Archived and Closed
This conversation is no longer open for comments or replies and is no longer visible to community members. The community moderator provided the following reason for archiving: IMDb boards
On the George Clooney board, this thread accusing Clooney's wife of being a prostitute and hoping she'll be stoned to death by muslims has been up for two days. It's been reported but nothing done so far. Link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000123/board/nest/235679522
This same person (using many usernames) posts some of the nastiest stuff, but even for her this is bad.
This same person (using many usernames) posts some of the nastiest stuff, but even for her this is bad.
Posted 6 years ago
LuvsToResearch, Champion
Thanks for the reply Bob.
Yes, it's a nice analogy but not really a good comparison: if the police were able to track every single person speeding AND other motorists reported the speeding AND the police had the ability to immediately stop all offenders online but still didn't do anything about it, then your analogy would be accurate.
Unlike the police, IMDb can automate their system by alerting for certain words and they're able to temporarily and permanently block accounts from offenders. Usually reported posts are zapped within 24-hours but this post is still live.
Yes, it's a nice analogy but not really a good comparison: if the police were able to track every single person speeding AND other motorists reported the speeding AND the police had the ability to immediately stop all offenders online but still didn't do anything about it, then your analogy would be accurate.
Unlike the police, IMDb can automate their system by alerting for certain words and they're able to temporarily and permanently block accounts from offenders. Usually reported posts are zapped within 24-hours but this post is still live.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the idea that IMDb can be in all places at all times, making the right decisions on millions of boards millions of times.
What would be classed as an offender? Is it words, not content, not intent? How would accounts be blocked?
I am not looking to take your suggestion apart, but the idea that all that is missing is greater automation is not a realistic scenario.....
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
IMDb can automate their system by alerting for certain words and they're able to temporarily and permanently block accounts from offenders.In my opinion, this is nonsense, but I am curious about how you think it would work.....can you just for the sake of it describe how this would work? Would the word 'whore' mean my post would be automatically deleted when I post it? Would the word 'wh0re' also do the same?
What would be classed as an offender? Is it words, not content, not intent? How would accounts be blocked?
I am not looking to take your suggestion apart, but the idea that all that is missing is greater automation is not a realistic scenario.....
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
they could start with IP-identification, to weed out the simple minded scriptkiddies.
Why would IP-identification help?
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
In theory, IP identification would stop all the sock puppets, although IMO that's a really hard one to make work for two reasons: two different people can have the same IP address and many troublemakers block their IP address by using hidemyass.com or similar sites.
Likewise with the reporting system, if one poster (or rather, given the prevalance of sock puppets, one username) gets reported often enough, it's easy enough to close that account. I believe that for some years to register with IMDb you're supposed to give ID such as a credit card so it wouldn't be too hard to stop new accounts being opened with the same credit card.
I'm not sure that I buy this story that IMDb is sooooo huge that it's completely impossible to manage it. Look at sites that are much bigger and deal with volumes of comments (any news sites for example) and yet somehow they manage not to let libellous, inflamatory or other illegal and offensive comments slip past too often. Imagine if yahoo news (175,000,000 - estimated unique monthly visitors) or the Mail online (close to 100m monthly browsers) let a post like this get onto their site's comments section. Can you imagine it? No, me neither.
I'm not saying the big sites get it right all the time but they do a much better job than IMDb does, which says to me that it is possible to manage comments IF a site wanted to.
I am curious about how you think it would work.....can you just for the sake of it describe how this would work? Would the word 'whore' mean my post would be automatically deleted when I post it? Would the word 'wh0re' also do the same?It can work however IMDb would want it to work. What would seem best to me is that words or phrases (and derivative spellings thereof, if you like) could send an alert to IMDb that there's possible abuse and to check it out. I don't mean that posts would be automatically censored; given that this is a film discussion site, any and all sorts of potentially abusive words could be legitimately be used in discussion.
Likewise with the reporting system, if one poster (or rather, given the prevalance of sock puppets, one username) gets reported often enough, it's easy enough to close that account. I believe that for some years to register with IMDb you're supposed to give ID such as a credit card so it wouldn't be too hard to stop new accounts being opened with the same credit card.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the idea that IMDb can be in all places at all times, making the right decisions on millions of boards millions of times.'Millions of boards millions of times'? Is the problem that widespread on IMDb then?
I'm not sure that I buy this story that IMDb is sooooo huge that it's completely impossible to manage it. Look at sites that are much bigger and deal with volumes of comments (any news sites for example) and yet somehow they manage not to let libellous, inflamatory or other illegal and offensive comments slip past too often. Imagine if yahoo news (175,000,000 - estimated unique monthly visitors) or the Mail online (close to 100m monthly browsers) let a post like this get onto their site's comments section. Can you imagine it? No, me neither.
I'm not saying the big sites get it right all the time but they do a much better job than IMDb does, which says to me that it is possible to manage comments IF a site wanted to.
(Edited)
bluesmanSF, Champion
A couple quick notes. Are you aware this site has 10 million separate message boards? This makes the speeding/cops analogy quite appropriate.
Further, the message boards are the lowest priority area of the site.
Managing a message board site is not even mentioned anywhere in the company mission statement.
IMDb has over 100 Million unique visitors per month too. I see, quite consistently, much worse comments on yahoo news comments. So I can't see that the example is at all helpful or useful.
The site wants users to report them, to get the abusive habits in the system which works by progressive steps of discipline and by removal of authentication making it harder and harder for abusers to continue, along with the ignore function. If no one responds to idiots trying to get attention, the idiots will generally go away.
I notice you suggest something close to https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/_smokejumping_moderators_to_fight_fires_on_the_worst_forums
I'd recommend you start an "idea" thread for the good suggestion, but you might want to add to the existing thread and give it a +1.
Further, the message boards are the lowest priority area of the site.
Managing a message board site is not even mentioned anywhere in the company mission statement.
IMDb has over 100 Million unique visitors per month too. I see, quite consistently, much worse comments on yahoo news comments. So I can't see that the example is at all helpful or useful.
The site wants users to report them, to get the abusive habits in the system which works by progressive steps of discipline and by removal of authentication making it harder and harder for abusers to continue, along with the ignore function. If no one responds to idiots trying to get attention, the idiots will generally go away.
I notice you suggest something close to https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/_smokejumping_moderators_to_fight_fires_on_the_worst_forums
I'd recommend you start an "idea" thread for the good suggestion, but you might want to add to the existing thread and give it a +1.
The point here is that countless posts on the Clooney board, and more often than not on the very same offensive threads as the one K.Dot refers to in the OP, are being deleted round the clock so it's not as if the imdb admins just haven't gotten around to dealing with the poster in question. They plainly have but, for some bizarre reason, are choosing to allow a digustingly offensive thread to remain while at the same time, again, bizarrely, deleting pe4rfectly reasonable posts.
I have also reported the thread in question (3 times to date) and yet there it is, still on the board while posts expressing disgust at it have been deleted.
I'd be very interested in heating an explanation to account for that.
I have also reported the thread in question (3 times to date) and yet there it is, still on the board while posts expressing disgust at it have been deleted.
I'd be very interested in heating an explanation to account for that.
bluesmanSF, Champion
The system is mostly automated. So, posts can be deleted round the clock with no one actually seeing them. All it takes is for the the poster to be in less than good standing and the reporter to be in good standing. At some point, an actual review will probably be made, but in all likelihood no one actually saw those that were deleted quickly. The one that remains might be in queue for an actual person to take a look. Again, small staff, 10 million boards and millions of users, there is likely a backlog. I sincerely doubt someone would take the time to take a look then leave a "disgustingly offensive."
As to reporting the thread in question 3 times...you should be careful doing that. It can result in permanently adding your account to the report system's ignore list. Staff is overwhelmed, as mentioned, with reports of abuse. Sending them reports continually backlogs the system even more. In fact, if you're able to report it more than once, while it's already in queue might mean you're already being ignored. You'd normally get a message "we've already received enough reports" while it's in queue. If you report it, then can immediately report it again, you're probably on the ignore list already.
Please report then let the default of ignore put them on your ignore list. If it's a wider problem than what's in one post, you can use report the most offensive one, use the "none of the above" reason and fill in a description of the overall problem.
re: "the point is..."
This whole conversation has been had over and over since the message boards opened. It's just different users, different board, each time. So, everyone who might read this is aware of "the point."
As to reporting the thread in question 3 times...you should be careful doing that. It can result in permanently adding your account to the report system's ignore list. Staff is overwhelmed, as mentioned, with reports of abuse. Sending them reports continually backlogs the system even more. In fact, if you're able to report it more than once, while it's already in queue might mean you're already being ignored. You'd normally get a message "we've already received enough reports" while it's in queue. If you report it, then can immediately report it again, you're probably on the ignore list already.
Please report then let the default of ignore put them on your ignore list. If it's a wider problem than what's in one post, you can use report the most offensive one, use the "none of the above" reason and fill in a description of the overall problem.
re: "the point is..."
This whole conversation has been had over and over since the message boards opened. It's just different users, different board, each time. So, everyone who might read this is aware of "the point."
(Edited)
Sigh. I felt it might be a waste of time coming here to try and make sense of the board and it seems I was right.
No disrespect to you, just it's impossible to have a conversation about this with someone who's not familiar with the very specific (and now at least 4 year old) problem that exists on the Clooney board.
Never mind.
No disrespect to you, just it's impossible to have a conversation about this with someone who's not familiar with the very specific (and now at least 4 year old) problem that exists on the Clooney board.
Never mind.
bluesmanSF, Champion
You're very welcome!
Glad I took the time to answer to the questions you asked!
Glad I took the time to answer to the questions you asked!
All it takes is for the the poster to be in less than good standing and the reporter to be in good standingI'm sorry, but I don't think that's correct because if it were, people wouldn't still be needing to report posts as by now the trolls would have been phased out of existance simply by being in such bad standing. The theory is good, and may even be the way IMDb planned to run the site, but it's not how it works in reality.
It also ignores the fact that trolls, with their many sock puppet accounts, report genuine posters so I think there can't be many posters 'in good standing' on IMDb any more.
The idea that the poster in question is in 'good standing' is making me laugh long and hard.
I don't believe it's an automated system because of the manner in which posts disappear. I've seen posts deleted within minutes of posting, and always when the troll is active. The pattern leads me to conclude that the troll is an admin.
I don't believe it's an automated system because of the manner in which posts disappear. I've seen posts deleted within minutes of posting, and always when the troll is active. The pattern leads me to conclude that the troll is an admin.
bluesmanSF, Champion
Huh? I think you need to read it again. You've clearly misread what I said (or perhaps you're talking to someone else?).
coplied/pasted
coplied/pasted
All it takes is for the the poster to be in less than good standing and the reporter to be in good standingNeither of us knows whether the account is in good, or less than good, standing. But, what I said/meant is that if a user in poor standing (like the person you're whining about is likely to be) and the person reporting him is in good standing, the post would likely be removed by the automated system and not require a moderator to do anything.
I don't believe it's an automated system because of the manner in which posts disappear.Then you'd be completely wrong.
The pattern leads me to conclude that the troll is an admin.Oh lordy...
My response was to K.Dot.
the post would likely be removed by the automated system and not require a moderator to do anythingSadly the post hasn't been removed after three days (whether by automated system or by a moderator). That leads me to think that the theory of posters being in good or bad standing isn't a realistic one.
The pattern leads me to conclude that the troll is an admin.Sorry, I didn't realise you were responding to my post here. Hmmm, I don't think anyone that batshit crazy could be an admin on IMDb.
However, I don't have any explanation for why the more recent (and uncontentious) messages could have been deleted by the administrator while the original message is still up.
Why not? Admining is hardly rocket science. She has multiple socks to go with her multiple personalities. She can be an admin under one of them quite easily. It's as good an explanation as any.
Ok, I've no idea how IMDb selects its admins but I think they mostly care about people getting involved in all the films' minutiae (adding film credits, updating information and so on). Film geeks, basically.
The crazy person has no interest in films, not even Clooney films, so I don't think she'd qualify as an admin.
The crazy person has no interest in films, not even Clooney films, so I don't think she'd qualify as an admin.
(Edited)
As I said, until someone comes up with an explanation that actually explains - rationally and logically - what's happening on the board, that's the only explanation that makes any sense to me. Nothing above has thrown any light on it.
So much for getting satisfaction. :)
So much for getting satisfaction. :)
(Edited)
bluesmanSF, Champion
That leads me to think that the theory of posters being in good or bad standing isn't a realistic one.One more try (this is why staff does not enter into these discussions...they never end and the complainant never believes either anything you say, or believes their complaint is misunderstood)...you might think that...but it's not accurate.
If your theory is, you keep reporting the same person over and over, you're likely now being ignored. Which would account for reporting and seeing deletions, then seeing no effect at all.
That aside, as I described, at some point, staff does review reports. I've seen it take weeks. The system is not fully automated which is why I said,
The system is mostly automatedYou cannot take anything away from looking at other instances of abusive posts and what happens to them because you don't have any idea who else might be reporting them (nor whether their accounts are in good or poor standing).
Of note:
Message Boards Top Frequently Asked Questions
Which includes:
Please read these notes carefully before contacting us: we will not, under any circumstances, respond to questions or complaints that are already addressed here. Help desk requests about one of these issues will be deleted with no reply.As to automated vs. having live moderators, that some posts get deleted immediately while others take hours, days, maybe even weeks in some cases, (and the results might be the person gets a raised quota, history wiped or removal of authentication...which is all at the hand of a live person) is evidence it's a combination of the two.
As to the comments above of "sock" accounts, the site wishes to allow users to have multiple accounts (I've usually had two, one to post on the old Help board, then one to post normally, since I don't want disgruntled users to follow me around the boards because their account got banned or something ridiculous that they caused with their own activity), or to be able to create one or more extra accounts to be used by their children (some children don't have credit cards, cell phones with text for authenticating...and I am sure some parents want access to the account to monitor what their children are doing). So, in some of the comments above about "socks" you should think of the activity with which they're doing with the accounts rather than simply having other accounts. Just wanted to clarify that...multiple accounts are permitted as long as they are not used to abuse the system and other users (and, if the user who created them used the same ID to authenticate, all accounts will suffer whatever actions are taken against any of the accounts. So, back to how to report a user and all of his/her "socks" (actual sock puppetry, not simply owning a second account), you're probably better of making one report and using the "none of the above" (which is more evidence the system is partly moderated by people, as this type of report isn't instant...it goes into queue to be reviewed) and explain what the user is doing (preferably with facts, not guesses at which accounts, etc., if there's a chance you're wrong).
Hope that helps.
So, keep in mind, the boards are somewhat like a swimming pool with no lifeguard on duty. Swim at your own risk. Use the system in place and do what the site recommends, report once, then use ignore (which is the best action to make pests go away).
Good luck folks!!
One more try (this is why staff does not enter into these discussions...they never end and the complainant never believes either anything you say, or believes their complaint is misunderstood)...you might think that...but it's not accurate.Well, thanks for the patronising response! The reason I don't think your theory that 'All it takes is for the the poster to be in less than good standing and the reporter to be in good standing' holds water is because:
1. genuinely bad posters would by now be phased out due to the number of reports the've received from posters of good standing. But that's not the case here. This username has been posting offensive messages for almost three years.
2. genuinely good posters are being maliciously reported by the trolls which of course also puts them into the 'posters of bad standing' category. As the system is mostly automated, there's no stopping this from happening, and happen it does - often.
As I said, maybe IMDb thinks it's using this system but the reality is that either they're not or it isn't working.
I'd like to be clear that I'm not doubting your comments that the system is mostly automated. That much is clear.
-----------------------------------------
Your comments about reporting posts too often is for someone else, not me, so not a relevant point.
The sock puppet conversation is another subject again entirely.
bluesmanSF, Champion
It wasn't really a theory. But...
As to phasing people out, that's what "authentication" addresses. It's nearly impossible keep someone from coming back. At least, with authentication, they come back and use the same account, which still has raised posting quota and the account's history of abuse intact. It's likely the user has not yet run out of ways to authenticate. I'll assume you know how authentication works. If not, you can ask.
As to point 2, at some point the reports would be reviewed, or the person will over-use the report function and will be ignored. You're right, it is also abuse and it happens. They should probably find a way to deal with it. But, as we've discussed above, the boards are a very low priority and it's not likely to be fixed any time soon, I'd think.
As to phasing people out, that's what "authentication" addresses. It's nearly impossible keep someone from coming back. At least, with authentication, they come back and use the same account, which still has raised posting quota and the account's history of abuse intact. It's likely the user has not yet run out of ways to authenticate. I'll assume you know how authentication works. If not, you can ask.
As to point 2, at some point the reports would be reviewed, or the person will over-use the report function and will be ignored. You're right, it is also abuse and it happens. They should probably find a way to deal with it. But, as we've discussed above, the boards are a very low priority and it's not likely to be fixed any time soon, I'd think.
It's likely the user has not yet run out of ways to authenticate.Apparently not. This person not only posts offensive comments like this one but has done so for almost five years under this username among others, and I've lost count of how many sock puppet accounts she's created over the years.
I don't know how strict the verification process is but there's obviously a way around it.
(Edited)
bluesmanSF, Champion
I don't know how strict the verification process is but there's obviously a way around it.It's not "strict" at all. You simply need to have a valid email and a valid credit card number or cell phone number to authenticate.
As it is, many people complain because they have trouble authenticating and/or they don't have (or don't want to give out) cell numbers or credit card numbers.
So, the site has to balance combating abuse with ease of registering to use the site's features.
Yep, Loula.
After more than a week of this post still being on the board, I think this whole "police can't catch everyone speeding" analogy is just a load of codswallop.
Assuming everyone on this thread has reported it, that's at least four complaints and I'd doubt that we're the only ones offended by this post. It hasn't been zapped by the auto-delete robot and as it's still online that suggests it's been looked at by a human from IMDb and approved as ok.
After more than a week of this post still being on the board, I think this whole "police can't catch everyone speeding" analogy is just a load of codswallop.
Assuming everyone on this thread has reported it, that's at least four complaints and I'd doubt that we're the only ones offended by this post. It hasn't been zapped by the auto-delete robot and as it's still online that suggests it's been looked at by a human from IMDb and approved as ok.
K Dot
I'm afraid I can offer nothing useful....my approach is to accept the reality, hope and suggest better, but not allow some idiot to affect my mood or my experiences....
I have to ask though - how can you see that the post in question is still up? Are you taking the user off ignore to check, or is the user not on ignore in the first place?
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
I'm afraid I can offer nothing useful....my approach is to accept the reality, hope and suggest better, but not allow some idiot to affect my mood or my experiences....
I have to ask though - how can you see that the post in question is still up? Are you taking the user off ignore to check, or is the user not on ignore in the first place?
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
The user isn't on ignore for me as she's in the habit of posting my name, email address, photo and workplace on IMDb and asking people to contact me. I like to know when she does this. Again, sometimes her reported posts are removed, but often not.
If you can be bothered to go to the board (and I can totally understand if it's not your thing) you'll see that I don't interact with her or her other sock puppet accounts. Ignoring them really is the best thing to do.
If you can be bothered to go to the board (and I can totally understand if it's not your thing) you'll see that I don't interact with her or her other sock puppet accounts. Ignoring them really is the best thing to do.
her multitude of accounts seem to have been removed
It looks like two of her usernames are gone although I can see at least four or five that are recognisably her are still in existence.
The GREAT thing is that this really offensive post (along with other ones) has finally gone! It's taken 10 days, but the board really looks quite normal. I'm almost uncomfortable with the level of sanity on there now!
Many thanks to IMDb for sorting this!
The GREAT thing is that this really offensive post (along with other ones) has finally gone! It's taken 10 days, but the board really looks quite normal. I'm almost uncomfortable with the level of sanity on there now!
Many thanks to IMDb for sorting this!
Oh, posted too soon.
She's baa-aack!
But seriously, responding to her posts is what she wants. Just ignore her craziness, report where applicable and keep the normal conversation going around her stuff. That's the best way to handle it.
She's baa-aack!
But seriously, responding to her posts is what she wants. Just ignore her craziness, report where applicable and keep the normal conversation going around her stuff. That's the best way to handle it.
Yes, agree, ignore it, but also keep this thread updated since it looks like this is where we have to go in order to get anything done.
(Edited)
@bobthemoo and bluesmanSF: in case you still aren't convinced about the type of person we're dealing with, here she is again, posting what she thinks are photos of me, my email address, workplace and full name, asking people to contact me at work: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000123/board/nest/236046633
in case you still aren't convinced about the type of person we're dealing with, here she is againI never doubted the person was a trouble maker, idiot or annoyance....the world (not just IMDb) is full of them....
responding to her posts is what she wants. Just ignore her craziness, report where applicable and keep the normal conversation going around her stuff. That's the best way to handle it.^best statement on this whole thread
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000123/board/nest/236046633Here's what I see when I view that thread:
The thread doesn't exist for me when I look at the board itself.
If this person is actually posting real information on you, making threats or anything like that, you should look into the regulations where you live and consider action through the police.....otherwise let the little creature do her silliness in isolation and let's all get on with something else.
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
Good Lord. That's a rather cavalier attitude and one, I suspect, you wouldn't have were it your details this deranged person was posting all over the board and beyond. Why should K.Dot have to go to such extreme measures in order to not have her personal details trolled on the board when some basic and responsible admining would solve the problem?
If it were my details, I would expect a simple note to the admins (which I'm sure K.Dot will have done?) to resolve the issue. That they haven't done this is disgraceful.
If it were my details, I would expect a simple note to the admins (which I'm sure K.Dot will have done?) to resolve the issue. That they haven't done this is disgraceful.
I was not referring to the posting of personal information....indeed I suggested K Dot go to the police if the attacks are targeted at him/her and brought into the real world.....not sure why that is considered a 'cavalier attitude'?
However for all the silly nonsense of someone attacking a celebrity....throw it on the pile of YouTube, Twitter and anywhere that people can post with their real names and lives hidden from view......there are millions of them - all I can do is use whatever the reporting system is on the site I am on, then move on and try not to let them affect my mood or life.....usually by paying them no attention.
You saw what I see when i look at this user's posts....I think it looks better this way.
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
However for all the silly nonsense of someone attacking a celebrity....throw it on the pile of YouTube, Twitter and anywhere that people can post with their real names and lives hidden from view......there are millions of them - all I can do is use whatever the reporting system is on the site I am on, then move on and try not to let them affect my mood or life.....usually by paying them no attention.
You saw what I see when i look at this user's posts....I think it looks better this way.
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
Of course it looks better but if the ignored posts were about me/my personal info, then I'd find them far harder, if not impossible, to ignore. That's what I was referring to as cavalier. I don't disagree with your approach (which is for the most part my approach) but It's easy to be objective and practical when it's someone else's 'problem'. My point is, it's all our problem and our responsibility to stop this type of trolling when we can, and since it's clearly in breach of the imdb T&Cs, this should be an easy 'can'. The fact that it's not for reasons yet to be properly and logically explained is precisely why (I would imagine) we're all on here discussing it and trying to do something about it.
Go to the police to report harassment on IMDb??? I live in a really remote location in what's pretty much a developing country and I don't speak the language. Sorry, but no, the police aren't going to be of any help.
No, I guess I'll have to hope that IMDb assist with deleting these posts, but I won't be holding my breath while I wait.
No, I guess I'll have to hope that IMDb assist with deleting these posts, but I won't be holding my breath while I wait.
I live in a really remote location in what's pretty much a developing countryOkay, so the 'personal details' this person claims to have for you are clearly not correct....so aside from them trying to annoy you....what is the issue?
For sure, if they are posting stuff falsely claiming it is you, then the police do not need to be involved.
So, like you said, "ignore her craziness, report where applicable and keep the normal conversation going around her stuff"....
....and no, don't hold your breath...I do not make excuses for IMDb administration of their boards (mostly because it is inexcusable), but will millions of message boards on their site, perhaps looking for them to be omnipresence and active is not a reality we will see anytime soon...
bob
note: I am not an IMDb employee, nor in any way affiliated with IMDb
bluesmanSF, Champion
Alerting law enforcement to a real world threat has nothing to do with IMDb (other than, it was conveyed via IMDb). If someone was calling you on the phone and threatening violence, you'd call police, not the phone provider, right? The phone provider can't protect you...neither can IMDb.
If you choose to live where police cannot help you, that's on you. All the more reason to keep your personal information to yourself and simply use a film information database for it's main purpose and don't get into heated discussions on the attached message boards.
If you choose to live where police cannot help you, that's on you. All the more reason to keep your personal information to yourself and simply use a film information database for it's main purpose and don't get into heated discussions on the attached message boards.
