theatre Australia:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010924174201/http://theatre.asn.au/ 

The ITA represents something like 5% of the people and companies contributing to this website. In response to concerns and a request from the ITA committee, four years ago I set up a separate site specifically for the ITA to communicate with its members but it was never used.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040729145343/http://web.theatre.asn.au/ 

Restricting contributions to "members-only" is being touted by some as a panacea for perceived problems. While I appreciate the effort Labrug has put into setting up a poll on this topic, I'm afraid it's a little like conducting a poll on how best to go about brain surgery. I'm not convinced that all the people voting fully understand the problem or have much idea of what they're voting for and I know that some have unrealistic expectations about the outcomes.

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking that registration in some way equates with identification or verification. As noted by others elsewhere, it is none of these things.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html 

Registered members have amply demonstrated that they are just as capable of being offensive and rude as unregistered contributors. 

I share some of Skybe's concerns and think it is worth distinguishing between people who might have an occasional outburst or coarser way of expressing themselves and the individuals and posts that fall into the categories of trolls and flamebait:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait

Don't feed the trolls. Don't respond to flamebait. Ignore them.

Trolls have very limited attention spans when they can't get a response out of anyone. Leave them alone and they'll go home. Feed the flames? You reward and feed their pathological behaviour. They'll return again and again. Nothing will keep them out.

Trolls love a challenge and are incapable of turning one down.

Feed the trolls, moderate or remove their posts, delete their accounts and you're offering a challenge; one they won't refuse. Trolls will respond in an increasingly inflammatory manner, posting faster than you can moderate, creating new accounts with dummy email addresses faster than you can remove them and in no time at all, you're in a race to the bottom.

As Alan has noted, it is relatively trivial to create any number of accounts with temporary, effectively untraceable, free email addresses. It certainly won't stop trolls.

It will however stop most of the people who might otherwise quickly and easily make valuable contributions to this community.

Requiring registration puts a barrier in the way of casual participation and ultimately will put a stop to the 16,296 unregistered contributions, most useful and many invaluable, that have been made to this site over the past decade.

The conference paper I wrote on this topic is getting a little old, my contribution to the debate on portals makes me wince, but the section on micro-investment and building social capital is as relevant as ever:

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/conference1/2001/malcolm/ 

Attempts to portray this debate as one polarised between those seeking to act to raise the tone of discussion and those standing up for free speech, belie the complexity of the problem and the proposed solution. The two goals are not mutually exclusive.

Cheers
Grant

 

I was convinced that the best way was to make this site "members only" but I understand what you are saying and yes, sometimes its a fag to have to log in when I stop by to have a quick look at who saying what, or what's new. I guess I would have to concede that I was mistaken and having pondered this over several days have come to the conclusion that there's no point. I still find it boring to have to pour over posts which are rude or do not offer anything constructive (ie are just personal attacks), but I cannot see any solution. By the way Grant, the link to your conference paper http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/conference1/2001/malcolm/ appears to be broken.

I totally agree. Registration often stops me from posting about something on other sites, particularly if it is an impulse reply about a topic not particularly important to me, but is important enough to get me interested in replying. (Actually, am I saying it's a good thing or a bad thing?... :P ) Mini-monster puppets customised just for you! at Puppets in Melbourne