Celebrity Condolence Threads in AH?

davyjose

OutlawPete wrote: »

The thread you are talking about was about a doctor who preformed needless examinations on patients for sexual kicks.

The Mod posted a pic that more or less said that what that made him think of first was that it was like something out of a Carry-On movie.

That is a far cry from making jokes about someone on the same day that they die.

It isn't a far cry, Outlaw. There's as many people on here likely to be affected by sexual abuse, as by Gary Coleman's death. Both jokes were funny, but I'm struggling to see where the line is drawn between mods joining in, and culling every second post (including the OP)?

You say it's a far cry, I'm asking why that's so?

Instead, that mod offers a four line response, basically referring to most of the posters in a forum he fcuking moderates as babies. That's fcuking pathetic. Sorry Rabies, but it is.

OutlawPete

davyjose wrote: »

It isn't a far cry, Outlaw. There's as many people on here likely to be affected by sexual abuse, as by Gary Coleman's death.

People aren't 'effected' by his death in the way you trying to imply.

I myself just watched the show as a kid, seemed like a decent guy that had a tough life in ways.

Child star, worshiped by millions and yet made no money from it. Health issues on top of that etc etc.

I'm not really 'effected' by his death at all, well - not in any great way, just enough to be pissed off when people think it's hilarious to make jokes about him the day he dies.

What I am trying to say is, that anyone with an ounce of cop-out can see he did not live a life that would be deserving of gags made about him on the day he dies.

davyjose wrote: »

but I'm struggling to see where the line is drawn between mods joining in, and culling every second post (including the OP)?

Are you really?

Are you struggling to see?

davyjose wrote: »

You say it's a far cry, I'm asking why that's so?

If you can't see the difference between making a Carry-On joke about a doctor unnecessary preforming physical exams for sexual kicks and jokes about a decent human being on the day they die, well nothing I could possible say could clear that up for you.

It's a common sense issue at the end of the day.

davyjose wrote: »

Instead, that mod offers a four line response, basically referring to most of the posters in a forum he fcuking moderates as babies. That's fcuking pathetic. Sorry Rabies, but it is.

Okay, maybe he overstated the point a little.

Let me ask you a question though, out of interest.

Why do you think that Mod deleted those posts and jokes on that thread?

Rabies

My post in another thread should have no bearing on the this discussion.

The edits. deletions and warning by myself is common practice in AH for a long time now on threads relating to celeb death.

If we take the same stance with every topic in AH, then the forum might as well close down.

Every topic in AH has its more serious older brother on Boards. But sometimes a thread the everyone might have an interest in needs to stay, but respect needs to come with it, and childish behavior stays out.

I have no problem being pulled up on my post relating to the doctor and sexual assault thread in AH. My comment can be deemed insensitive to those that have been abused or touch inappropriately. I can offer my apologies, but I'll be honest, it won't be from the heart.

Jazzy

RIP IN PEACE

looksee

It seems inevitable that condolence threads in AH will not be taken seriously or will be taken too seriously. Why not just instantly remove them to Entertainment or Politics or wherever is more appropriate, where they will be less likely to be the subject of jokes and people can RIP to their hearts' content. People don't go on to AH with the prime intention of being respectful to anything/anybody.

I really don't understand the need to get involved in celebrity deaths - but I don't read 'Hello' magazine either.

Edit - well maybe Politics wouldn't be the best place

dr.bollocko

The most important question has not yet been addressed or answered.
How do we stop our beloved celebrities from dying?

Earthhorse

davyjose wrote: »

That's my problem, tbh. What are the rules? you can joke about sexual assault for instance, but not death, have I got that right? That's the impression I got from one of the mods in AH earlier this evening.

Really? I think you're being disingenuous. When was the last time it was okay to joke about celebrity death in After Hours?

mikom

davyjose wrote: »

Quite a few poster's, may I say hilarious, posts got deleted in the Gary Coleman thread.

From the After hours thread.
Some of the same posts were allowed stay on the TV forum........ http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055924113
Different Mods, I know, but removed in After hours but remain in TV, confusing to say the least.

WindSock wrote: »

Imo, dead Irish and/or well respected celebs should be left alone. Anyone else should be left to it. I wouldn't put the most recent one in either of those categories, but that's just me.

Bono?


Thursday, I can joke about a celeb as he is alive.
Friday, I can't joke about a celeb as he has died.

How long do I have to wait until I can joke about them again?

cherryghost

This reminds me of the episode of South Park, when they found out Aids was finally funny.

dr.bollocko

No matter how that thread was run last night this thread would have appeared / re-appeared in feedback.

mikom

dr.bollocko wrote: »

No matter how that thread was run last night this thread would have appeared / re-appeared in feedback.

Element of surprise RIP.

dr.bollocko

The reality is certain celebrity deaths bring in a huge volume of posters specifically to AH.
The likes of Gary Coleman (rip) don't really create a surge, like say Jacko (RIP) or G. Ryan (RIP)
of these new posters. These new posters don't like to see insulting horrible streams of invective about the recently deceased. Particularly as family and friends might in some cases be viewing this stuff. That doesn't sit well with me as a moderator. TBH Neither do I. That said when I started posting in AH I loved a good celebrity death joke. However it upsets far more people than those that enjoy it. Certainly taking this element of after hours is not something which sits easy with me. The thread last night was an attempt at maintaining consistency. If we can make fun of Gary Coleman then why not G. Ryan? So there's a nightmare. However if we remove funny jokes the people who made the jokes and don't really see harm in it get PO'd.
I'm loathe to say it's a lose lose situation but at the moment it appears to be.
I don't like condolence threads. RIP this and that. I like it to be a discussion thread where people can be positive and negative within reasonable boundaries. But say when Thatcher pops her clogs... How do you define, on the fly, with say 100 reported posts and double or triple the normal number of users all posting furiously where the line is on these things.
I think that humour in most cases crosses the line so that's why those posts are generally cut out.
So there's the problem. Which aspect of posting do you act on, which do you not. How do you apply the rules evenly across the board for every celebrity death without stifling the whole conversation into a +1 RIP situation.

arybvtcw0eolkf

dr.bollocko wrote: »

No matter how that thread was run last night this thread would have appeared / re-appeared in feedback.

Tbh I doubt it.

People would have had the craic and today it would be on page two or three of AH.

No one said anything nasty about the little fella & indeed only had the craic over the very thing Gary Coleman himself exploited - his small stature.

Unfortunetly just like the French handball thread a Moderator waded in heavy handed and people kicked back, and now we're here.

And I'll tell you this, its wrong for a Mod to threaten "bad things will happen" - you think that endears a forum to a Moderator?.

mikom

Any chance of sticking a NSFRONARP* tag on the threads instead.

*Not safe for relatives or new Afterhours posters.

WindSock

Earthhorse wrote: »

That's totally subjective though. Some people hero worship Thatcher, others, not so much.

Yeah but those that worship her would likely be aware that she is very unpopular with many others and would probably not be expecting post after post of RIP in AH.

I don't understand this undying need to make jokes when celebrities die,

Some people have an undying need to make jokes about any situation. Especially of a well known 'untouchable' whom's life in the spotlight can be summed up with a few words.

and the mock-shock that is the reaction in the wake of the application of After Hours rules that have existed since it has. Maybe if people don't understand the rules of AH they should just stop posting there.

Mock shock? That could easily be applied to people who don't expect tastless jokes in AH too. Because AH has or had been for a long time a platform to air whichever view you have, be it tastless or sincere. It is all about finding the balance or knowing which way the majority will swing. ie - Gerry Ryan, a nation shocked at his passing, many people posting on a personal level having encountered him vs Gary Coleman/Corey Haim...brief former US stars in the 80's, mostly unheard of or forgotten about.

TheZohanS

What's going to happen when someone like Garry Glitter dies? Will jokes be allowed then? I'm of the opinion that scum like that should be fair game.

My name is URL

When a celeb dies, how many forums does the story get posted in? Why does AH need to change face every time it happens just to accomadate those who want serious condolences only?

If you don't like the collective humor in AH, be it in an RIP thread or a thread about anything else, then imo you're better off giving your input in a similar thread in a different forum, where taking the piss is prohibited by the charter

And I'm not for one minute saying that AH is incapable of being serious, it is capable. But it's hypocritical to gag people on selective threads and turn a blind eye to worse posts on others.

dr.bollocko

Apollo Ripe Thimble wrote: »

Tbh I doubt it.

People would have had the craic and today it would be on page two or three of AH.

No one said anything nasty about the little fella & indeed only had the craic over the very thing Gary Coleman himself exploited - his small stature.

Unfortunetly just like the French handball thread a Moderator waded in heavy handed and people kicked back, and now we're here.

And I'll tell you this, its wrong for a Mod to threaten "bad things will happen" - you think that endears a forum to a Moderator?.

I haven't read over the thread or deleted posts and don't plan to. (Please don't make me read over it:D)
I think I meant more so that it's inconsistent to an extent to allow rules in one thread and not in another hence we have last night. So from that point of view you can see there's only an attempt to apply rules evenly across the board.
I think windsock and URL both have good points.
Things like the handball and G. Ryan dying were huge events in AH. Gary Coleman dying wasn't and maybe to that end was not deserving of so strict the set of rules. Again, in retrospect. I know that the lads were just trying to apply the rules evenly and for that cannot be faulted. Things like this we can learn from to do better the next time. It's always been a problem how these threads are handled. The solution has never been too clear. There is no way to keep everyone happy and trying to would make me go insane or quit again.
I don't think that this headache is going to go away too easily without a lot of discussion and input.

Rabies

Be consistent, or not.

I don't mind the jokes at the end of the day really. After all I look at Nein 11 and Humour every day and have a dark twisted sense of humour too

For my point of view, a celeb died, previous threads had complaints when jokes weren't acted on.
This was an act of consistency.
If celebs or other important figures in the public eye (good and bad) die and if the AH population want an open forum within reason then I'm sure we can help out and discuss it. But there is always the other argument from the opposite side. Some will want the crack down. A happy medium with something like this is very tough. What is a plain joke for one, is a disgusting for another. That is why it has been black or white on celeb death threads

looksee

There is another point, the word Condolence means support and sympathy. Maybe people who want to say nice things and express sympathy should put Condolence in the thread title, and it is totally off-limits to jokes and criticism.

If the threat is titled 'death of x' then people are more free to say what they wish.

Maybe the first thread opened could have a note at the start by a Mod saying 'Condolence thread - support and sympathy only'

scudzilla

R.I.P Dennis Hopper



Think i'll leave it at that after last nights debacle :rolleyes::rolleyes:

arybvtcw0eolkf

scudzilla wrote: »

R.I.P Dennis Hopper



Think i'll leave it at that after last nights debacle :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Jesus don't start that one, the Mods will be hopping mad

trout

looksee wrote: »

There is another point, the word Condolence means support and sympathy. Maybe people who want to say nice things and express sympathy should put Condolence in the thread title, and it is totally off-limits to jokes and criticism.

If the threat is titled 'death of x' then people are more free to say what they wish.

Maybe the first thread opened could have a note at the start by a Mod saying 'Condolence thread - support and sympathy only'

One thread for condolences - no muppetry, and another thread for muppetry - no condolences ?

looksee

trout wrote: »

One thread for condolences - no muppetry, and another thread for muppetry - no condolences ?

More or less, yes. If people want to post condolences in the muppet thread, they do so at their own risk.:D

Earthhorse

WindSock wrote: »

Yeah but those that worship her would likely be aware that she is very unpopular with many others and would probably not be expecting post after post of RIP in AH.

That sounds completely unworkable to be frank and is, again, subject to a lot of subjectivity.

Some people have an undying need to make jokes about any situation. Especially of a well known 'untouchable' whom's life in the spotlight can be summed up with a few words.

That doesn't help me understand it though.

Mock shock? That could easily be applied to people who don't expect tastless jokes in AH too.

Nah, no one expects AH to be free of tasteless jokes, just that threads about recently deceased celebrities be free of them because that's the rule in the forum.

Because AH has or had been for a long time a platform to air whichever view you have, be it tastless or sincere.

Not when it comes to certain things, like soccer or celebrity deaths. And there are even limits outside that too, though they're not as definite.

It is all about finding the balance or knowing which way the majority will swing. ie - Gerry Ryan, a nation shocked at his passing, many people posting on a personal level having encountered him vs Gary Coleman/Corey Haim...brief former US stars in the 80's, mostly unheard of or forgotten about.

Again, the rule applies to all celebrity deaths, not just local ones. I don't think you can find the balance you're talking about because you don't know what reaction a celebrity death will get in advance.

ShooterSF

TheZohan wrote: »

What's going to happen when someone like Garry Glitter dies? Will jokes be allowed then? I'm of the opinion that scum like that should be fair game.

I will be on that day reporting anyone who says a bad word of him. Not because I disagree with the mods (well I do but I understand why they do it) but to stick it back to those that cant understand why Im not RIP'ng Jade Goody or whatever talentless hack has died and became a hero by dying. :mad:

Sharpshooter

Apollo Ripe Thimble wrote: »

Unfortunetly just like the French handball thread a Moderator waded in heavy handed and people kicked back, and now we're here.

Really?

That's why we are here now, what has this got to do with the football thread in AHs, in your opinion?

Apollo Ripe Thimble wrote: »

And I'll tell you this, its wrong for a Mod to threaten "bad things will happen" - you think that endears a forum to a Moderator?.

Anyone that frequents AHs would see that was the mods way of warning on thread, I am fairly certain if it was doc, TheZohan or Frada that had said that it would have gotten a heads up from you.

davyjose

OutlawPete wrote: »

People aren't 'effected' by his death in the way you trying to imply.


I'm not really 'effected' by his death at all, well - not in any great way, just enough to be pissed off when people think it's hilarious to make jokes about him the day he dies.

What I am trying to say is, that anyone with an ounce of cop-out can see he did not live a life that would be deserving of gags made about him on the day he dies.



Are you really?

Are you struggling to see?



If you can't see the difference between making a Carry-On joke about a doctor unnecessary preforming physical exams for sexual kicks and jokes about a decent human being on the day they die, well nothing I could possible say could clear that up for you.

It's a common sense issue at the end of the day.



Okay, maybe he overstated the point a little.

Let me ask you a question though, out of interest.

Why do you think that Mod deleted those posts and jokes on that thread?

First off, what's with the apostraphes around effected? The word is affected, as I stated ... grab a dictionary. Either way, a petty attempt at trying to undermine me.

Yes I think people are equally (let me try) 'affected' by sexual assault and death. I don't think that's questionable, but even if it is, who are we (are more pertinently, an AH mod) to decide?

I wasn't offended by any of the jokes posted on the Gary Coleman thread, perhaps that's because I'm lucky enough not to have been a victim of some of the tribulations Gary Coleman has had to deal with. Equally, i was not offended by the Carry-on joke, because I've never been the victim of sexual abuse.

I have been a (2nd hand) victim of cancer, of alzheimers, of other horrible, horrible afflictions. Are jokes about them ok? And if not, then why jokes about sexual abuse? Where is the line Outlaw?

Are you really?

Are you struggling to see?

doesn't answer my question, does it?

BTW, you can defend Rabies calling "most" of the people on AH babies, citing a few deleted posts on one thread of thousands. I think it's mean-spirited, arrogant, and highly inappropriate of a mod on that forum. thank God they're not like that on the other forums I frequent.

OutlawPete

davyjose wrote: »

First off, what's with the apostraphes around effected? The word is affected, as I stated ... grab a dictionary.

I don't need a dictionary thanks.

I spelled a word wrong (Mozilla spellchecker can be a bugger at times).

Nobody's perfect as I see you too can be guilty of making the odd spelling error.

davyjose wrote: »

Either way, a petty attempt at trying to undermine me.

And telling someone to get a dictionary when they make Grammar and Spelling mistakes isn't?

The quotation marks, not apostrophes, were there as I was quoting you, simple

davyjose wrote: »

Yes I think people are equally (let me try) 'affected' by sexual assault and death. I don't think that's questionable, but even if it is, who are we (are more pertinently, an AH mod) to decide.

They are modding the forum, they have to decide what is and isn't acceptable. Gauge the public mood if you will, so as to try and make sure the thread doesn't descend into a battle.

Look at the Dennis Hopper thread, no mod action needed today as nobody made sick gags.

If somebody did go on and make some jokes that made fun of the guy, I'm sure there would quickly be a warning to show some respect. Would we get a whole load of people defending some muppet who slagged off Dennis Hopper and demanding they have the right to make jokes??

No we wouldn't, as there is massive hypocrisy at play here.

People just want to jokes about certain celebs and respect others, yet these same people criticize when Mods make similar distinctions.

I think the Mods of AH should be trusted with the gauging which deaths are joke worthy and which aren't.

If they then post a warning suggesting people show some decorum with their comments, it should be heeded.

davyjose wrote: »

I have been a (2nd hand) victim of cancer, of alzheimers, of other horrible, horrible afflictions. Are jokes about them ok? And if not, then why jokes about sexual abuse? Where is the line Outlaw?
doesn't answer my question, does it?

Apples and oranges.

You don't pay respect to these illnesses.

As I have said in my reply, which you did not address - when Stephen Gately died, posters were asked to show some respect.

Not long after that there were threads in After Hours full of jokes about the guy.

So this is not about what you can and can't make jokes about in AH, it's about the timing of the jokes, that is all.

mikom

OutlawPete wrote: »

Look at the Dennis Hopper thread, no mod action needed today as nobody made sick gags.

I have a "gag" remaining in the Hopper thread.
It's mild but IMO on a par with the posters ones that were removed from the Gary Coleman thread.
The Coleman ones were mainly plays on his height "stoop so low", "height of despair" etc.
Some people seem to have skin like tissue paper and report posts on a whim.
I presume one or two posts are reported and the thread is then on lock-down.

Is that how it works or do the mods do it off their own bat?