Celebrity Condolence Threads in AH?

WindSock

When a celeb dies, there is usually a thread in the celeb forum for said celeb in a mannerly fashion. Humour or Lolo gets the making jokes threads of said celebs. Why can't AH have a bit of both? Is it possible to have both on the same thread, living in perfect harmony?

Kiera

Not really. You get a lot of idiots bringing the nasty/sick lolo jokes on thread. I dont give a crap about most celebrities but if it was someone i liked i wouldn’t want to see that.

dr.bollocko

It's not a condolence thread. Its a discussion thread minus the jokes.
The jokes about dead celebrities are an unnecessary addition IMO. Pisses people off. Comes across as tasteless. Attracts trolls.

peanuthead

I totally get that, and for that reason I can totally understand the banning of jokes, but would it be worth considering banning the threads in AH. I mean, if they can't be discussed in a manner that is approprate to AH, they shouldn't really be there, right?

I for one would never post something I wanted to be taken seriously in AH

dr.bollocko

Some get moved to Celeb and showbiz or the relevant forum and some have a home in AH. It's on a case by case basis and it's been a long time since death jokes have been allowed. I'm kinda wondering why anyone would bother trying to come up with death jokes for Brittany Murphy at all and why the banning of them is such a horrible thing to happen.

TheZohanS

peanuthead wrote: »

I totally get that, and for that reason I can totally understand the banning of jokes, but would it be worth considering banning the threads in AH. I mean, if they can't be discussed in a manner that is approprate to AH, they shouldn't really be there, right?

I for one would never post something I wanted to be taken seriously in AH

There are serious threads in AH too.
We could ban these celeb threads in AH but given that it's an actual death people want to talk about it. As soon as we delete one thread about a death another one would appear.

Additionaly we have taken into account the Feedback regarding the Football thread with Henry and under certain circumstances will allow Celeb threads or threads that are not your typical AH if they are very topical and splashed all over the media.

What we won't allow is people taking the piss out of people that have only just passed away, it's too much, too soon and will upset a lot of posters.

peanuthead

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Some get moved to Celeb and showbiz or the relevant forum and some have a home in AH. It's on a case by case basis and it's been a long time since death jokes have been allowed. I'm kinda wondering why anyone would bother trying to come up with death jokes for Brittany Murphy at all and why the banning of them is such a horrible thing to happen.

No its not a horrible thing to happen, I think it's highly offensive and I hate to see it, but I sometimes do feel like putting these threads in AH is waving a red flag at a bull. Anyway, it doesnt hugely concern me anyway because I tend not to read them.

seanybiker

Who is Lolo? Dont remember seeing that as a username.

dr.bollocko

I think you have a different opinion of AH to myself peanut. Some folks reckon scary horrible place full of idiots. Others actually enjoy it.
I don't think it's a red rag to a bull situation. Even if it is, so what? That's why moderators are there. If it deserves a place in AH then we can give it rules and ban those who don't abide by them. People want to talk about it. We don't do blanket bans too well. I hate censorship when its unnecessary. So I don't see a situation where we can say no more celebrity death discussion on AH. It's just a bad idea to have a blanket rule than any moderator can point to as a reason to lock threads and direct posters elsewhere.

Captain Darling

seanybiker wrote: »

Who is Lolo? Dont remember seeing that as a username.

Ahh fond mamaries.....

AckwelFoley

Its a touchy subject, the old dead celeb. Depends on who dies really i suppose.

Stephen Gatley would be a no no for jokes, although there are many, hes oirish, and has relatives living in the free state, so not to cause offence. and hurt to them, i think it would be tasteless to post jokes.

Brittney Murphy gets toa...eh, im going to stop, but my point being, if you are offended by some "joke" about a dead celeb that you dont know and spent the largest portion of their life 6000 miles away from you, you have little to be offended about, what exactly offends you? Were you bullied at school? If you find them tasteless, you are probably correct, but i find alot of the comments made about politicians tasteless, nonsence, and downright stupid, do i take offence to them on behalf of my fellow member of mankind?

I can only wait with baited breath the passing of Gary Glitter, and see how the "condolence" thread in AH pans out.

It will be a busy night for the mods

stovelid

Make a deal so.

Tell people to stop planting mawkish, plus +1 shout out for the love of the bereaved children threads about Z list celebrities in somewhere like AH, and there won't be any jokes and subsequent offence.

Why not put those threads in a celebrity forum, or better still, a separate forum?

Red Sleeping Beauty

My experience with seeing these sort of threads on this site and other websites is that they do turn into a book thread of condolences. Most posts end up being just saying rip. "Rip" isn't very conductive to discussion in my opinion. Many people will also get offended - how someone gets offended about someone they don't know as Snyper pointed out I can't understand - if the discussion veers off track from the "rip" posts to any sort of language that isn't praising the person.

I remember a thread a few months ago about a young girl who died in the USA and someone from Disney sent her a DVD. Anytime someone tried to point out the lunacy and hypocrisy of the situation was branded a troll for a want of a better phrase. I don't know what forum can host the mature rational discussion of a "celeb" death (or similar) without people reporting posts they don't like.

Rev. BlueJeans

People that die may or may not be cnunts (subjective).

The mods have to deal with the fallout from those who think they are not as a result of those who think they are.

Dudess

Post after post of "RIP" is just embarrassing.

Rev. BlueJeans

Not necessarily.

I assume (yea-ass, you, me ), and gather that you mean "celebs" rather than people who really matter(ed) to the community here, in the past. There but for the grace of God and all that.

Latchy

Dudess wrote: »

Post after post of "RIP" is just embarrassing.

Agreed and I have sometimes done it myself but expressing grief with an RIP doesn't convey any real emotion .If it's for somebody you felt deeply about or a knew personally it still just looks like any other 'RIP'

Dudess

Oh don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to be all hard-ass here. Some people are genuinely moved by the death of a public figure (although there can be going overboard) and there's nothing wrong with them posting "RIP" but once there's a bit of discussion interspersed with it and once the "RIP" posters don't get too self-righteous, it's more of "value" as a thread rather than just reams of "RIPs" (IMO anyway).

Latchy

Of course ,if somebody adds some story relating to the deceased such as for example , a memory of song or scene in a movie which bring back memories of a time in their life then it has more meaning .And also didn't mean to imply that putting RIP in condolences to somebody you knew didn't have any value , obioulsly you''ll feel real emotion knowing the person.

It's just on it's own, RIP just looks bare .

dr.bollocko

We can discuss it how we want but there should never be firm rules banning topics like these IMO. How we've dealt with them has changed. I've always said "Discussion - not jokes." Of course of late that has meant a lot of RIP posts in these threads and not a lot of discussion lest people be perceived as insensitive for discussing the issues surrounding the untimely death of a young actress (actor?).

davyjose

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

My question is how exactly is the line been drawn between what's acceptable or not? Gary Coleman's death is not upsetting to anyone on this website, not even remotely. Certainly no more than threads about sexual assault, or God forbid, stories of actual non-celebrities being killed.

It smacks a little bit of nannyism too, tbh. We're not fcuking babies, we can choose to ignore that which offends us, rather than sweep it under the carpet, surely?

WindSock

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.

El Weirdo

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.

"Well-respected" can be pretty subjective though...

Dudess

WindSock wrote: »

Imo, dead Irish and/or well respected celebs should be left alone. Anyone else should be left to it.

But why that distinction WindSock?

WindSock

Well respected as in achieved a lot, I suppose. Plus popular and well loved. ie - Sir David Attenborough vs Maggie Thatcher. Pretty obvious which one there will get more heartfelt RIPs when they join the choir invisible.

The distinction is fairly obvious I'dve thought. I mean, you are going to get a lot of people who personally knew the Irish celeb using the site.

Earthhorse

WindSock wrote: »

Well respected as in achieved a lot, I suppose. Plus popular and well loved. ie - Sir David Attenborough vs Maggie Thatcher. Pretty obvious which one there will get more heartfelt RIPs when they join the choir invisible.

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

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

davyjose

Earthhorse wrote: »

Maybe if people don't understand the rules of AH they should just stop posting there.

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.

cherryghost

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.

I agree. The line has been, and always will be so it seems, blurry. It should be made clearcut what can be said and why.

Rabies

davyjose wrote: »

It smacks a little bit of nannyism too, tbh. We're not fcuking babies, we can choose to ignore that which offends us, rather than sweep it under the carpet, surely?

In AH, most are.

KittyeeTrix

I dunno but for me it's quite simple...... you shouldn't make jokes about dead people directly after they die. Personally I think it's just wrong and in bad taste no matter who the person is!
I realise that there are certain celebs and people where there are opportunities to make jokes about and I wonder if boards admin or whoever could impose a time limit whereby these jokes could then be made??
I suppose what I'm saying is that I'm not a killjoy if you will,l but think there should be some type of level of respect shown to the recently deceased no matter who they are!

OutlawPete

Earthhorse wrote: »

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

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

Well said.

davyjose wrote: »

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.

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.

cherryghost wrote: »

I agree. The line has been, and always will be so it seems, blurry. It should be made clearcut what can be said and why.

Just in the past seven or eight months there have been Mod warnings on the Stephen Gately thread, the Corey Haim thread, the Gerry Ryan thread in AH, that usually ask for users to show some respect and not make jokes.

That is pretty clear to me.

After a week or so, nobody will care if you makes jokes or not.

There have been dozens of Stephen Gately jokes on After Hours for instance, since his death. Here's a whole thread full of them.

When a poster makes a "joke" in a thread full of RIPs, their post really stands out and gets a lot of notice.

For some posters I guess, the temptation of all that attention is just too much to pass up.

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'