Old Vic Question
Posted 25 July 2007 - 11:19 PM
Posted 26 July 2007 - 06:20 AM
Posted 26 July 2007 - 12:56 PM
So, not to be naughty but to keep to the topic..let's see what Mendes can pull out of the bag, maybe he will phone another one of his buddies. Otherwise we just wait for Simon Russell B to continue his rise in the pantheon of British acting to the very pinnacle. Nuff cliches for today.
Posted 26 July 2007 - 03:24 PM
Heavy-handed? My goodness, I was just making a suggestion, not issuing some sort of a decree, while acknowledging that I was every bit as guilty as anyone else in taking this thread off-topic when I really shouldn't have done so. But perhaps I should have made it clearer that I wasn't speaking as a moderator, and I apologize for any confusion. It's been agreed amongst the moderators that when we speak in an official capacity, we do so in a clear way and mark the text (like this, for instance), otherwise we're just posting as any other user does. It was just a personal suggestion, nothing more, and I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone what they can or can't post.
Posted 26 July 2007 - 10:02 PM
Posted 27 July 2007 - 08:46 AM
Posted 27 July 2007 - 10:36 AM
If you click on the "Whatsonstage.com Discussion Forum" link at the top left of the page it takes you to the main screen. Below the forums there's a "Board Statistics" block and that contains a link to the moderating team.
We have awesome powers. We can move threads between forums or delete threads, we have authority to edit or delete any post, we can issue warnings to misbehaving users, we can leap tall buildings in a single bound, and we have the power of command over brussels sprouts. We are like unto volunteer gods.
However, we're trying to moderate with a light touch. This isn't like some forums, where the moderators delete threads without explanation and without accountability. We're not going to stamp on anyone who leads a thread off in a different direction, providing it's within reason and not too great a stretch from theatre. On the other hand, if someone keeps starting new threads where the connection to theatre is so tenuous it's barely discernible then Action May Be Taken. This is a theatre discussion site, not a who-do-you-think-will-be-evicted-from-tonight's-Big-Brother site.
(Speaking as moderator now)
I would suggest, though, that if several posts in succession take a thread away from its subject it might be worth someone posting to say "I'm starting a new thread about this over in..." and then summarising and continuing the discussion in a thread of its own. Not only does that mean people who want to discuss the original subject of the thread can do so without interference, but it also lets people who might have an interest in the divergent discussion see that the discussion is going on.
Posted 27 July 2007 - 10:51 AM
Thank you for your helpful suggestion, which like all suggestions will be considered.
Posted 29 July 2007 - 11:06 AM
Well, at the risk of being accused of guiding the discussion, I'd like to answer the original question.
The earliest this is now likely to be is Autumn 2008 and possibly not even then. It would appear that the Old Vic has not actually committed to doing all three of the plays but without this commitment they will not be sanctioned. In my opinion this is quite right as doing only one would take away one of the main points of the piece.
My apologies, once again, for doing anything so anally retententive as addressing the topic posted....I guess what I should have done is posted this response on one of the other threads and left this one clear for the anti Harry Potter/let's have a go at the moderator fraternity/sorority
By the way as someone who was tiring of all the spam and who was subjected to on line threats of arson on this site some months ago I'd like to say that I appreciate the role the moderators have been playing lately. This discussion board is now much more pleasant to visit.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users