Well done AH mods.

Conor

jtsuited wrote: »

not whining. just not lettin you guys off the hook on something I believe you're clearly wrong on. But let me be more constructive.

When Jade Goody died, I posted an almost identical post in the relevant thread as I did today regarding Ryan.

Didn't get deleted, got a good bit of thanks and nobody said boo.

So what's the difference between her and Ryan?

The fact that it's more local is a very very very weak argument imo. So therefore I'm asking WHY these rules aren't consistent. In case there's something I'm missing other than 'he's Irish'.

By the time you showed up there was a warning in the thread for almost 7 hours telling everyone to keep it "civil and respectful". You can't say you weren't warned.

A rule particular to that thread was obviously there and you ignored it.

OutlawPete

jtsuited wrote: »

When Jade Goody died, I posted an almost identical post in the relevant thread as I did today regarding Ryan.

Just because the Mods left your post in that Jade Goody thread does not mean what you said was appropriate or right.

You called her "pig ignorant" and a "racist" the morning she died.

That says more about you than it does about her.

jtsuited wrote: »

Didn't get deleted, got a good bit of thanks and nobody said boo.

I wouldn't use 'thanks' as a barometer of what is and isn't appropriate if I were you.

Some of the most idiotic posts on that thread today got a heap of 'thanks'.

Dudess

brummytom wrote: »

There's no 'points' to 'debate', just two opposing opinions: Those who have respect for the dead; and those who think that someone shouldn't be respected just because they were a public figure.


The latter should be ashamed of themselves

I don't go in for grave-dancing either but do you just want a ream of "RIP" and condolences?

TheZohanS

I'm actually really sorry I started this thread now. I would have thought/hoped that users would realise what sort of effort the moderators had to put in today to keep the thread civil.

Imagine if it was your dad that had passed away, how would you feel? The mods here have looked at the bigger picture and acted accordingly. They're volunteers and have worked really hard here.

jtsuited

OutlawPete wrote: »

Just because the Mods left your post in that Jade Goody thread does not mean what you said was appropriate or right.

You called her "pig ignorant" and a "racist" the morning she died.

That says more about you than it does about her.

sorry i was talking about Jade Goody the pig ignorant racist. Think we're talking about different people here Pete.

jtsuited

OutlawPete wrote: »

Just because the Mods left your post in that Jade Goody thread does not mean what you said was appropriate or right.

You called her "pig ignorant" and a "racist" the morning she died.

That says more about you than it does about her.



I wouldn't use 'thanks' as a barometer of what is and isn't appropriate if I were you.

Some of the most idiotic posts on that thread today got a heap of 'thanks'.

of course it's not. my point was that it wasn't an isolated opinion that deliberately set out to flame or troll.

pookie82

Dudess wrote: »

I don't go in for grave-dancing either but do you just want a ream of "RIP" and condolences?

Yes but obviously we're supposed to GUESS that from the nature of the first few posts and ignore the ambiguous thread title, which suggests an open discussion on the news.

brummytom

Dudess wrote: »

I don't go in for grave-dancing either but do you just want a ream of "RIP" and condolences?

Well no, I think it should be a condolence/discussion thread... but there's discussion and then there's just insults.

One can have respect for the dead but still discuss their opinion on him, maturely (e.g. "I wasn't a fan of his show"); which I would think was fine, but then there's people who prefer to say 'he was a fat cunt.'

I'm not quite sure if I'm making myself clear, I'm tired. I just think people should conduct themselves with a touch of decorum; they don't have to pretend they like him but resorting to hurling insults at someone who's no longer around to defend himself is just pathetic.

Mr Alan

jtsuited wrote: »

lol. really?

Wat i meant was that after he died, for no apparent reason you seem to want to slate him. Maybe its cause you like to go against the tide for delicate matters like this in an effort to be controversial and interesting, whatever it is, its dick headish behaviour, i can't see wat you're complaining about.

OutlawPete

jtsuited wrote: »

sorry i was talking about Jade Goody the pig ignorant racist. Think we're talking about different people here Pete.

I think you're missing the point.

The moderators (and most people actually) would prefer if you didn't insult the dead on the day they die.

It tends to cause arguments on a thread when there are people at the same time trying to express their condolences.

Could you not hold off till the man is buried at least before tearing him apart.

jtsuited

just to clarify something. Mine wasn't some 'what a stupid cnut' type post. I genuinely hold the view (as do MANY others), that he really was an embodiment of the ills of modern irish society.
Overpaid, undertalented, celebrity-worshipping halfwit who used crass shock 'broadcasting' to justify his ridiculous salary. If you don't think there's at least an ounce of truth in that, well then frankly there's no point in even trying to discuss it further with you.

Overheal

jtsuited wrote: »

just to clarify something. Mine wasn't some 'what a stupid cnut' type post. I genuinely hold the view (as do MANY others), that he really was an embodiment of the ills of modern irish society.
Overpaid, undertalented, celebrity-worshipping halfwit who used crass shock 'broadcasting' to justify his ridiculous salary. If you don't think there's at least an ounce of truth in that, well then frankly there's no point in even trying to discuss it further with you.

But, how is that view relevant in any way to his death?

Dudess

brummytom wrote: »

Well no, I think it should be a condolence/discussion thread... but there's discussion and then there's just insults.

One can have respect for the dead but still discuss their opinion on him, maturely (e.g. "I wasn't a fan of his show"); which I would think was fine, but then there's people who prefer to say 'he was a fat cunt.'

I'm not quite sure if I'm making myself clear, I'm tired. I just think people should conduct themselves with a touch of decorum; they don't have to pretend they like him but resorting to hurling insults at someone who's no longer around to defend himself is just pathetic.

Well absolutely - I couldn't agree more. But speculating about the death, saying you weren't a fan of them in real life - are these the same as hurling insults? And the "Have thum respect!" brigade don't have a right to step in and be sanctimonious.

TheZohanS

jtsuited wrote: »

If you don't think there's at least an ounce of truth in that, well then frankly there's no point in even trying to discuss it further with you.

Good, enjoy your sleep.

jtsuited

OutlawPete wrote: »

I think you're missing the point.

The moderators (and most people actually) would prefer if you didn't insult the dead on the day they die.

It tends to cause arguments on a thread when there are people at the same time trying to express their condolences.

i'd understand that if this was bookofcondolences.ie

express their condolences????? come on. people coming on who didn't know him and pretending their grieving or some other such nonsense should not be given preferential treatment simply because there is many of them.

They have a right to be offended. And they have a right to say what they want. What they don't have a right to is censorship because of their fragile emotional condition (haha this whole thing is ridiculous).

brummytom

jtsuited wrote: »

just to clarify something. Mine wasn't some 'what a stupid cnut' type post. I genuinely hold the view (as do MANY others), that he really was an embodiment of the ills of modern irish society.
Overpaid, undertalented, celebrity-worshipping halfwit who used crass shock 'broadcasting' to justify his ridiculous salary. If you don't think there's at least an ounce of truth in that, well then frankly there's no point in even trying to discuss it further with you.

Jade Goody was a thuggish moron, Michael Jackson was an alleged paedophile. D'you know what? On the days they died, I didn't care about that. First and foremost, they were people.

Regardless of what you think of him, Gerry Ryan died just hours ago, leaving behind five children without a father, a girlfriend without her partner, devastated friends and fans. I was never a big fan of his work, to be honest; I watched his documentary on Ronnie Drew and found the whole thing to be a bit conceited... but that doesn't matter, the man's dead.. just show some respect.

Would you insult him to his family's faces?

jtsuited

would you insult jade goody to hers?

pookie82

TheZohan wrote: »

Imagine if it was your dad that had passed away, how would you feel?

This is part of my problem with the whole thing (apart from my individual deletion).

Yes, we can all imagine how upset we would be if this was our dad.

BUT do we now measure threads and posts in AH and indeed across boards in general by the chances of connected people reading them? In which case, Irish celebrities /politicians are immune from any criticism or discussion outside of sympathies but foreigners are ok, because their family is less likely to be reading?

That's the impression I'm getting - that most of this fuels from the risk of someone who knows him seeing this. The implications of censoring posts on that basis is pretty far reaching.

brummytom

jtsuited wrote: »

would you insult jade goody to hers?

Touché; no I wouldn't, and the comment I made was in bad taste

jtsuited

brummytom wrote: »

Touché; no I wouldn't, and the comment I made was in bad taste

and this is my point!!!!!

TheZohanS

jtsuited wrote: »

would you insult jade goody to hers?

Out of your last 500 posts you made one in AH this year, maybe you should try and get a feel for the place before posting.

OutlawPete

jtsuited wrote: »

i'd understand that if this was bookofcondolences.ie

People use the internet today to express their opinions much more readily than every before.

Do a search on Twitter for "Gerry Ryan & RIP" and you will see the same.

There is no difference to posting RIP on a forum and just expressing your sorrow when you are out and about chatting with people, not in my eyes at least.

I was out tonight and everyone is genuinely saddened by Gerry dying.

Not once did I hear anyone say any of the disgusting things in public, that people posted on that thread, I wonder why.

All the talk of sanctimony is complete and utter rubbish also and it is disrespectful to your fellow Boards members to just assume that such a large amount of people are not being genuine.

TheZohanS

pookie82 wrote: »

This is part of my problem with the whole thing (apart from my individual deletion).

It's about following moderators warnings several were made on-thread.

I was asked to stay on topic and to cop on during the week and that's exactly what I did.

If you have a question or feel a decision is incorrect PM the mod and they will clarify it for you. If you're not happy with the response you get then contact a CMod. If after all of that you still don't agree then start a Helpdesk thread and an Admin will look into it.

jtsuited

OutlawPete wrote: »

Not once did I hear anyone say any of the disgusting things in public, that people posted on that thread, I wonder why.

i'm gonna hazard a guess at them not being very bright. i guess we move in different circles.

pookie82

OutlawPete wrote: »

People use the internet today to express their opinions much more readily than every before.

Yeah but Pete the thread in question wasn't labelled exclusively condolences. COMPLETELY different ballgame if it was. Then it would have a distinct purpose and anyone posting about anything other than how sad they were would be fairly scolded.

But to open a thread on "gerry ryan is dead" and then delete and ban posters until it has been shaped to the kind of thread mods and majority posters want it to be is not right. If that happened elsewhere there'd be war.

And worst of all it seems to be happening because someone he knows might see it. That has HUGE implications for the kind of content that can be discussed on here from now on.

pookie82

OutlawPete wrote: »

I was out tonight and everyone is genuinely saddened by Gerry dying.

Not once did I hear anyone say any of the disgusting things in public, that people posted on that thread, I wonder why.

To be honest in my workplace most people were saying "that's pretty crap but I hated the guy. He was a dick" etc. There are people out there with that opinion too but I guess they're a) not posting here or b) being deleted.

OutlawPete

pookie82 wrote: »

Yeah but Pete the thread in question wasn't labelled exclusively condolences. COMPLETELY different ballgame if it was.

Does it really have to be? Can people just not have a bit of cop on.

pookie82 wrote: »

Then it would have a distinct purpose and anyone posting about anything other than how sad they were would be fairly scolded.

That is the fifth ot sixth time I have read that and it is simply not true.

There are many many comments on that thread where people are just saying: "Not his biggest fan, he riled me but thoughts with his family." etc etc

These comments were NOT deleted, so it is disingenuous in the extreme to act as if ALL comments other than sadness were deleted.

pookie82 wrote: »

But to open a thread on "gerry ryan is dead" and then delete and ban posters until it has been shaped to the kind of thread mods and majority posters want it to be is not right. If that happened elsewhere there'd be war.

Some posters were gloating that the guy died, making sick jokes about it, they deserved to be banned.

Yet still, we had people starting threads in After Hours complaining about sanctimony of people posting RIPs, it's laughable.

Why are those posters not starting threads and screaming about the sick jokes??

pookie82

Does it really have to be?

Yes, if I'm posting in a thread I don't want to be misled by the title, only to have the real agenda of the thread spelled out to me with deletions and wrist slaps. If it's exclusively condolences, I don't want to waste time with comments about newsworthy stories.

There are many many comments on that thread where people are just saying: "Not his biggest fan, he riled me but thoughts with his family." etc etc

BUT these end satisfactorily with them saying still and all, bad loss, shocking stuff etc etc. thereby avoiding a harsh response and keeping within the general thread theme.

These comments were NOT deleted, so it is disingenuous in the extreme to act as if ALL comments other than sadness were deleted.

No but all of the comments which didn't in some way or another give Gerry a nod were. I've seen some of them being deleted before my eyes. The message is still clear - say something decent and your post remains. If you express the fact that you think something else was more newsworthy however, you're out of here.

Some posters were gloating that the guy died, making sick jokes about it, they deserved to be banned.

I didn't see any of the fat cnut ones tbh. But if this rule applies here, why didn't it apply for other dead celebs? and we're back to the issue of Gerry's family potentially reading and censoring threads because of potential audience.

OutlawPete

pookie82 wrote: »

But if this rule applies here, why didn't it apply for other dead celebs?

It did.

When Corey Haim died, when Stephen Gately died, the threads also had people posting crap that got them banned or an onthread warning.

The people that don't like Gerry have the rest of their lives to post their criticisms, can you not just wait a few days and show some respect.

There is a time and place for that and it is most certainly not now.

One of Gerry Ryan's biggest critics on this forum, if not the country, showed the man some respect today and wished Gerry's family well said his thoughts were with the family, maybe you all should take a leaf from his book and do the same.

sceptre

Actually, several times in the past when well-known public personalities have died, there have been similar guidelines enacted by forum moderators, including After Hours. There was a mod warning posted on the thread, the location indicated in the title and linked to from the first post so no-one can claim it wasn't obvious.

Tied to that, if anyone disagreed with the decision of the moderators when enacting that guideline/rule on the thread, the correct ways to disagree with it would have been to start a thread on Help Desk, start a thread here or, following the dispute resolution procedure, PMing the mod, then the cmod if the answer was below their expectation and then start a Help Desk thread if that response wasn't satisfactory.

That's three routes to making the case that the rule wasn't necessary, warranted or wanted. People who just drove in with bad jokes or wah comments don't particularly have much of a box to stand on when they chose to just ignore a moderator instruction. Which has been slotted in for a few days in order to avoid the more rampant idiocy that not having it would result in, as well as a short period of reasonable respect for a family who have just had an unexpected loss. The rationale isn't particularly difficult to understand, even if you disagree with it after understanding it. The thread wasn't titled "condolences" but there was a mod warning obviously linked for all to see with specific instruction so anyone who can read would see it.

I'm not going to deal with the specifics of your complaint here, pookie82, as you've started a thread on the Help Desk. I'll be answering it there, not here as that's what it's for.