I would wager that a near-majority of the forum's active posters have had her on Ignore for months if not a year or more, myself included. But that doesn't change the sheer tonnage of spam and thread derailment everywhere, and stuff we can't help but see because it still regularly shows up in the feed all the time. I hear about it constantly. You see it discussed constantly. It's not a question of contribution to active discussions, it's a question of ones being rendered impenetrable. And I think you see that nuance.

Then there's the fact that it seems as though the user has had her account rendered dormant more than once. Maybe her many recurring exits are coincidental, but that's not the impression I've gotten. That would indicate some acknowledgement of an issue. But who knows.

As for the question of moderation and whose responsibility it should be I'm not going to comment on that (it definitely shouldn't be mine). As it is though it's yours and so no one can change this but you. I just really don't think this is the first, second, tenth or last time you've heard about this issue. And it's just going to keep going until something changes that none of us can do any more about than we have already done.

The non-issue I see is complaints about someone posting too much. Not seeing your (not you @Vee) last comment on the latest page of a thread because others have since commented is a non-issue to me. Commenting in threads, even when one might be wrong about some of the things they are saying, is not spam and is also a non-issue to me.

Real issues are people spamming the board -- real spam like I had to deal with a few weeks back. Registering multiple times, using a VPN or altering an IP address in any way is an issue to me. Threatening people publicly or via PM is an issue for me. Yelling and screaming at each other over a disagreement beyond real vs. reel is an issue for me.

That said, since people say that they have a particular person on ignore, even though there is evidence proving otherwise, as I've seen in the last couple of pages of this thread alone, I have removed the community posts sidebar altogether. This way, ignored users will be officially unable to get their posts noticed by those who have them on ignore. Ironically, it benefits the boards in the long run as sidebar ads will now be shown more, at least to those who also aren't using ad blockers (which is a HUGE problem for this place, but that's another conversation).

Putting someone on ignore does not really stop one from seeing their posts, because many of their posts still appear in the narrow column on the right. Even when the poster is on ignore.  I'm just pointing out that, in general the ignore feature is not effective.  If it were, that would be a great option to stop seeing a poster who is bothersome.   

Just now, Neil Johnson said:

Putting someone on ignore does not really stop one from seeing their posts, because many of their posts still appear in the narrow column on the right. Even when the poster is on ignore.  I'm just pointing out that, in general the ignore feature is not effective.  If it were, that would be a great option to stop seeing a poster who is bothersome.   

Correct. Just addressed that matter as you posted. Hope it helps!

There are people who've had entire threads frozen because they created a hostile environment with their gatekeeping and gutter sniping.  And somehow their wishes should be catered to, while the excitement of a rabid fan who feels that she's found a community is supposed to be offensive?

Edited August 16, 20232 yr by j swift

Who's yelling? Where's the dialogue?

6 hours ago, Errol said:

I fail to see an issue with active posting by one or several users. The point of a message board is to have active discussions. As I am the webmaster and owner of one, you will never make it make sense where I should punish or silence someone because they like to post. If you don't like how much they post in any given topic, which they are free to participate in, you have the ignore button in your settings. Utilize them.

The more childish I see the board becoming with always complaining about the most benign issues, I just can't believe this is coming from adults. Someone posts too much and I that's a problem worthy of my attention? Like seriously?

I just can't. So someone who posted on the boards couldn't take the fact that someone else who posts on the boards posts too much, in their opinion, and decides to leave. Again, I fail to see how this is an issue warranting any attention whatsoever.

Thank you Errol.  I for one am in complete agreement with you on this.

2 hours ago, j swift said:

There are people who've had entire threads frozen because they created a hostile environment with their gatekeeping and gutter sniping.  And somehow their wishes should be catered to, while the excitement of a rabid fan who feels that she's found a community is supposed to be offensive?

👍

2 hours ago, j swift said:

There are people who've had entire threads frozen because they created a hostile environment with their gatekeeping and gutter sniping.  And somehow their wishes should be catered to, while the excitement of a rabid fan who feels that she's found a community is supposed to be offensive?

Exactly. Valuable posters have left the board because of these people over the years and now they act all upset about this harmless, (always polite even when attacked) lady?
SON is not their private club.
I could not agree more with Errol.  

When Hugh Marlow was hired to play Jim Matthews on Another World in 1969, he had been a movie actor for many years, having roles in at least thirty-five films (and major roles in many of those).  Does anyone think perhaps NBC pressured P&G to find a movie actor to play the Matthews family patriarch in order to follow the success of MacDonald Carey (another movie star of comparable stature) playing a similar patriarchal role on Days of Our Lives?

Additionally, during this time Dana Andrews was cast as the star of another NBC soap opera, Bright Promise.  And a few years earlier (1965), movie star Ann Sheridan had been cast as Kathryn Corning on Another World.  That left The Doctors (and later Somerset) as the only NBC soap(s) of that era without a movie actor in a lead role.  I've often been curious if NBC was intentionally attempting to pepper their daytime dramas with film actors -- something the other networks seemed to have little interest in at that time.   

Edited August 16, 20232 yr by Neil Johnson

20 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

When Hugh Marlow was hired to play Jim Matthews on Another World in 1969, he had been a movie actor for many years, having roles in at least thirty-five films (and major roles in many of those).  Does anyone think perhaps NBC pressured P&G to find a movie actor to play the Matthews family patriarch in order to follow the success of MacDonald Carey (another movie star of comparable stature) playing a similar patriarchal role on Days of Our Lives?

Additionally, during this time Dana Andrews was cast as the star of another NBC soap opera, Bright Promise.  And a few years earlier (1965), movie star Ann Sheridan had been cast as Kathryn Corning on Another World.  That left The Doctors (and later Somerset) as the only NBC soap(s) of that era without a movie actor in a lead role.  I've often been curious if NBC was intentionally attempting to pepper their daytime dramas with film actors -- something the other networks seemed to have little interest in at that time.   

That's an interesting thought- had never occurred to me.

ABC had Joan Bennett leading Dark Shadows and Gloria De Haven joined ATWT in 65.

Secret Storm added Jeffrey Lynn to the cast- he had been in many movies.

Guiding Light had Jan Sterling-incidentally, one of my favorites-she was always worth watching in any 1950's movie.

So I guess it was just an overall trend rather than NBC specific. I guess Bright Promise did imitate Days with Dana as the 'patriach'.

1 hour ago, Neil Johnson said:

When Hugh Marlow was hired to play Jim Matthews on Another World in 1969, he had been a movie actor for many years, having roles in at least thirty-five films (and major roles in many of those).  Does anyone think perhaps NBC pressured P&G to find a movie actor to play the Matthews family patriarch in order to follow the success of MacDonald Carey (another movie star of comparable stature) playing a similar patriarchal role on Days of Our Lives?

Additionally, during this time Dana Andrews was cast as the star of another NBC soap opera, Bright Promise.  And a few years earlier (1965), movie star Ann Sheridan had been cast as Kathryn Corning on Another World.  That left The Doctors (and later Somerset) as the only NBC soap(s) of that era without a movie actor in a lead role.  I've often been curious if NBC was intentionally attempting to pepper their daytime dramas with film actors -- something the other networks seemed to have little interest in at that time.   

Gosh, I think you're right! 

25 minutes ago, Paul Raven said:

So I guess it was just an overall trend rather than NBC specific

It seems a bit more of an intentional effort at NBC.  Because around 1969, three out of four NBC soaps had a significant movie actor in a lead role.  And although soaps on other networks had cast film actors occasionally, only Joan Bennet on ABC had a lead role. The others seem more incidental, in my opinion.  It would be interesting to know who was head of NBC daytime programming throughout the 1960s.  Was it one person for the entire decade?  Or did the position change hands several times?  And did the person in this position prioritize hiring film actors into lead roles, or was it just coincidence??

Edited August 16, 20232 yr by Neil Johnson

8 hours ago, j swift said:

There are people who've had entire threads frozen because they created a hostile environment with their gatekeeping and gutter sniping. 

You mean like this? You might want to review how and why exactly that went down (the few undeleted posts over prior pages that are left addressing it, that is). I wish you luck finding the threads I got frozen though.

The reason a large swath of the board's active posters have a certain user is blocked is not because of gatekeeping, it's because the threads are literally unreadable without it. Back to Another World!

Edited August 16, 20232 yr by Vee

37 minutes ago, Neil Johnson said:

It seems a bit more of an intentional effort at NBC.  Because around 1969, three out of four NBC soaps had a significant movie actor in a lead role

 Good point. There was about a gap of several months before Marlowe assumed the role. Wonder what was going on. Did NBC make a thing of Marlowe joining the show?

Bud Grant was NBC daytime VP 66-72.

He was poached by CBS daytime in 72 and went on to be their primetime VP.

1 hour ago, Vee said:

The reason a large swath of the board's active posters have a certain user is blocked is not because of gatekeeping, it's because the threads are literally unreadable without it.

Oh, fun, and you would know that they are unreadable because you cannot read something you have on Ignore, which as you said, has been the case for months. You've seen it here first, folks, someone who cannot read what they do not see! Maybe this should be in the Guinness Book of World Records, ya think? 

Do you remember when they used to smoke on TV & in movies? When did that stop? Was it because of the Surgeon General putting out that first warning message on cigarette packs?