Ban RIP threads in Politics

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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..

I'd have to say that that ship has sailed/sunk at this stage, and going over it is rather pointless.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

.....I don't think it best to mix debating the legacy with the whole RIP thing at all, to be honest.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

I'd have to say that that ship has sailed/sunk at this stage, and going over it is rather pointless.

This is Feedback, not the Politics forum. In my opinion, what happened in the Politics forum after Brian Lenihan's death was appalling, and the purpose of discussing it here is to examine what went wrong so that the chance of similar things happening in future be reduced.

Life being what it is, you can expect some posters to get things wrong. That is why we have moderators. I believe that in this case they failed.

.....I don't think it best to mix debating the legacy with the whole RIP thing at all, to be honest.

Nor do I. My idea is that in the interval between death and burial, allow only the expression of condolences or similar posts; after the burial, if people wish to discuss a person's political legacy, then let it happen, subject to the "don't be a dick" guideline.

Wolfe Tone

I think it went well enough with the two separate threads.

Sand

@Lloth

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

I agree. I am wholly focused on RIP threads for public, political ( and thus almost always controversial) figures on the Politics forum. Expecting to be able to propose political views without contradiction in a Politics forum which exists only for people to argue over political policies and figures is like expecting to be able to leave a lamb in the care of wolves. In a perfect world, it should all turn out fine. But in practise...

Its not to say that RIP threads should not be allowed, but I dont think the Politics forum is the right place to propose a lot of controversial political opinions and then get offended when someone disagrees. Its not for nothing that the Brian Lenihan Legacy thread dwarfs his RIP thread on Politics. Its the Politics forum afterall, and people want to discuss his legacy. Much of which is negative despite the hype.

I have no time for crude, bitter attacks on a politician. More because it degrades the contributor. So people who post stuff like "Im glad hes dead and I hope he burns in hell" degrade themselves.

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?

Well, this is the thing:

A - The RIP thread is for making postive political judgements, but not for discussing or defending them. That would imply RIP threads are not for Politics.

or

B - RIP threads can be posted in Politics, but *everyone* should restrain themselves from making political judgements - positive or negative.

The key thing that we cannot agree on is the attempt to create a "Fact Free Zone" on Politics, where people can post total nonsense about a political figure for no other reason than they died recently. I agree its reasonably to expect people not to provocatively post negative judgements on the career of the deceased, but equally its reasonable to expect people not to provactively post positive judgements on the career of the deceased.

I have no regard for Brian Lenihan as a public or political figure, but I can honestly say I extend my sympathies to his family who have lost a father and a husband. I am puzzled by why people seem incapable of seperating the man from the politician.

Would these RIP threads be open to disagreement or posting the truth about what a user felt toward another user?

I honestly dont know - it would depend on the forum charter I guess. Id expect a specific RIP forum would have rules whereby "Dont upset the family" would be the prime directive.

@P.Breathnach

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.

I dont particularly like those posts - and I think the posters who put them in place will on reflection regret them - but the forum cant be moderated on what you yourself consider to be offensive.

Afterall, I believe you were originally complaining about a post where someone noted they were "glad to see the back of him [Lenihan]" which I presume you would consider the sort of post that would deserve a ban. But then how do you moderate the sort of posts that Permabear noted, where people were truly celebrating - indeed anticipating - the death of a political figure?

And how do you moderate comments on truly repulsive political figures? Would you equally demand that no one say anything offensive or bad should Gaddaffi die?

Other than that, Id agree with Scofflaws views on the enforcement of supposed social values vs. site policies. People inside the deeply insular world of Irish political life may believe certain figures, such as Lenihan, will be deeply missed - but the the reality is the hyperbole (all that was missing was the myth of the Once and Future King) of that greeted his passing is already being mocked.

@Later10

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.

Well, as noted, nobody is ringing up the Lenihan family to give them what for so what theyd do online vs. real world isnt an issue. And the Politics Forum isnt the Athlone Civic Offices. And it isnt the Book of Condolences forum. Its the Politics Forum. Which exists only to host political discussion, much as the Book of Condolence for Brian Lenihan in Athlone Civic Offices exists only to record condolences to the Lenihan family.

And people arent even objecting to condolences being offered. Whats being objected to is the attempt to pronounce postive political judgements whilst being offended by negative political judgements.

Scofflaw

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

Essentially, yes. "He will be a great loss to the nation" is not a comment on the deceased's personal life or attributes - it's an overtly political comment, which does indeed invite the sort of response it generated. It's not the same as "he'll be a great loss to his family".

My view is that I cannot fairly either censure or censor one without censuring or censoring the other. Both are politically motivated comments, and that some people find one but not the other offensive is not a sufficient criterion for me to distinguish between them. Either both are acceptable, or neither.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

I'd prefer that also however people just don't do that. There are plenty who don't prefer that though. A compromise that we give is a RIP thread and a legacy thread, one protected, one not. If you don't want to read negative things about a dead person you can avoid the legacy thread since it will be filled with bile and sniping.

It isn't reasonable for us to ban all non-positive discussion about a controversial figure though. It isn't right for us to do it either since the forum serves as a place to discuss politics in all its varieties, not as a place to cater to just one side of the debate.

nesf

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

It's only provocative for those incapable of appreciating the view of the opposite side. If we start limiting RIP threads we'll have to start limiting any posts that go against the mainstream view of the forum which would be the kind of pandering to the majority that we should detest as a politics forum.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

It's only provocative for those incapable of appreciating the view of the opposite side. If we start limiting RIP threads we'll have to start limiting any posts that go against the mainstream view of the forum which would be the kind of pandering to the majority that we should detest as a politics forum.

...yet somebody then felt that the opposite side to that was sufficient to notify the poster (CM) and remove their comment from the thread...as the Scofflaw fella said, it has to be both or neither. Otherwise they'll be used as a platform.

Nodin

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is Feedback, not the Politics forum. In my opinion, what happened in the Politics forum after Brian Lenihan's death was appalling, and the purpose of discussing it here is to examine what went wrong so that the chance of similar things happening in future be reduced.

Life being what it is, you can expect some posters to get things wrong. That is why we have moderators. I believe that in this case they failed.
.

A decision did not go the way you wanted it to. These things happen. This however, isn't the thread dedicated for you to hash it out with whoever over it but on the subject of these kinds of threads in general.

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

...yet somebody then felt that the opposite side to that was sufficient to notify the poster (CM) and remove their comment from the thread...as the Scofflaw fella said, it has to be both or neither. Otherwise they'll be used as a platform.

CM was given a platform for his views. In the interest of keeping the peace we split the discussion into two separate threads as we've done before. CM wasn't silenced so I don't see a problem.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

CM was given a platform for his views. In the interest of keeping the peace we split the discussion into two separate threads as we've done before. CM wasn't silenced so I don't see a problem.

....you are essentially allowing a thread to be created where various statements can be made but not refuted directly.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

....you are essentially allowing a thread to be created where various statements can be made but not refuted directly.

Debating posts were moved over I believe.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

Debating posts were moved over I believe.

...but were all posts of the like of "loss for the nation"?

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

....you are essentially allowing a thread to be created where various statements can be made but not refuted directly.

Pretty much. People got to have their say in the other thread so I don't feel sorry for them. It's imperfect sure, but I don't have a better idea on how to give both sides their say on this while keeping things respectful for the family.

Sir Oxman

nesf wrote: »

Pretty much. People got to have their say in the other thread so I don't feel sorry for them. It's imperfect sure, but I don't have a better idea on how to give both sides their say on this while keeping things respectful for the family.

I don't think it is too complicated - if there are to be RIP threads in Politics then enforcing a strict RIP/condolences towards the family and personal non-political comments such as 'he bore his illness with dignity' shouldn't be too much trouble.

The legacy threads are open to both positive and negative comments (within the charter)

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

...but were all posts of the like of "loss for the nation"?

Well go to the legacy thread, some posts aren't worth arguing or debating, especially 10/15 minutes into an RIP thread.

Social intelligence is a rare commodity though.

nesf

gambiaman wrote: »

I don't think it is too complicated - if there are to be RIP threads in Politics then enforcing a strict RIP/condolences towards the family and personal non-political comments such as 'he bore his illness with dignity' shouldn't be too much trouble.

The legacy threads are open to both positive and negative comments (within the charter)

The problem with that is that it is traditional to offer positive comment along with your condolences.

Sir Oxman

nesf wrote: »

The problem with that is that it is traditional to offer positive comment along with your condolences.

"He was a nice man"
"She was a nice woman"

I'm Irish and I don't think posting a positive comment should equal a lie and/or hyperbole in offering condolences and I'd even go further and say I wouldn't offer plamás unless I actually knew the person who had died.
I'd keep it to RIP.

Scofflaw

So, we're saying:

This is a condolences/respects thread. You may offer your respects here, but you may not post political comments either positive or negative on this thread. If you wish to say that the deceased was "a great loss to the nation" as opposed to their family and friends/colleagues, and genuinely mean that, please reserve it for the 'legacy' thread, which is for political discussion of the legacy of the deceased, because there are likely to be people who disagree with you.

And:

This is a thread for discussion of the legacy of the deceased. Political discussion within the normal rules applies here. If you simply wish to pay your respects to the deceased, and are likely to be offended by people contradicting your well-meant respects, please use the 'Deceased RIP' thread. If you wish to uphold the legacy of the deceased, or claim that he/she is a great loss to the nation as opposed to their family and friends/colleagues, please do so here, because political comments are not welcome on the 'Deceased RIP' thread.

My feeling is that if we have prohibited political statements completely in the RIP thread - which is about their death - they obviously cannot be made there, since such statements will be, in the nature of things, a political judgement (except in the unlikely instance of a poster who had a personal relationship with the deceased, and wishes to express entirely personal hatred). They also become inappropriate in the context of the legacy thread, since in that context they really aren't any more than celebrating someone's death.

I'm still uncertain on C_M's comment. As a political comment, I feel it's OK, but not in a condolences situation. On the legacy thread, you could easily argue that it's still celebrating the death, because even though what you're explicitly celebrating is their removal from political life (which is what I feel C_M's comment was aimed at), the event that removed them was their actual death, and in the context it's easy to take the one as meaning the other. I would prefer an explicit "but obviously would have preferred him/her just to lose his/her seat".

The claim that the deceased "deserved to die" or the like I think we can all agree lies entirely outside the pale.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

gambiaman wrote: »

"He was a nice man"
"She was a nice woman"

I'm Irish and I don't think posting a positive comment should equal a lie and/or hyperbole in offering condolences and I'd even go further and say I wouldn't offer plamás unless I actually knew the person who had died.
I'd keep it to RIP.

Or "he's a loss to our political system." Which is enough to raise the backs of many yet it is a fairly harmless platitude really and just being nice about him being a politician.

Honestly I think people just need to get over politicians getting plaudits when they die. It's human nature again to laud someone who's just died. I don't see why we need to pander to some petty desire to being able to challenge everything we disagree with.

LoLth

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.

regards,
Scofflaw

This post somewhat suprised me as I honestly thought that it would/should be covered by the generic "dont be a dick" policy but you're right, there has never been an official policy stance on the treatment of RIP/Condolence threads.

To that end, I've had a quick word with the other admins and we've pretty much reached a concensus:

RIP / Condolence threads are just that, threads to offer condolences to the deceased's family or offer up a kind word about the deceased. Negative comments have no place there. If you have something negative to say do it elsewhere. This shouldnt require any other rule more formal than "dont be a dick" but just for clarity, posting a negative comment in a RIP/Condolence thread that is, by its nature, highly sensitive and most likely to have crystallised opinions is, for all intents and purposes deliberately trolling to get a rise out of the posters that want to read and avail of the opportunity to post in the spirit in which the thread was intended. So, officially, troll a RIP/Condolence thread and you will be dealt with under boards.ie's rules for trolling and possibly abusive posting. Mods will still be expected to make a judgement call on what is a negative post and may take offense to a sarcastic post so when posting on a condolence thread please be sure to be as clear in your intentions as possible. This applies to ALL forums that allow the posting of RIP/Condolence threads

Whether RIP/Condolence threads are allowed or not is up to the moderators to discuss and decide for their individual forum and, if not allowed, this should be reflected in the charter of the forum so the users can know before they post.

Scofflaw

LoLth wrote: »

This post somewhat suprised me as I honestly thought that it would/should be covered by the generic "dont be a dick" policy but you're right, there has never been an official policy stance on the treatment of RIP/Condolence threads.

To that end, I've had a quick word with the other admins and we've pretty much reached a concensus:

RIP / Condolence threads are just that, threads to offer condolences to the deceased's family or offer up a kind word about the deceased. Negative comments have no place there. If you have something negative to say do it elsewhere. This shouldnt require any other rule more formal than "dont be a dick" but just for clarity, posting a negative comment in a RIP/Condolence thread that is, by its nature, highly sensitive and most likely to have crystallised opinions is, for all intents and purposes deliberately trolling to get a rise out of the posters that want to read and avail of the opportunity to post in the spirit in which the thread was intended. So, officially, troll a RIP/Condolence thread and you will be dealt with under boards.ie's rules for trolling and possibly abusive posting. Mods will still be expected to make a judgement call on what is a negative post and may take offense to a sarcastic post so when posting on a condolence thread please be sure to be as clear in your intentions as possible. This applies to ALL forums that allow the posting of RIP/Condolence threads

Whether RIP/Condolence threads are allowed or not is up to the moderators to discuss and decide for their individual forum and, if not allowed, this should be reflected in the charter of the forum so the users can know before they post.

Thanks, LoLth, but it doesn't actually address the issues involved here. Our specific problem is that the "say something positive/say nothing negative" rule allows people to make political claims under cover of condolences, which cannot then be challenged. While that's sometimes no more than goodwill, it's also in some cases a form of trolling in itself - "ha, ha, this will annoy them and they can't say anything".

cordially,
Scofflaw

LoLth

Scofflaw wrote: »

Thanks, LoLth, but it doesn't actually address the issues involved here.

true, but I usually feel its better to address the general before tackling the specifics. it at least gives a framework to go on or a place to start.

Our specific problem is that the "say something positive/say nothing negative" rule allows people to make political claims under cover of condolences, which cannot then be challenged. While that's sometimes no more than goodwill, it's also in some cases a form of trolling in itself - "ha, ha, this will annoy them and they can't say anything".

cordially,
Scofflaw

from the general we have a "dont post negative things in a RIP /condolence thread". That seems pretty straightforward.

Slightly more specific:

"be clear on what you post as sarcasm or using the RIP thread to troll will be treated as a negative comment which will in turn be treated as trolling"

Now, given that the spirit of the thread has been made clear and the intention of the thread has been protected anyone trolling/ posting to cause grief / hijacking a condolence thread and taking it as an opportunity for oneupmanship/point scoring deserves a serious kicking.

I think we can all agree on that.

How do the mods tell if a poster is doing this and not just posting what they honestly believe to be true? Thats why we pay you guys.... hang on 1 sec.. oh, right.. ahem.. thats why you <insert mod name> are my favourite mod and why you will sit at my right hand once I have overthrown Dev and his coterie of evil admins...:)

seriously though, if we can agree on a basis then the rest becomes mod opinion. I cant tell a mod of politics that user X is being sarcastic or trolling in a condolence thread because I dont have experience of user X's posting history. I can look into it once its brought to my attention but I would not be able to spot it by myself. Its been said more than once, the admins rely on the mods because the mods know the individual forums better than we do (in the majority of cases) and they also know the history of users in that forum better than we do.

Its going to have to be a judgement call. On the one hand, there's always going to be complaints from those that dont like the deceased and there's going to be claims of trolling from those that jsut want a user banned for some unrelated issue. While I, as a mod, would certainly pay attention to a report I would not take it as required that they be acted upon if the mod deems it unnecessary. Again, thats where local mod knowledge comes into it.

We select mods because we do trust their judgement. The DRP has so far shown that trust to be well placed (yes there are exceptions but by and large the mod invovled has realised a genuine mistake or crossed wire and the issue has been resolved). No one is saying that a comment posted cannot be challenged. Of course it can, through the proper channel, ie: report it to a mod who will assess the comment based on all the facts available to him or her and react appropriately. If its not deleted or the user warned etc, then the mod disagreed with the report and that should be the end of it. As long as the mod was acting impartially (and 99.9% of the time they do) then thats it, appeal made, appeal rejected.

If the user *really* objects and feels compelled to post their objection, then the should be allowed to do so as long as it obeys the rules of the forum and as long as they post it in an appropriate place : ie NOT in the condolence /RIP thread itself.

The current politics setup of RIP/Condolence thread & Legacy Discussion thread is actually a great idea imho. It should work. having said that, there do have to be limits on what can be posted. The post about wanting BL to suffer for longer says a lot more about the poster to me than it does about BL and i really have to question the level of decency of the poster. To me, thats a pretty nasty thing to post about almost anyone and was completely over the top in relation to BL. Honest opinion or not, it should not be posted in a public forum. However, thats *my* opinion. if that is an acceptable level of discussion for a legacy thread, then thats something to be decided by the mods and it should be communicated to the users to avoid complaints or feelings of lax modding standards.

Once informed it is then up to the user to own what they post and accept responsibility for their own actions and words. If a user then breaks a rule, then they accept the consequences.

As already pointed out by Sands, the idea of a RIP/Condolence thread does appear to run contrary to the Politics forum charter. I would urge the mods to discuss this amongst themselves and decide if RIP threads should be allowed and if so, note in their charter that those threads are exempt from the forum charter and are isntead bound by the boards.ie policy or by any other subset of policies that the mdos see as more workable for the spirit of their particular forum.

just had a thought, can I take it that we dont need a policy to state that an "RIP freedom of speech" thread is not an actual RIP/Condolence thread and as such would not be governed by the sitewide policy for condolence threads?

aaaand another thought: "RIP fluffy the hamster" threads dont count either especially if you are going to try to claim that your hamster hated public servants after reading the linked survey showing how many sick days they took in the last three years and what hteir rate of pay is etc etc etc....

tl;dr Its going to have to be up to each mod team to discuss and decide whats best for their forum. there is another thread dealing with the potential opening of the book of condolences forum, perhaps that would be a preferred option.

wow, i really have to apologise for the length of these posts but I never realised how difficult it is to properly explain something that I honestly believed to be a basic issue quite easily divided into black and white, not ok and acceptable. To me, this is almost like trying to explain the colour purple to a person blind since birth or the concept of "left" to an alien with no visual or tactile references.

Scofflaw

wow, i really have to apologise for the length of these posts but I never realised how difficult it is to properly explain something that I honestly believed to be a basic issue quite easily divided into black and white, not ok and acceptable. To me, this is almost like trying to explain the colour purple to a person blind since birth or the concept of "left" to an alien with no visual or tactile references.

Heh - I feel for you. You're trying to explain an established social norm that may not have any justification for being an established social norm other than being an established social norm. The reason I'm not taking it for granted here is because I'm an alien with no visual or tactile references...who also thinks the Politics forum shouldn't unthinkingly enforce social conventions. After all, sexism is often socially conventional - should we enforce that too?

It's true that we could simply say "look, social convention dictates that as part of the eulogies for a dead person, people who thought a lot of their politics get to say so without contradiction for once...and people who didn't think a lot of their policies get to shut up and say nothing" - but, put like that, doesn't it seem just a wee bit dubious?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's true that we could simply say "look, social convention dictates that as part of the eulogies for a dead person, people who thought a lot of their politics get to say so without contradiction for once...and people who didn't think a lot of their policies get to shut up and say nothing" - but, put like that, doesn't it seem just a wee bit dubious?

I actually think that's reasonable. Then I was raised to have a deep respect for customs around death.

LoLth

I dont think anyone is suggesting that those who disagree are told to shut up and say nothing. (even though that is the social norm).

I think its more like saying "you can have your say but you have to take your environment into consideration. Here is not appropriate but we have a place setup over here that would welcome your opinion - within the rules of the forum"

Scofflaw

LoLth wrote: »

I dont think anyone is suggesting that those who disagree are told to shut up and say nothing. (even though that is the social norm).

I think its more like saying "you can have your say but you have to take your environment into consideration. Here is not appropriate but we have a place setup over here that would welcome your opinion - within the rules of the forum"

In respect of the condolences thread, though, that's just telling them to shut up politely.

nesf wrote:

I actually think that's reasonable. Then I was raised to have a deep respect for customs around death.

Ah well, there's obviously an internal Politics mod debate to be held here. I expect to be heavily outvoted...

cordially,
Scofflaw

FlutterinBantam

nesf wrote: »

I actually think that's reasonable. Then I was raised to have a deep respect for customs around death.

Hmmmm....... unfortunately there are those who use the death, or impending death of a person as a

springboard to spread their particular brand of bilious and sour outlook across

these pages.

Don't expect any respect from these denizens .

That's the problem, I'm afraid, different standards.

stovelid

So highly regulated and pious respect is required for great public figures that die: great artists, politicians, statesman.......and Jackass actors that crash their sports car at such a speed as to reduce it to a pile of charred matchsticks.

LoLth

stovelid wrote: »

So highly regulated and pious respect is required for great public figures that die: great artists, politicians, statesman.......and Jackass actors that crash their sports car at such a speed as to reduce it to a pile of charred matchsticks.

If they're dead and its a RIP/Condolence thread then absolutely yes. If you cant be respectful then you have the option of not posting, unless there's some axe wielding (tin foil or otherwise) maniac threatening to hurt you if you dont post - if there is, send us a sign and we'll arrange for the gardai to drop round and save you.

if its a discussion on the deceased's work/legacy/life outside of a condolence thread then feel free to post your opinion as long as its not a bile filled unjustified rant you should be fine. Again, if you cant manage that you have the option of not posting.