Let's stick to the appropriate fora for a change

This website is very neatly divided up into separate fora (or forums if you must) plus there is a facility for registrants to maintain personal blogs. Lately, it seems to me that the divisions are becoming somewhat blurred. For example, someone starts off expressing some personal thoughts on his own blog which generates into a debate about pro-v-am theatre and then gets into a review of his latest play. In another case, someone posts a perfectly useful (if a bit biased) review on the Revies forum, then a cast member responds (inappropriately I maintain) in a long boring post about the sacrifices he had to make for his art or some such self-serving twaddle, more appropriate to a blog. Then of course there are an increasing number of posteurs sending cheerios to each other on general fora. Please don't - it is not really all that interesting for the rest of us - and don't forget that includes everyone on the World Wide Web! As for trolls - remember the story of the three billygoats gruff...nuff said!-)

...but then it quickly degenerated into a continuation of your personal spat with Greg Ross ("a cast member responds (inappropriately I maintain) in a long boring post about the sacrifices he had to make for his art or some such self-serving twaddle")- a thinly disguised rebuttal of Greg's account of missing Bathurst because of his theatre commitments. I can't help thinking this was the aim of your post. Frankly, to turn your point on yourself, why involve the rest of us in your rants when both you and Greg are registered members and therefore free to hurl invective at one another via the pages messaging system? Your dislike of Greg is, to coin your own phrase, not really all that interesting to the rest of us. I don't you by anything but sight but you've advertised your hubris most effectively in the last few months and it certainly hasn't made me want to work with you in future. That's a shame because you both obviously have a common love of theatre and I normally gravitate to people of that nature. In the words of an old aussie band - Lay down your guns, don't be so reckless. Or to put it more bluntly - grow up and start acting your age.

When I enter the site, I click on the "Recent Posts" button. This takes me to a page where the different forums are not identified, but merely listed as a forum topic, or personal blog entry etc. Because I generally read posts in this way, I am for the most part unaware of which forum thaey are part of, and I will respond to the content of the thread. When starting a thread, by all means, please get it into the correct forum, but after the initial post, it will go in whatever direction it goes. If we are talking about my blog, well, I have no control over the direction it takes. If people wish to shower me with bouquets or brickbats, or start discussing pro/am, then the blog takes on a life of it's own. On that thought, maybe, as it's my blog, I should have the power to edit comments out if I see fit, but that's a whole other argument. I think you are fighting a losing battle with this one Peter. www.meltheco.org.au

Whatever gave jmuzz the idea that there was a "personal spat" going on, I do not know. As someone who fancies himself as a publisher, he should check the rules of defamation. I have not breached any, but by his huge uncorroborated extrapolation and presumption, he may well have!-) Ssstinger>>>

Yes there we are another suggestion of defamation, it's almost as inevitable as the Hitler rule. Is that all there is? Well if that's all there is my friend, then let's keep dancing. www.tonymoore.id.au

...regardless of to whom your comments were aimed, why not just message them privately? You suggest I've defamed you - very well, if that particular comment in your original post was not in reference to Mr Ross, you have my unreserved apology. However, if it was, you owe me an apology in return for defending an indefensible position. I'm going to bet that you don't have the courage to reveal who it was you were talking about which shows you only feel safe throwing barbs anonymously. There's a word for that too Peter. It begins with a "C".

My comments were not aimed at any particular persons. I don't do that. I was merely making a point by using some recent examples. Anyone who takes personal umbrage at this, well, as Kevin Bloody Wilson would say, "DILLIGAF!" By the way, in case it wasn't obvious, my two earlier posts were ended with a wink and grin, thus "!-)" TTFN, Ssstinger>>>

How does that excuse the fact that you were rude enough to label what someone had written as "twaddle" under cover of anonymity? Why not just NOT write such a thing - your point would have been made anyway? It's the kind of behaviour we expect from the trolls Peter, not the members on this site. It's the very thing that many people have been postulating they want to see an end to. I just don't understand why you need to be so abrasive but the fact that you've written DILLIGAF suggests you care not for anyone's POV but your own. That's extremely sad. Regardless of whether you care or not, I've chosen to challenge you because to let something like this go unchallenged simply perpetuates the idea that this website is a forum for childish behaviour. I've been guilty of it myself in the past and I've chosen to apologise accordingly. I can understand you getting defensive about it but given it's clear you won't/can't explain why you made the comments you made or who you directed them at I guess we will just leave it at that.

Free halloween shadow puppet pattern at Puppets in Melbourne

Wow, I never thought of Peter as a troll. That has given me food for thought. I think he'd be surprised by that label too.

I don't understand what the problem is really. If the initial post is inserted under the correct heading, what does it matter how the thread progresses? Isn't that the idea of having forums like this? To allow people to express their opinions, views and comments under the relevant thread?

Ask Labrug ;) I'm not calling anyone a troll... I just think this thread is potential troll bait. I do think it's pointless to expect online forums to be 'structured'. Trust me, website users rarely if ever follow the path laid down by designers. The thing to remember is that this site is for discussion and it's not practical to construct a site where threads are split and resplit every time someone goes off on a tangent. If that were the case, this very thread would have been split up already... Free halloween shadow puppet pattern at Puppets in Melbourne

Hey! We're starving out here! Where is wee whatsisname when we need him? Do Feed Trolls (DFT)

Yes, that's the only way I read posts now, is to check the 'recent posts' filter. It doesn't really care about which forum a particular thread is in, and so I wonder how relevant they are now? I'm much more lkely to read a topic with a good subject title...and yet so many of them are undescriptive - often defaulted to the first few words of the post. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------

Mr Stinger has messaged me privately to express his hurt at my accusations that he was having a dig at Greg Ross and also to defend himself against accusations that he has had digs at Mr Ross in the past. He assures me he meant no harm and his comments were intended to be light-hearted and not taken seriously. He states there is nothing disrepectful toward Greg Ross in his blog or anywhere else on this site. He has taken offence to me calling him by his given name instead of his pseudonym and feels I have overreacted to his witticisms. He states my suspicions are my own and not based on any hard evidence. In the interests of harmony and because Stinger has been so passionate about challenging me on the matter I am persuaded to offer an unreserved apology to him. I do this publicly so he in turn can be convinced I mean it. Stinger, I hope this helps. In case anyone else is still confused THERE ARE NO BAD FEELINGS ON THE PART OF STINGER TOWARD MR GREG ROSS. Everyone got that? There's a prize to anyone who can write a play where Stinger, Greg Ross, myself and Daniel Kershaw all appear onstage as buddies for next year's Dramafest. Let's move on - theatre things to be done.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't make digs, just never disrespectful ones!-) Thank you anyway, Mr jmuzz. In fact, I do love to read other peoples' accounts of their artistic journey and the life events that inform them in their theatrical pusuits. They are generally very interesting. I also like to think my own anecdotes are of interest to someone else as well. The point I was making was that there is a dedicated forum for that sort of post, namely the blogs. Mr jeffhansen and Mr crgwllms say they only read 'recent posts', which is all very well if you log on to this site about 5 times a day. However, some of us do have other things to do as well, gentlemen. When I am considering whether to go and see a show or not, I generally look at the Reviews page for recent reviews and critiques of that show. I then go to the first of them and work through. If there are one or two objective reviews, then that can inform my choices. If a review is followed by responses from cast members or supporters (whether agreeing or disagreeing), it just makes me think they lack objectivity and professional detachment, which is a little off-putting. And when in a chain of responses a particular debate arises, the outcome of which would be of interest to even those of us who only log on every few days, would it be so hard to create a new topic under the appropriate forum and shift the debate to that heading? There is a general message here for all of us as well: always think before you post!-) Ssstinger>>>

OK. It's true. I have no life! Actually, I tend to whip through the "recent posts" in my lunchbreak at work. I probably should get out and go for a walk instead. A question to people in general, seeing as Stinger has raised the point.... Do the reviews posted on this site tend to influence your decision to go and see a show? After all, none of us are professional reviewers. What we generally see is a critique, rather than a review. Maybe a poll is in order..... www.meltheco.org.au

I read through recent posts too. I can see at a glance that many of them are nothing to do with me - too technical, too esoteric in some other way or just too far away so it doesn't take long. I probably went to see Suddenly At Home because of that blog and I'd have gone to see Beauty and The Beast if I'd had time, as a result of comments here. So for me it must vary. I was nervous when I saw this initial post because I made a blog about Wicked, but I didn't see myself as a 'reviewer' and didn't want to give that apparent weight. I've seen other shows since then and have also started a number of replies to other posts, but I'm actually feeling quite inhibited now and concerned about posting the 'wrong thing' or the 'right thing' in the 'wrong place'. I'm grateful that none of the individual posts actually criticised could be traced back to me - especially the 'self-serving twaddle' message, but I confess I did write messages in some of those threads mentioned and wondered if I shouldn't have and I was part of the criticism. I'm already breaking my resolution to be just a 'reader' from now on, but will just say I'm grateful for the reviews/critiques and other interesting insights posted, whether about a performance or performing and I read them wherever they are, but I try to avoid the negatives.

Marcie, firstly, I'm glad my blog got you along to see Suddenly at Home. In part, that was it's purpose. Secondly, please don't just be a reader. We need as many level headed contributors as we can get. It makes this site a more interesting place to visit. Thirdly, if you try and put reviews in the review thread, then no-one is going to jump down your throat if you post a comment that doesn't strictly fit the forum heading. I think Stinger's point, and he may well correct me here, is that the review thread, in particular, should be kept for reviews only. If someone wants to make comments, other than a review, about a particular show, then they should should do so in a Green Room Gossip thread, or some such thing. www.meltheco.org.au

Reading this thread gave me a laugh and taught me a new acronym (DILLIGAF). I've only just joined this group so I hope my comments are taken in the spirit with which they are intended. I hope that the majority of members are here because they are interested in the perfoming arts in general and hopefully theatre in particular. I find internet short-hand to be just as alienating as any other jargon and would definitely prefer the words were spelt out in the interests of clarity and openness. I can't help but think this whole thread shows up a huge demand for more workshops, collaborations and general real life networking opportunities. In regard to the pro/am debate, I used to describe myself as a passionate amateur until a much respected friend told me I was actually a guerrilla professional and I loved to think of my interest in story telling in that way. Having said that it's been way too long between post performance drinks and I'm hoping this site links me to some new projects or reconnects me with some old collaborators. Bring on the stories! ps headshot and performance cv en route

If you've never heard the acronym DILLIGAF before, check out Kevin Bloody Wilson's website at www.kevfm.com

I thought I saw his log-in a few days back. Maybe he was checking on us from his Vietnamese internet bunker. Or is he back here and just avoiding us? Come back DK. Your trolls are dying of starvation!

I must admit that I only read the recent posts because they have the latest information. Anything else is redundant in my book unless I'm looking for something specific. And who are we to dictate how a thread progresses? If a review (for example) is posted and cast members respond to the review, why should they not? There is no reason that I or my peers can come up with to say that "thou shalt not respond to a review in the review thread". Surely anyone (apart from the trolls who are dying outside) is permitted to respond to anything on any forum without being regarded as unprofessional or unobjective? My two cents worth...

Getting back to my original contention, I just think it is inappropriate or at least unseemly for someone involved in a show to respond to a review on the Reviews page. It is a bit like an actor coming out front of house in costume during interval and asking "How are we doing so far, folks?" - then gushing over or taking issue with anyone who dares make a comment. I would prefer that page to be preserved for comments by independent observers who have actually seen the show. Look at the schemozzle that has resulted under Gordon's review heading 'Apocalypse Perth' - (with the utmost respect of course), how can this be helpful to the casual enquirer who is just thinking of what theatre they might like to go and see? If someone wants to respond to a review (as I have done often recently), or if someone hasn't actually seen a show but wants to comment, there are plenty of other pages to do it on. Ssstinger>>>

Im curious then 'ssstinger' why you chose to post on the review forum given that you havent seen the show to comment or make a review either?????

Not sure what this troll means. Ssstinger>>>

I have this amazing ability. For a number of years I use to think i was different and weird however after some research i found out i was in fact Normal. I discovered i could distinguish between 'what fits' and 'what doesn't'. When i read the review pages i turn on this ability and use it to my advantage. If looks and reads like a review it's "what fits" and i continue to read it. If its "how good was i last night" it's 'what doesn't' and i stop reading it. In an ideal world people wouldn't twaddle on about the shows they are in in response to a review, but lets face it, some will. Sadly we'll have to engage our basic brain activity and use our natural ability to filter out the garbage. We could also make good use of the voting system which i see has been used a few times correctly for filtering out the garbage. Points to those who do. A simple and effective solution.