Ban RIP threads in Politics

LoLth

hmm, I think we are discussing two different things here.

you are putting forward points in relation to RIP thread in the politics forum.

My points are geared toward RIP threads in general.

how the RIP threads are handled in the politics forum is something for the politics mods to decide but how RIP threads are treated in general on boards.ie is for the admins to determine.

I can see how the confusion started, I should have posted "in general and not just on the politics fourm" in my original post above to make the difference more transparent.

so: in general on boards.ie

RIP threads are places for offering condolences and nice/neutral thoughts on the deceased (yes, this means praise). its the whole purpose of these threads.

Posting arguments or disparaging remarks abotu the deceased is not an acceptable form of behaviour. The forum may be the place for it but the thread most certainly is not.

Posting "the truth" also has a time and place and the sensitivities of the situation should be taken into account before posting.

Can we agree on these statements?

politics forum in particular:

I think RIP threads should be allowed (but its up to the mods) but I do see your point that by their nature they go contrary to the charter and so, if they are to be acceptable they should have an exception in the charter that makes a specific allowance. Although it could be argued that all fora have "this is a place for discussion..." and have an implied "you must be willing to discuss" "no soapboxing" understanding and that in general a condolences thread should be given some special consideration.

perhaps a boards.ie wide rule should be implemented that, unless a charter specifically changes it, takes effect. I dont think we have a hard and fast rule concerning RIP threads, hence my mention of the "dont be a dick" rule which should cover it really but, for those that want to see it written in black and white (or grey and grey, or blue and white depending on the theme you use) a rule should be set in place.

to respond to your post though:

Just because a thread is posted in a forum it doesnt force a user to read it. If a thread says "this thread is about spiders" and you have a phobia of spiders and all things related, who's to blame if you open the thread and get freaked out?

Some posters need to start taking responsibility for their own decisions and actions. reading a thread is a deliberate action. I might not like X or Y political group but that doesnt give me the right to complain if they post in the correct forum.

---

People always post praise in a condolences thread. they say nice things that they believe about the deceased. I can see where some may go overboard in the politics sense and use the condolence thread as a means to get a dig at another but if its anything too obvious, I would be tempted to call on the "dont be a dick" rule and give them a warning or worse for dick-like behaviour. However, those that take offense have to have a bit of common sense as well and not just cry outrage at even the slightest view that differs from their own and to register their offense in the proper manner (report the post and let a mod deal with it).

---

The politics forum may be the place to disagree strongly but is a RIP thread in the forum or indeed anywhere the place? I dont think so. I think its disrespectful and utterly dick-like no matter what forum its in and regardless of whether the rules specifically say you can or cant. Not everything should need to be set out in a rule. Some form of respect and decency needs to be shown as well. We have banned users in the past for being gits or for abuse or trolling even in a forum where the charter does not explicitly state "do not be a git or abuse anyone or troll". Again, I think users have to take some form of responsibility for their actions and posts and saying "but its not against the charter to abuse the subject of a condolences thread" is not, to me, a user taking responsibility, its passing the buck to the mods for not foreseeing that someone would behave in this manner.

---

RIP / Book of condolences forum was opened a good while ago. its not actually being used (I dont know why exactly) and there is currently a discussion going on in feedback about moving all RIP threads there - with the exception it seems of RIP threads for boardsies in the forums they frequented. Would these RIP threads be open to disagreement or posting the truth about what a user felt toward another user?

nesf

RIP threads are important because they remind us that there was a regular person behind the politics and their passing should be treated with some degree of respect and restraint. Then that assumes a degree of maturity that is beyond half the forum from the looks of things.

e.g. I think Lenihan ****ed up royally with the bank guarantee, I can still offer my sympathies to his family though and can consider him a loss to the political world because while he ****ed up he wasn't a corrupt bastard and at least seemed to be an honest enough man if woefully out of his depth when crunch time came.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't know why I bother, because I have decided that the Politics forum has become simply too nasty a place for a person of my delicate sensibilities...

Nah, I won't bother. I'll leave the field to the angry, the intemperate, and the hate-driven.

Politics is nasty though. Human nature is just that way. People lash out at easy to blame targets quite mindlessly and the mob latches onto boogymen to blame for the mess.

For the past 2 years (and longer for some people) it's been FF and some of these people couldn't even leave a RIP thread be without going onto it all guns blazing.


What are the mods supposed to do though? This is the zeitgeist we have to deal with right now and don't have much choice in the matter. Banning people for following it would both be futile and a tad unfair to the people involved.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

...
What are the mods supposed to do though? This is the zeitgeist we have to deal with right now and don't have much choice in the matter. Banning people for following it would both be futile and a tad unfair to the people involved.

Following that line of reasoning, it might be as well to leave the forum unmoderated.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Following that line of reasoning, it might be as well to leave the forum unmoderated.

Not really. The question comes down to where do you draw the line between things you can change through rules and bans and things you just have to accept as part of the culture of today. I honestly do not believe we could change people's views on this issue without banning over half the forum permanently. Thus making it something we have to accept as part of the current zeitgeist.

Believe me, I don't like it. I hate the mindless mob mentality that uncritically blames FF for all ills as if there's something special about FF and that they weren't just along for the ride and had little control or influence over what was happening really (i.e. could have easily been FG/Lab in power and little would have changed about the outcome). I can't change their views en masse though so I don't think there's much point in me sanctioning them over it.

P. Breathnach

As a mod, you can see from my post reporting pattern what I consider unacceptable, and you can also infer that where the mods have not agreed with me (by taking action on posts that I have reported) I have let most things go by without making a song and dance about it.

I dislike it when abuse of politicians is considered to be political discussion, but I am somewhat resigned to that. But I draw a line for myself at posts that celebrate a person's death. It seems to me that the mods do not. That's why I no longer participate in the Politics forums.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

As a mod, you can see from my post reporting pattern what I consider unacceptable, and you can also infer that where the mods have not agreed with me (by taking action on posts that I have reported) I have let most things go by without making a song and dance about it.

I dislike it when abuse of politicians is considered to be political discussion, but I am somewhat resigned to that. But I draw a line for myself at posts that celebrate a person's death. It seems to me that the mods do not. That's why I no longer participate in the Politics forums.

It would be fairer to say that your views on what constitutes a post that "celebrate(s) a person's death" is different from that of the mods.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

It would be fairer to say that your views on what constitutes a post that "celebrate(s) a person's death" is different from that of the mods.

It doesn't matter to me any more what the mods think, for I have lost confidence in them. I doubt that they are unaware of this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72715870&postcount=242, which contains the following passage: "I only wish he didn't die and he continued on and suffer and suffer badly" (drbollocko quoted it in this thread). Yet there is no sign of any mod response.

So I don't buy into the mods' view of how things should be, nor feel obliged to accept their idea of what constitutes a post that celebrates a person's death. I'll put my own views forward here, as this is a feedback forum.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It doesn't matter to me any more what the mods think, for I have lost confidence in them. I doubt that they are unaware of this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72715870&postcount=242, which contains the following passage: "I only wish he didn't die and he continued on and suffer and suffer badly" (drbollocko quoted it in this thread). Yet there is no sign of any mod response.

So I don't buy into the mods' view of how things should be, nor feel obliged to accept their idea of what constitutes a post that celebrates a person's death. I'll put my own views forward here, as this is a feedback forum.

I'm sorry to say that I was, in fact, unaware of that post. I've not been moderating those threads since it was borne in on me that my reflexes are inappropriate in this particular context.

apologies,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There are very few coherent site-wide policies on anything, in fact - and quoting an AH thread in a discussion about the moderation of such threads in Politics serves to demonstrate that. None of those posts would have been - or will be - acceptable in Politics, whatever the mods may think of the person concerned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

When Brian Lenihan died, books of condolences were open in Government buildings in Dublin and at civic offices outside of Dublin.
When Garret FitzGerald died, there was a similar facility in public buildings, FitzGerald lay in state in the Mansion House where thousands filed past to pay their respects; and when Haughey died there was a similar public facility in state buildings all around the country, and indeed in embassies abroad.

Does anybody here who objects to RIP threads feel they had a duty or a reasonable cause to go and protest at these public events in which, undoubtedly, accomplishments were embellished, contentious remarks written and downright revisionist lies were uttered?

Personally I found the revisionism surrounding Garret GitzGerald to be a little off the wall. At times the embellishments were almost comedic, I was awaiting announcement in Rome of an emergency beatification. But I don't see that I had a place deliberately looking for trouble at designated RIP events - be they online or in state buildings.

Imagine if, at one of these events during the mourning of Garret FitzGerald, I had stood by the condolences books and watched the comments as they were written, making sure to correct anyone who offended my own personal sense of FitzGerald's political and economic past. That, to my mind, would be little different to lurking around an RIP thread waiting for political niceties to be uttered before starting a commotion. Unnecessary and inflammatory are the two words I would use to describe that.

The difference is that this is the internet, and people sometimes behave a lot differently online to how they might behave in the real world. It's a lot easier to object to a Brian Lenihan condolences thread containing political compliments than it is to object to a book of condolences and political compliments at Athlone Civic Offices.

The thing about the politics forum's RIP threads is that they give people the opportunity to express their regret at someone's passing even if the poster might not be able to get to a book of condolences in real life. That's a nice facility, I think. I'm sure that families of the deceased do come across them, as well - maybe months or even years later. I think it would be a real shame if those who object to these RIP threads on political forums got their way on this. I find it unnecessary and hypocritical.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Dear me - did I say something objectionable about libertarianism recently? I suspect I may have done...

/snide

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And it should be equally obvious my points are in response to your contention that:

Simply, if the figure concerned is someone to whom posters and mods are politically sympathetic, the thread will be handled with consideration for the person and his or her family. If not, a blind eye is turned and people can do/say whatever they want.

I'm sure people will be less respectful of Mrs Thatcher than you would like them to be, and I'm sure the mods will not enforce the standard of adulatory misery about her death that you would consider acceptable - something that will reflect the fact that she was widely hated by people whose opinions are as valid as yours.

Does that imply mod prejudice? No. It will reflect the fact that she was widely hated.

Since LoLth has opened the discussion beyond the specifics of the Politics forum, and onto the terrain of site-wide policy, it seems relevant to discuss how RIP threads (or even "on his/her deathbed" threads) are handled in general on the site.

I would assume that the Admins do indeed have an interest in formulating a coherent site-wide policy on this — and rightly so, because any high-profile death, whether it be Michael Jackson, Gerry Ryan, or Brian Lenihan, gives rise to much the same set of issues and concerns.

True enough, and something that would have been of value here. We seem, however, to lack any sort of adequate "formal" mechanism for deciding these things.

As I said earlier, I don't appear to have some necessary set of social reflexes here. When widely hated or highly contentious public figures die, I don't see any real need to act, even temporarily, as if they had never done anything wrong in their lives. That is a degree of respect I have no problem extending to private persons, or to the public person as a private individual, but to someone who is accorded obsequies by the State on their death it seems more than a little ridiculous to act as if they were a little old lady from down the road. Death will not make Michael Lowry anything other than he was - nor did it make Lenihan, nor will it make Thatcher.

More generally, I'd say that the immediate revisionism that accompanies the actual period of mourning sets the tone for a longer, more subtle, but more damaging revisionism that appears to apply to all Irish public figures once they're safely dead. I presume it's part of the same culture that gives us some of the world's most chilling libel laws - and to my mind it has similar value, but I appreciate I'm in a minority.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

As long as people don't say something like "I'm glad he is dead, shame it didnt happen sooner" I think its OK.

Its stupid to suggest that when someone dies only nice things can be said about them. Lenihan totally messed up and the Irish people are suffering because of it. To read revisionist crap about him being some sort of superhero politician is galling. This is about the politics forum, as many have pointed out its unfair to forbid any negative comments about Lenihan and only allow ones which sing his virtues.

As for RIP/condolence threads, politics is not the place for it, nor is AH. Maybe the regional subforum where the person was from, or better yet a condolences forum (I think there is a thread around somewhere on that) where people can be revisionists to their hearts content. Darragh or someone could give a site wide announcement or something when someone famous dies directing people there. Politics is for political debate, hence I feel that the legacy thread is fine, the RIP one not. Having both, or multiple condolences threads all over the site is unnecessary imo.

The Thatcher thread will indeed be fun, I struggle to think of a more loathed woman.

FlutterinBantam

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well said, as I have stated many times before the facilitiy of Boards.ie has been used with impunity to promulgate a certain point of view and in my opinion is an orchestrated movement.

Depending on the dominant point of view, dissenters and serious contributors, are accused of trolling and end up with permabans from the more contentious Fora.

Not complaining, or pointing any fingers personally, but a coterie with a certain point of view undoubtedly hold influence.


Tell me about it.:mad:

Wolfe Tone

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Well said, as I have stated many times before the facilitiy of Boards.ie has been used with impunity to promulgate a certain point of view and in my opinion is an orchestrated movement.

Depending on the dominant point of view, dissenters and serious contributors, are accused of trolling and end up with permabans from the more contentious Fora.

Not complaining, or pointing any fingers personally, but a coterie with a certain point of view undoubtedly hold influence.


Tell me about it.:mad:

lol, Don't be so paranoid flutt.

Scofflaw

I think my point of view here can be summarised as thinking that, barring the usual rules on language/civility, people should be free to say what they want to when a public figure dies. I don't respect people who say "I'm glad they're dead", but if that's what they feel when the person dies, I don't see why I should be called on to prevent them saying it in the first place, or to penalise them for doing so. If their feelings in the matter are so strong that they're willing to break social convention to express them, why am I supposed to back up social convention?

I have no problem penalising those who appear simply to be unable to recognise that there's anything that might cause them to mitigate their opinions, and who simply bark like unruly dogs, but those who do recognise that their behaviour is in breach of the norms but still feel they need to say it...no, I don't see that they should be penalised, and I'm not seeing any arguments here that persuade me to that point of view.

At what other time are the Politics mods expected to implement suppression of particular points of view?

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

I think my point of view here can be summarised as thinking that, barring the usual rules on language/civility, people should be free to say what they want to when a public figure dies. I don't respect people who say "I'm glad they're dead", but if that's what they feel when the person dies, I don't see why I should be called on to prevent them saying it in the first place, or penalising them for doing so. If their feelings in the matter are so strong that they're willing to break social convention to express them, why am I supposed to back up social convention? ...

You're a mod. It goes with the territory. If you don't accept that, then you should not continue as a mod.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You're a mod. It goes with the territory. If you don't accept that, then you should not continue as a mod.

Implementing policy is something I have no issue with - and if a policy emerges from these discussions, I'll implement it, whatever my personal views are. At the moment, there is no policy, and your personal views are not a substitute for policy.

regards,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

Implementing policy is something I have no issue with - and if a policy emerges from these discussions, I'll implement it, whatever my personal views are. At the moment, there is no policy, and your personal views are not a substitute for policy.

We do have sitewide guidelines, the first one that posters should be civil, usually and quasi-officially represented by the "don't be a dick" slogan. In effect, you are telling us that the meaning of that guideline needs to be spelled out in precise terms for every instance of behaviour that might be considered questionable.

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

We do have sitewide guidelines, the first one that posters should be civil, usually and quasi-officially represented by the "don't be a dick" slogan. In effect, you are telling us that the meaning of that guideline needs to be spelled out in precise terms for every instance of behaviour that might be considered questionable.

Where it's open to debate, yes - why would that not be the case?

I appreciate that (as far as I can see) you don't feel there's anything to debate here, but I would say, judging from the debate, that that's not the case. There is a camp of opinion that says that in the case of a public figure, the mods should not enforce a 'positive/neutral comments only' rule. If that was taken as policy, then there's another debate in terms of what constitutes the acceptable limits of negative comment.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wolfe Tone

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its not that hard to comprehend. Do you need to be spoon fed?

Fun, as in a nightmare for various mods like the Gerry Ryan ones. I'm sure scofflaw will have a great time in trying to stem the flow of hate aimed at that loathsome woman when she eventually dies if its decided thats what he should do.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd hope for a pretty watertight policy. The current situation suits nobody.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

When exactly did I piss in your cornflakes?

regards,
Scofflaw

Nodin

I find myself somewhat mystified as to how this is turning into a 'Snipe At Scofflaw' festival.......

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The remark to which thats addressed.....

Scofflaw wrote:

There are very few coherent site-wide policies on anything, in fact - and quoting an AH thread in a discussion about the moderation of such threads in Politics serves to demonstrate that. None of those posts would have been - or will be - acceptable in Politics, whatever the mods may think of the person concerned.

The above is a statement of fact, delivered in a matter of fact manner. I would suggest you interpreted it through some malign filter that caused you to mistake its tone and content.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

I find myself somewhat mystified as to how this is turning into a 'Snipe At Scofflaw' festival.......

It shouldn't be, and getting into that issue is side-tracking.

Let's get back to the facts:
1. At 10.35 on the day Lenihan died, T_Runner opened a thread entitled "Brian Lenihan RIP". I think people generally accept that this was opened as a condolence thread.
2. At 10.46 Paddysnapper posted

Very sad news....He will be a great loss to the nation. And his family.

3. At 10.51 Cookie_Monster responded to Paddysnapper's post with

oh, come on...
he (among others) presided over the biggest scandal in Irish history, handing billions of banking debt over to the public and lied constantly to the same public about what was going on.

I for one am not sorry to see the back of him.

Ye may feel that's harsh but he imposed hardship and suffering on tens of thousands of Irish people due to his financial decisions as minister and did it all without regret and with a smile on his face.

[I have bolded the passages that might be considered most contentious.]

It is my opinion that Paddysnapper said something ill-judged, but not outrageously so: we have a custom in Ireland of saying something nice about the recently-deceased, at least in the interval between death and burial. A mod edit might have been justifiable.

It is my view that Cookie_Monster's response was grossly disproportionate, and quite out of place in a condolences thread.

The moderators take a different view of Cookie_Monster's behaviour. It is the tolerance for such intentional nastiness that bothers me.

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It shouldn't be, and getting into that issue is side-tracking..

...something the perpetrators will hopefully note.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is my view that Cookie_Monster's response was grossly disproportionate, and quite out of place in a condolences thread.

The moderators take a different view of Cookie_Monster's behaviour. It is the tolerance for such intentional nastiness that bothers me.

Some would take the view that the statement He will be a great loss to the nation. would be a provocation which inevitably invites a response such as CM's. Hence the call to either stop RIP threads, or greatly limit whats said in them. I'd take the latter view.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

...
Some would take the view that the statement He will be a great loss to the nation. would be a provocation which inevitably invites a response such as CM's.

I recognise that, even though I would see it as according with the Irish custom of finding something nice to say about the recently-deceased. It's because I understand that people are easily provoked (and some people seem to seek to be provoked) that I suggested that a mod edit might have been appropriate.

Hence the call to either stop RIP threads, or greatly limit whats said in them. I'd take the latter view.

So would I.

I'd also prefer it if people refrained from discussing a contentious political legacy for a short interval, the period between death and burial. It might be seen as combining some consideration for the feelings of the deceased's family with taking enough time to form a considered view.